Commons Sitting of 3 April 1917

Preamble
The House being met, the CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Mansfield Railway Bill [Lords],
South Staffordshire Mond Gas (Power and Heating) Bill [Lords], Yorkshire Registries (North Biding) Bill [Lords],
West Kent Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Aluminium Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

STREET ACCIDENTS.
Address for Return, "showing the number of Accidents resulting in death or personal injury known by the police to have been caused by Vehicles in Streets, Roads, or Public Places during the year ending the 31st day of December, 1916 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 39, of Session 1916)."—[Mr. Brace]

INFANT WELFARE.
Return ordered, "of Grants given by the Board of Education in the year 1916–17 to Voluntary Schools for Mothers in the twenty-seven London boroughs and the city of Westminster, and also to Voluntary Schools for Mothers in the cities of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and Bradford."—[Mr. Acland.]
Return ordered, "of Contributions from the Rates during the year 1915–16 to Voluntary Schools for Mothers recognised by the Board of Education in the twenty-seven 'London boroughs and the city of Westminster, and also in the cities of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and Bradford."—[Mr. Acland]

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1916.
Copy presented of Supplementary List of Persons, Firms, and Companies as to whom orders have been made under Section 1 (1) of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ANTIONAL WAR SAVINGS COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of First Annual Report of the Committee [by Command]; to Lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    MILITARY SERVICE.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. REND ALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the assistance of a court-martial friend was refused to Private W. E. Hancock, 30th Training Reserve Company, Folkestone Road. Dover, a conscientious objector, contrary to the rules laid down for court-martial procedure; and will he give instructions that the commanding officer concerned allows Hancock to see his friend for consultation?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Blackburn.
      Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of conscientious objectors whom the Central Tribunal have refused to recommend for work under the Home Office scheme?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I have been asked to reply to this question. The Central Tribunal do not recommend these men for work under the Home Office Committee; they report only as to the conscientious objection of the men. I understand that ninety men have not been offered work in consequence of reports by the Central Tribunal.
      Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Richard Bell, of 16, Lindley Street, Liverpool, who had applied for exemption from military service on conscientious grounds, was arrested on 9th February, taken before the stipendiary and fined 40s. and handed over to the military; whether he is aware that Bell stated in his defence to the magistrate that he had not been allowed to state his case before the tribunal; but was told that his appeal was quashed last July; whether he is aware that Bell subsequently received a notice calling him up for the 16th instant, and also another notice from the Lancashire Appeal Tribunal asking him to appear before them on the 16th instant; whether, under such circumstances, Bell was arrested illegally and was in the hands of the military before he had been summoned to state his case before the tribunal; and whether instructions can be given for Bell's release to enable him to appear before the tribunal as prescribed by law?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have called for a report of this case, and will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.
      Mr. T. RICHARDSONasked the Home Secretary whether a. number of conscientious objectors have been transferred from the Wakefield Work Centre to Bibby's Oil Cake Mills, Liverpool; whether they are being used on the substitution scheme and what scale of pay is being given to these men for the work performed; and whether they were told that there would be no organising there?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): Twenty-five conscientious objectors are employed under the control of the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors at the Oil Cake Mills of Messrs. J. Bibby and Sons, Limited, at Liverpool. Messrs. Bibby applied to the Committee for labour on the ground that the work on which the men would be employed was of national importance and that they were very short of men. The firm are paying to the Committee the standard rate of wages in respect of the services of these men, and the Committee, in addition to housing, feeding, and clothing the men, pay them 8d. a day and provide, where necessary, allowances for their wives and children. I do not understand the last part of the question.

      MILITARY HOSPITALS (OFFICERS IN CHARGE).
      Sir CHARLES NICHOLSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the fact that officers in charge of military hospitals, where those hospitals are established in Poor Law buildings, are not receiving the charge pay laid down in paragraph 361 of the Royal Warrant for the pay of the Army; will he state what is the reason for making this distinction; and whether- he will take steps to remedy it?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): This subject is under consideration.

      TRADE CARDS OF EXEMPTION.
      Colonel GRETTONasked the Under- Secretary of State for War if he is aware that complaints are made that some trade unions priviledged to issue trade cards of exemption from military service have issued such cards to unskilled men enrolled as members of those unions, and that it is alleged that considerable numbers of men are thus withheld from military service; have complaints of this kind been brought to his notice in respect to the Sheet Metal Workers' Union; if he is aware that other trade unions not privileged to issue trade cards are aggrieved by the exemptions given to men in the privileged unions who, in many cases, are doing similar work; that by these proceedings the. Army is being deprived of considerable numbers of men of military age; and will he inquire into these matters in order to obtain for the Army any men who may be improperly provided with trade cards of exemption?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir. This matter has been brought to my notice and is receiving careful attention. It is hoped shortly to make an announcement on the subject.

  AIR SERVICES.

    CERTIFIED PILOTS.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many commissioned officers of the Royal Flying Corps are at present attached to Adastral House or the Hotel Cecil; and how many of these are certified pilots?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The number of commissioned officers of the Royal Flying

    1099
    Corps at present attached to Adastral House and the Hotel Cecil is 207, of whom twenty-nine are certified pilots.
    Mr. BILLING: In view of the great pressure at the front to get certified pilots, and in view of the sending out of partially-trained men, will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of sending out some of these certified men?
    Mr. BILLINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how many commissioned officers of the Royal Naval Air Service are at present attached to the Hotel Cecil or the Admiralty; and how many of these are certified pilots?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Two hundred and nine commissioned officers connected with the Royal Naval Air Service are at present attached to the Royal Naval Air Department at the Hotel Cecil and the Admiralty, of whom thirty-eight have qualified as pilots, including the Fifth Sea Lord.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what proportion of the certificated pilots in the Royal Naval Air Service are on active service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Approximately 84 per cent. of the trained pilots borne are on active service at home and abroad.

    SALONIKA (PAY OFFICE).
    Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is yet able to give any information as to why the allotment made by William Christie, No. 45,955, 2nd air mechanic, No. A Flight, 47th Squadron, Salonika Forces, Salonika, in November has not yet been paid to his wife, although at least ten or twelve applications have been made to the Pay Office on the subject?
    Mr. FORSTER: The paymaster reports that he has not received any authority to increase the allotment, and until that is received I am afraid that nothing can be done. The soldier should therefore take up the matter with his commanding officer.
    Mr. YOUNG: Is there not far too much red-tape about this sort of thing, and is the hon. Gentleman not aware that according to the general report the Pay Office is in an absolutely inefficient condition?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have no reason to think that is so. If my hon. Friend can
    1100
    give me any information, I will certainly make inquiry, and see whether anything can be done.
    Mr. ALDEN: Has not the soldier to see his commanding officer?
    Mr. FORSTER: There is communication with the commanding officer in order to see whether the man's wishes can be ascertained.
    Mr. YOUNG: Does the hon. Gentleman not see that where there is this very great delay, in the meantime the soldier's wife is suffering very great hardship?
    An HON. MEMBER: It is the soldier's own fault.
    Mr. FORSTER: I am very sorry if she has ground of complaint.

    LAUNCHING AEROPLANES FROM WARSHIPS.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a special committee of experts for the purpose of endeavouring to solve without further delay the problem of launching aeroplanes from and returning to warships under active service conditions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The whole question is receiving the most careful consideration.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question affects the visibility of the Fleet, and that it has received no serious attention at all for two and a half years, and will he see that it does?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have just said it is receiving the most careful consideration.
    Mr. BILLING: Can he say whether it is satisfactory?

    RAIDING SQUADRON.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the advisability of organising a raiding squadron composed of pilots and machines at present unemployed in this country?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: All the possibilities, of employing aircraft are fully considered by those responsible. All the machines in this country have a definite purpose in view.

    RAIDS AGAINST ENEMY CENTRES.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why it is held to be in the interests of the country to withhold

    1101
    information in connection with the air raids which have been carried out in the past against the enemy centres and submarine bases?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Communications respecting such raids have from time to time been issued to the Press.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that all the raids which have taken place from Dunkirk in the last twelve months have been communicated to the Press?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I say that communications have been issued to the Press, and I observe that as regards various raids there have been no fewer than twenty-seven.
    Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that for the last twelve months a matter of many thousands of machines have only inititated twenty-seven raids?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not say that.
    Mr. BILLING: Then what are we to understand? I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the whole question of the Naval Air Service on the Motion for the Adjournment for Easter.

    RIGID AIRSHIP TRIALS.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the authorities are satisfied with the results obtained at the trial of the new rigid airship which has been constructed for the Royal Naval Air Service?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not considered desirable in the public interest to give any information respecting rigid airships in this country.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will give serious consideration to the advisability of the cessation of the wasting of public money on these experiments, which cannot be productive in this War?

    AEROPLANE'S STABILITY.
    Mr. BILLING(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the aeroplane known as R.E. I has proved spirally unstable; whether it is true that while taking deliveries of these machines at Coventry fifteen machines were smashed; whether civilian testing pilots have refused to fly this type of machine; whether it is true that in spite of the fact that this machine
    1102
    has proved a complete failure in France, a contract has been placed for 1,500 of them; and whether, under these circumstances, he is prepared to cancel this order and to withdraw this machine both from active service and in peace time?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This type of aeroplane has not been proved to be spirally unstable. On the contrary, it has satisfied every test by the Technical Comptroller since the formation of the Air Board and by the technical experts of the Royal Flying Corps before the formation of the Board. General Brancker, moreover, crossed the Channel on the first machine of this type to go to France. He saw it tested there also, and it is to-day the type of machine which is used by General Trenchard and his staff for their own special work. It is being used with success there, and the Expeditionary Force is asking that the supply may be expedited. In these circumstances, it is not proposed to cancel the orders placed. I am informed that it is not an easy machine to fly and that it requires the skill of an experienced pilot. I have no knowledge of the refusal of any civilian pilot to fly it, but I think it right to state that some young officers—six, I think—did object to do so. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. BILLINGrose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order! Order!"]
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member remains standing when the Deputy-Speaker is standing, I shall have to ask him to leave the House.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    HOME FORCES (CULTIVATION OF ALLOTMENTS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council will issue an order to all commanding officers at home requiring them to allow leave to men who have gardens and allotments at home so that they may return to cultivate and plant such grounds, imposing such conditions as will admit only of leave for bonâ fide work of food production?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Arrangements have been in force for some time whereby ordinary leave and agricultural furlough can be granted under certain conditions, provided men can be spared from their military duties and are not under training

    1103
    for service abroad. As men on leave are not under military supervision, I am afraid that the suggestion in the last part of the question is hardly practicable.
    Mr. KING: Would it not be possible to get the guarantee, say, of the clergyman of the parish, or of some well-known local authority, that the men were actually employed on such service, and could not a great deal of such work be done by men of the Army?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the men are now being sent out to the Front without having their usual leave? May I respectively ask the hon. Gentleman to keep that in view?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

    BACON.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that the firms of Messrs. Denny, Government brokers for the purchase of Army supplies, and Messrs Denny, bacon curers, are composed of the same persons and thus able to give preferential treatment to themselves; if he will state the rate and weekly amount of the commission paid to them as Government agents; whether this commission enabled them, without loss to themselves as bacon curers, to inflict loss on their competitors by agreeing to the reduction of the price of Irish bacon to 140s., while no competitor could, without loss, take less than 145s. per cwt.; and, seeing that the forced reduction in the price of Irish bacon, effected at the expense of bacon curers and pig raisers and by the expenditure of public money, does not reach consumers but is absorbed by Messrs. Denny as buyers and Messrs. Kearley and Tonge as traders; whether the reduction made, in effect, for the benefit of those and similar firms will be withdrawn forthwith and Irish producers be paid for their produce on the scale on which consumers are charged for it?
    Mr. FORSTER: As regards the first part of the question, Messrs. E. M. Denny and Co., of London, are the agents employed by the War Office for the supply of bacon to the Army. This firm is distinct from the firm of Henry Denny and Sons, Limited, bacon-curers, of Cork, though the partners of the first firm have an interest in the second. It is the rule that the
    1104
    agents shall not buy from Messrs H. Denny and Sons except in so far as the quantities required for the Army are not obtainable from other sources and the amount thus bought does not exceed 2½ per cent. of the total purchases. As regards the second part of the question, the rate of commission is¾ of 1 per cent., with an annual maximum of £25,000, which includes the firm's expenses. In the year 1915–16 this worked out at 2–5 of 1 per cent, on the total value of the purchases made. The arrangement with Messrs. E. M. Denny and Co. has been considered on three occasions by the Advisory Committee on Army Contracts, and it has on each occasion been confirmed as the best practicable method of securing the supplies required. I am not sure that I follow the argument in the third part of the question, but it follows from the above figures that the commission on bacon at 140s. per cwt. would amount only to about 7d. per cwt., and would not compensate for a reduction in price of 5s. per cwt. The fourth part of the question does not therefore appear to arise.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of the fourth part of the question and the whole of the parts do arise; is he aware that what he calls the first-mentioned firm has a controlling financial interest in the second-mentioned firm; is he aware that £25,000 is a substantial sum to enable one firm to eliminate competitors; whether the War Office agrees with that conduct; and whether he has given attention to the fact that no representative Irish bacon-curers except Mr. Denny consented to]40s. as the maximum, and that the consumers in this country do not get the benefit of the reduction because it is absorbed by the middlemen?
    Mr. FORSTER: The question of fixing the price at 140s. is not a War Office matter at all.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask whose matter? Is it or is it not the fact that of the representatives of the bacon curers of Ireland only Mr. Denny consented to this, and will the price be maintained under those circumstances?
    Mr. PETO: May I ask whether the result of the inquiries the hon. Gentleman has made has been to show that the employment of this firm, whose principal business is Irish bacon, has not operated

    1105
    to the disadvantage of Wiltshire and other brands of English bacon which certainly has not had a fair share in Army orders?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think it operated to the disadvantage of anyone.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Have Irish bacon curers residing in and killing the meat in Ireland the opportunity of supplying meat direct to the Army, or must they supply it through Mr. Denny, the War Office representative here?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Those questions really ought to be put down.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, in view of the facts that Messrs. William Whiteley and other large traders quote exactly the same price for Irish-cured as for English-cured bacon, and that such firms as Kearley and Tonge quote smoked Irish bacon at a margin of 19s. per cwt. above the price paid for green Irish sides, thus depriving the consumer of any advantage resulting from the forcible reduction of the price of Irish bacon, and giving all such advantage to such firms and to the members of the Home and Foreign Produce Exchange, will he explain the reason why, in the sole interest of those firms and members and with no advantage to consumers, Irish bacon curers, farmers, and cottagers are compelled to sell their property at a lower price than English property of the same class?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): In normal times the price of Irish green bacon was invariably quoted lower than English. Prices of both Irish and English bacon at the beginning of the year were unduly inflated and were both proportionately reduced. The current prices were fixed after careful inquiry from representatives of all the parties concerned. They were not fixed in the interest of particular firms. These prices will come periodically under revision.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does the hon. Gentleman dispute the fact that large firms quote exactly the same price for English and Irish bacon, and does he dispute the fact that no Irish curer but Mr. Denny, the agent of the Government, consented to the lowering of the Irish price?
    Captain BATHURST: I am not aware of the latter allegation. As regards the first, the hon. Member in his question is not comparing like with like; he is comparing
    1106
    green bacon with smoked bacon and wholesale prices with retail prices. The difference that he mentions represents carriage, cost of smoking, etc.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has the hon. Gentleman given any attention to that part of the question which points out that the consumer in this country does not benefit by the reduction in the price of Irish bacon and that it is a tax on the producer without being any benefit to the consumer?
    Mr. FLAVIN: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman is aware that in the official trade organ in this country. "The Grocer," the leading houses in London quote English and Irish bacon at identically the same price, and if that is so, will he show me any official quotation which places the price of Irish bacon at 10s. a cwt. under that of English?
    Captain BATHURST: I am having the prices stated in the newspaper known as "The Grocer" carefully investigated; so far as I am able to ascertain, they do not appear to be official market prices.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is he aware that at Whiteley's, Harrods', and Self ridge's the prices of English and Irish bacon are quoted at the same price side by side, and ought not that to be sufficient indication of the equality of the prices of English and Irish bacon?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER:I do not think the hon. Member can be expected to know the prices in every shop.

    WHEAT.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that English wheat has been sold at Stockton-on-Tees corn market at 91s. per quarter; whether he knows that the rapidly rising price of bread is making it increasingly difficult of purchase for poor people, especially where there is a young family; and whether the Food Controller is yet in a position to announce any scheme for the more effective control and fairer distribution of food supplies?
    Captain BATHURST: I am aware that small quantities of English wheat have recently been sold at the price mentioned. The question of fixing a maximum price for English wheat is now under the consideration of the War Cabinet, and steps are being taken to regulate the price of flour and bread throughout the Kingdom.
    Mr. ANDERSON: In view of the increasing urgency of this question, I give notice that I will raise the whole question of food supplies and food distribution on the Motion for the Easter Adjournment.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is always a danger of sitting on the safety-valve too long?

    TILLAGE (IRELAND).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the shortage of food already felt in some parts of Ireland, he will state the number of acres in West Clare suitable for tillage but not now being tilled; and whether steps will be taken, by using compulsory powers or otherwise, to have all those lands divided for the tenants who will at once undertake the tillage?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): No statistics are available to enable an answer to be given, to the first part of the question. In cases of default in complying with the Compulsory Tillage Regulations, the steps authorised by the Regulations will be taken.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman once more weigh this fact: that whereas there is a shortage of potatoes in this country and in Ireland, there are hundreds of thousands of acres of waste land in Ireland not being tilled at all? Has he the courage to face that responsibility?
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether the Kildeemo farm, on the estate of Lord Leconfield, West Clare, is being fully tilled in accordance with the Government scheme; and, if not, whether the portion of that farm still available to the congests will be divided amongst them without delay?
    Mr. DUKE: The inquiries in this case are not yet completed.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board has administered the Land Act of 1909 in West Clare in such a dilatory and inefficient manner as to cause discontent; whether at the present crisis the Board has practically suspended operations; whether, in view of the gravity of the food problem in Ireland, he will advise the Board to use its powers with thoroughness and expedition; and whether he will take steps to
    1108
    meet any objections on the ground of finance that may be put forward to excuse inaction?
    Mr. DUKE: Every suitable estate offered to the Congested Districts Board in West Clare has been purchased and the Board have utilised their available resources and staff for the preparation for resale of the estates purchased as far as practicable. Only a small portion of the estates purchased and vested in the Board remain unsold, but the purchase of estates in the congested districts has been temporarily suspended, and estate improvement works have recently been discontinued in order to release workmen for the cultivation of the land for the production of food crops. In view of the gravity of the food problem in Ireland the Board have done everything which in their opinion would assist in the increase of food production. They have disposed of untenanted land as far as possible and have made available for cultivation by persons desirous of producing food crops all the suitable arable untenanted land in their possession. The Board's operations have not been hindered on the grounds of finance.
    Mr. LYNCH: Looking at the phrasing "as far as possible," and in view of the fact that for years the Congested Districts Board have been acting as if they were deliberately delaying any working of the machine for which they were called into existence, will the right hon. Gentleman further consider the subject?
    Mr. DUKE: The matter is one which I hope to have the opportunity of discussing with the Congested Districts Board.

    AGRICULTURAL COMISSIONERS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture how many agricultural commissioners have been appointed; will he give their respective salaries and state their duties; and whether they are to have offices in their different districts and the power to appoint their own staffs?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): Twenty district commissioners have been appointed and nine sub-commissioners. Eight of the district commissioners are members of the permanent staff of the Board and receive their normal salaries, amounting to £6,280 a year. Some of the other district commissioners give their services voluntarily

    1109
    Others receive salaries from £400 to £600 a year, the total annual cost being £4,050. Two of the sub-commissioners give their services; the others are paid salaries not exceeding £200 a year, and the total annual cost of the nine appointed at present is £1,305. The duties of the district and sub-commissioners are to represent the Board in connection with the work of the war agricultural committees throughout the country, and the district commissioners are ex officio members of the county committees in their districts. Each district commissioner is authorised to engage temporary clerical assistance at a cost not exceeding 30s. a week, but no other provision is made out of public funds for local offices or staff.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: Does that include the commissioners appointed under the National Service scheme?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Oh, no!

    HOUSE RENTS (GLASGOW).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the large increases in the rents of houses rented at more than £30 a year, in Glasgow, to which the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Act does not apply, is forcing many of the occupants of such houses to take houses at a rent below £30; whether his attention has been called to numerous advertisements in the Glasgow papers offering rewards of £5 for the opportunity of becoming tenants of a small house; whether he is aware that the purpose of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Act is thus being defeated; and whether he will consider the advisability of extending the Act to all dwelling houses?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): As regards the first and last parts of my hon. Friend's question, I would refer him to the reply which I gave him on 20th March. As regards the second and third parts, my attention has been directed to advertisements of the nature referred to. My hon. Friend will, however, realise that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to check by legislation a practice of this nature on the part of persons who desire to become tenants of small houses. The extension of the Act to all dwelling-houses would obviously not have that effect.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the earliest opportunity of declaring the insertion of these advertisements of this premium illegal?
    Mr. MUNRO: I think it would be very difficult to do that when the advertisements are inserted by the person who-desires the dwelling-house.

  MUNITIONS.

    BARROW ENGINEERS' DISPUTE.
    Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BEN-TINCKasked the Minister of Munitions how many women and girls have been thrown out of work through no fault of their own by the dispute at Barrow, and if he is aware that a great many of them are living far away from their homes, and have drawn no wages for the whole of last week, and what steps he proposes to take to provide for them?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I am aware that a number of women have been thrown out of work by the action of the men at Barrow in striking, but I am not aware of the exact number. I much regret the distress thus inflicted, but the responsibility must rest entirely with the men. While the Government cannot make itself responsible for relieving the women of the hardship caused them by the strike, I have instructed the local Welfare officer of the Ministry to consult with the local authorities with a view to seeing whether the difficulties of the position of the-women can be mitigated by voluntary effort.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is the hon. Member aware that many of these women, at the direct invitation of the Ministry, have come from as far as Belfast, and from other parts of Ireland, and that they are no more responsible for what has now happened than if there had been a breakdown of machinery; and are the women going to be stranded, and neither the employers nor the Ministry accept responsibility for them?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I am fully alive to the very serious position which has been created for these women by the action of the strikers, and, as my answer has shown, the Ministry is doing what is in its.

    1111
    power, but if we had the desire we have certainly not the power to relieve these women at the expense of the State.
    Mr. LOUGH: May I ask whether there is a prospect of the dispute being adjusted?
    Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY: Why should not the Ministry of Munitions do what private employers constantly do in difficulties of that kind, and that is make an advance to these women against their future wages, say, 10s. a week, or something of that sort? I for one have done it very often. You practically never lose any money whatever. They always repay the money.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: In this case the Ministry of Munitions are not the employers. These women are now employed by a private firm controlled by the Ministry.
    Sir C. SEELY: Why should not the Ministry of Munitions ask the private employers to do it?
    Mr. ALDEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Munitions was in exactly the same position with regard to the workpeople in the case of the explosion in East London as they are with regard to these women? The Ministry of Munitions immediately stepped in and helped them.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I may say, with regard to the question of the right hon. Baronet, that the question has been discussed informally with the firm concerned, and I understand that the firm do not see their way to relieve these women. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
    Mr. MacVEAGH: What were their excess profits last year?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: We should be creating a very serious precedent indeed if the Government, whenever a certain number of workpeople were thrown out of employment as a result of the action of another body of workpeople, were to relieve them of their distress.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I would like to ask whether these are the same women who the hon. Member himself said the other day had saved England during this crisis?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: They are amongst the women in the country who have done magnificent service.
    Mr. PRINGLE: And yet you will allow them to starve.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The position at present is this: a mass meeting of the men was held this morning, and that was followed by a ballot, the result of which, it was hoped, would be known by 3 o'clock. The result has not yet reached me.

    WAGES (GLASGOW FACTORIES).
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether it is the case that the munition factories at Springburn, Glasgow, are paying labourers there only 6¾d. per hour, whereas ail other munition factories in Glasgow pay T½d. to 8½d and, if so, will he explain why this differentiation arises?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have made inquiry, and find that in the factory referred to labourers are paid the rate named by my hon. Friend, that being the factory's customary rate for labourers, These labourers, however, graduate to the position of operators, and as such receive from 7¾d. to 8¾d. per hour. I find that other munition factories in the district pay from 6 5–9d. to 8¼d. per hour to labourers.

    WOMES WORKERS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has now considered the granting to women workers in controlled establishments of advances in wages equivalent to those awarded to men by the Committee on Production in order to help to meet the increased cost of living; and whether he is in a position to make a full statement on the whole question?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: On receiving the award of the Committee on Production my right hon. Friend referred the question of revising the rates prescribed by Statutory Orders for women and girls to the Special Arbitration Tribunal for advice. He has considered their recommendation, and after consulting representatives of employers and employed as well as the other Government Department affected, has decided to make a new series of Orders which will (1) raise the time-rates now prescribed by paragraph 1 (a) (i) of Order 49 for women on men's work by 4s. per week; (2) raise the time-rates now prescribed by Order 48 for girls under eighteen years on men's work, from ½d. per hour told per hour, according to the length of the working week; (3) raise the time-rates prescribed by Orders 9 and 10

    1113
    for women over eighteen not on men's work by 1d. per hour when employed on time, and by ¾d. per hour when employed on piece or premium bonus; and for girls of seventeen and under eighteen by ½¼d. per hour when on time and ¼d. per hour when on piece or premium bonus; (4) give similar advances on time-rates to women and girls employed on woodwork for aircraft; (5) and to issue an interim Order prescribing rates of wages for women and girls on general woodwork other than that for aircraft comparable to the increased rates which will be payable on woodwork for aircraft. After the issue of the above Orders the wages of well over 90 per cent, of the women and girls employed in controlled establishments will have been regulated; and the case of the remainder is now under consideration.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Do I understand that some of the women will have no more than an advance of a halfpenny per hour?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: That will be the case of those who are under eighteen years of age.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: When will the advance date from?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: From 8th April.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Why not from the 1st April, the same as in the case of the men?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: It was impossible to get all the details worked out in time for that.

    AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS.
    Mr. PETOasked the Minister of Munitions whether orders placed in this country for the importation of agricultural tractors from America in the autumn of last year have not yet been delivered, although the machines have been awaiting shipment in America for several months; and whether he can state what arrangements will be made for the supply of transportation for these machines, so that they may be available for the autumn cultivation of the land?
    Sir WORTHINGTON EVANS (Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): The circumstances referred to in the question are only to a limited extent within my knowledge. I understand that a certain number of agricultural tractors ordered in America some months ago have not been delivered, and that some have been awaiting shipment for some weeks. Facilities for shipping these
    1114
    machines, in so far as they: cannot be secured through the ordinary channels, could only be afforded by the Ministry if a request were made by the Board of Agriculture, and then only subject to space being available, having regard to other urgent national requirements.
    Mr. PETOasked the Minister of Munitions whether his Department have taken over for disposal all the agricultural tractors imported into this country by the Inernational Harvester company, of Great Britain; whether these tractors include machines ordered by individual, farmers for use for the spring cultivation of their own farms; and whether the Department are prepared to release the machines ordered by individual farmers, or, alternatively, what arrangements they are making to enable them to cultivate their land?
    Sir W. EVANS: The Ministry of Munitions have not taken over for disposal all the agricultural tractors imported, into this country by the Internaional Harvester Company of Great Britain, Limited, but the Ministry have, on behalf of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, purchased from the company 186 agricultural tractors, which, it is believed, include machines ordered by individual users. The Ministry have no power to release any of these machines, as they have been and are being handed over? to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, on whose behalf the purchases have been made. The Ministry of Munitions have also diverted fifty 16-h.p. international harvester tractors to Ireland by the desire of the Department of Agriculture for? Ireland. The Ministry have made no arrangements for individual farmers to-cultivate their land. My hon. Friend' should recognise that the Ministry is acting in this matter merely as a supply department for the purchase of the machines, the disposal of which is under the control of the Board of Agriculture for England and Wales, the Board of "Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture for Ireland.
    Mr. PETO: Am I to understand from the reply that the hon. Gentleman refers me now in this matter to the Board of Agriculture, and is he aware that the Board of Agriculture referred me to him?
    Sir W. EVANS: I was not aware that the Board of Agriculture had referred the hon. Member to me. but, as I say, we are

    1115
    a supply department, and the disposal of the machines is not in our power, but in the power of the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. LOUGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the Ministry of Munitions refuse to issue licences for the import of these tractors?
    Sir W. EVANS: I cannot say that without notice.
    Mr. FABER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the hardship caused to the individual farmer who has ordered a tractor, and perhaps has sold his horses on the strength of getting one, and is now left without one or the other?
    Sir W. EVANS: I know there may be cases of individual hardship, but, on the whole, the plain is intended for the better distribution of tractors in places where they are most required.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Comptroller to the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether he is aware that the panel doctors are considering their position in view of the intention to exclude them for all practical purposes from the new Advisory Committee; and whether he proposes to give them adequate representation?
    Mr. HANCOCKasked whether, as stated by Sir Robert Morant, the new Advisory Committee appointed under Section 58 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, is specifically set up for approved society work; whether he intends to form a separate Advisory Committee for doctors; and whether he is aware that Section 57 only contemplates one Advisory Committee?
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): Perhaps I may be allowed to refer my hon. Friends to the answers I gave yesterday to the hon. Members for the Westhoughton Division of Lancashire, West Ham, and Poplar.

    MINERS' WAGES (PRESS CENSORSHIP).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department
    1116
    whether his attention was called to a circular issued to the Press on 20th March by the directors of the official Press Bureau, stating that, before publishing any article or statement dealing with the terms of compensation to be awarded to coalowners or the adjustment of miners' wages as a result of Government control, they should submit such articles for consorship; and whether he will state upon what ground such a circular was issued to the Press?
    Mr. BRACE: A confidential notice was sent to the Press, at the request of the Controller of Coal Mines, suggesting caution in publishing statements on the matters referred to in the question, as they are subjects of considerable delicacy, and inaccurate or premature statements may lead to friction or other difficulties.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Am I to understand that you consider part of the work of the Press Censorship in this country to regulate statements dealing with miners' wages or on the compensation paid by the Government to the owners?
    Mr. BRACE: Yes, if the circumstances are likely to cause friction and stoppages of work.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Then I understand any statement of any kind ought to be first submitted to the Press Censor to deal with any statement before it is published?
    Mr. BRACE: I did not say so.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Does the hon. Gentleman believe he will serve any useful purpose by suppressing criticism on matters of domestic policy?
    Mr. BRACE: My hon. Friend will not understand anything of the kind. What the Press Censor is asked to do is not to permit statements which are inaccurate, and which might cause serious disturbance if they were allowed.
    Mr. KING: Has not the hon. Gentleman the imagination to see that all those statements might very possibly be helpful and assist towards a solution of the problem?
    Mr. BRACE: Surely my hon. Friend will not have the House to believe that inaccurate statements can ever be helpful?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does inaccurate mean inconvenient?
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (SHIP CONSTRUCTION).
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is with his knowledge that a number of skilled shipwrights, who until recently were engaged on important ship constructive work at Chatham, Devonport, and Portsmouth dockyards, have been detached from that work and appointed to assist in the inspection of such materials as sail-canvas, duck-cloth, fearnought, and bunting, a class of goods with which they are quite unacquainted; why sailmakers, whose knowledge of these materials is obtained by actual experience, were not appointed to do this work as has been the practice previously; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the services of these skilled shipwrights may be used to the best possible advantage on ship constructive work?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certain assistant draughtsmen and shipwrights were detached from Chatham, Devonport and Portsmouth yards in November last to assist the principal textile overseer on the inspection of certain work which involved the use of canvas and other textile materials. As, however, the use of other materials was also involved, it was not considered that sailmakers were suitable to undertake the work.

    RESTRICTED OCCUPATIONS ORDER.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the right hon. Member for Barnard Castle, as representing the Ministry of National Ser vice, whether he is aware that the Restricted Occupations Order is pressing hardly on numbers of workpeople in respect of employment; whether he knows that if a man has not enrolled for service he cannot obtain employment at his own trade, and that if he has enrolled employers are diffident about employing him owing to the fact that he may be taken from them at any moment; whether he is aware that certain trade unions are actually paying unemployment benefit in respect of members who would be employed but for the new Order; and whether any steps can be taken in this matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Stephen Walsh): My right hon.
    1118
    Friend has asked me to reply. The Restricted Occupations Order is intended to divert unemployed workpeople into work of primary importance, and endeavours have been made, by various means, to prevent undue hardship falling on individuals. The Director-General, however, is aware of difficulties still existing, and the matter is receiving his careful consideration. Any such cases as those to which the hon. Member refers will be inquired into if particulars are forwarded to the Director-General.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I can do that, but is it not a remarkable thing that a scheme which is intended to promote the more efficient organisation of labour is actually making it more difficult for many workpeople to get a job at all?

    SULPHATE OF AMMONIA (IRELAND).
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Controller recently fixed the price of sulphate of ammonia at £16 a ton, delivered free on rail at any station in the United Kingdom, and that the Kilcoo Cooperative Agricultural Society, county Down, in concert with local merchants, booked their orders for spring delivery so for back as last November at a much higher price than that fixed by the Controller; and whether he can say if the Controller's order has the effect of cancelling the prices in the contracts already entered into?
    Mr. DUKE: I am not aware that the Food Controller fixed a price, as suggested in the question. I am informed, however, that an arrangement has been made with the manufacturers whereby sulphate of ammonia will be sold at £16 per ton net cash, delivered at the nearest railway station in any part of the United Kingdom. This applies to 1-ton lots and upwards containing 24½ per cent of ammonia. For lots containing 25 per cent. of ammonia there will be an additional charge of 6s. 6d. per ton. The price to consumers taking delivery at the makers' works is, I believe, fixed at £15 10s. Whether an existing contract such as is referred to in the question is affected by the arrangement is matter of law.

    EDUCATION (IRELAND).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, now that a large scheme is being prepared to foster education in all degrees in this country, he will take steps to secure that Ireland shall receive her proportionate share of any money Grant for educational purposes; and whether he will represent to the Treasury that the position of Irish national teachers, both male and female, is worse than that of the corresponding class in England or Scotland and that, as a preliminary, the whole financial status of these Irish teachers should be raised?
    Mr. DUKE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Monday week to the hon. Member for West Kerry.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of doing something serviceable for Ireland in a perfectly capable and effective way?
    Mr. DUKE: I am quite sure that when a large change is being made in the arrangements for British education the condition of education in Ireland will be considered carefully and dealt with.

  RUSSIAN REVOLUTION.

    PROPOSED SPECIAL MISSION.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the desirability of giving the utmost encouragement to the popular Government now established in Russia, he will send to Petrograd a special mission, not confined to Members of the Government or to Members of Parliament, but comprising leaders of thought and champions of progressive movements, whose mission it shall be to foster fraternal relations between this country and Russia?
    The MINISTER of BLOCKADE (Lord Robert Cecil): His Majesty's Government desire to do anything in their power to promote freedom, good order and efficiency in the great Russian community. But whether a mission composed of "leaders of thought" would conduce to this object is a matter for consideration.
    Mr. LYNCH: In view of the fact that on the occasion of the Coronation of the Czar a special deputation was sent, will the right hon. Gentleman not now send a deputation to this new Government, having in mind the fact that one representative Republican is worth all the monarchs in Christendom?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members are not entitled to debate every question that is placed on the Paper.

    LORD MILNER'S VISIT TO PETROGRAD.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps immediately to neutralise by every means in his power the impression, said to be prevalent in Russian as a consequence of the visit there of Lord Milner, that the Government of this country was desirous of upholding the old regime and of discouraging and checking the movement for the establishment of popular rights?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I do not believe that any such impression exists. as it would be entirely contrary to fact.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is it not evident, after the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo the other night, that such an impression does exist both in this country and in Russia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not seen any statement as to such an impression as that. I have seen statements emanating from our enemies that it was owing to Lord Milner that the Czar was overthrown.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Foreign Office have issued an instruction to the Press that they are to deal kindly with the late Czar, and not to criticise him severely?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Obviously that is a question that ought to be put on the Paper.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Arising out of that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it might be advisable for Lord Milner to modify the interview which he gave on his return from Russia?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That point does not rise.

  NATIONAL SERVICE.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (CO-OPERATION).
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Prime Minister on whose initiative the Employment Exchanges were brought into cooperation with National Service; whether

    1121
    a scheme was given to Mr. Neville Chamberlain which he was expected to carry into effect; if so, at whose instance; and whether, in view of the failure of the scheme, a free hand will now be given to Mr. Chamberlain in order that the future arrangements may be conducted on business and common-sense lines and that the voluntary scheme may be given a fair chance?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The necessity for securing the co-operation of the Employment Exchanges was recognised at the outset by the Director-General of National Service and was sought and obtained by him on his own initiative. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part of the question, the Government are fully impressed with the necessity for giving a fair chance to the scheme of National Service on a voluntary basis. I cannot agree that the present scheme is a failure, and I may mention that the Government are giving the most anxious consideration to the best methods of removing the difficulties that must inevitably be encountered in a matter of such complexity and importance.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is it not the fact that more than one-half of the volunteer offers received come from men already engaged in Government work or essential trades; that of the 60,000, only 3,000 names were sent to the Labour Exchanges, and can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether oven one man has yet obtained an appointment in connection with National Service?
    An HON. MEMBER: Yes, two!
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is obvious that I cannot answer without notice for the details of trades.
    Sir C. WARNER: Has anything been done to improve the existing scheme, so as to get some better results out of National Service?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer I have just read shows that steps are being taken to make the best possible use of the material.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: May I inquire whether in fact the super-Cabinet has appointed a Sub-Committee to look into this question; and seeing that an announcement has been made in the newspapers about it, may not we in the House of Commons now have some announcement on the subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware that any announcement had been made in the newspapers.
    An HON. MEMBER: There was!
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It may be so—I did not see it. But that does not affect my answer that this question is being looked into by the Cabinet, and that a small Committee has been asked to do it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a Defence of the Realm Regulation against publication?
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as the workpeople are concerned, this present scheme is really a complete failure; that the workpeople are not going to enrol under the scheme, and that a much better scheme will have to be forthcoming—although they are perfectly willing to help in the work of the nation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of it. I hope that if changes are necessary to secure their co-operation they will be made.

    ENROLMENT CAMPAIGN.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether the Government is satisfied with the results of last week's mass meetings, advertising campaign, and patriotic appeal to the people of this country to enrol for National Service; and will he state the number of volunteers to date, excluding those already employed on Government work or other work of national importance?
    Mr. S. WALSH: The Prime Minister has. asked me to reply. The results of the enrolment campaign during the past week were greatly improved and a larger number of volunteers enrolled during the week than in any previous week. The largest number of volunteers enrolled in any one day was obtained yesterday—11,034—and this is regarded as a satisfactory indication of the success of last week's campaign. The total number of volunteers up to date is 219,706, exclusive of ministers of religion, medical practitioners, foreigners, and women. About 50 per cent, of the above figure represents those engaged on work of national importance.
    Mr. BILLING: How much longer do the Government propose to continue this great

    1123
    waste of public money on experiments which, I think, and which I think the House thinks—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.
    Sir C. HENRY: How many of the number stated to have enrolled are Civil servants in Government Departments?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: How many of these men have got positions as Government servants?
    Mr. S. WALSH: Both of those questions require notice.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I put this question a week ago; the problem cannot be solved.

    ALLIES (ROME CONFERENCE).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in the "New Europe," a weekly journal, information relative to the decision of the Allies at the recent Rome Conference of their policy has been given, though that information has been denied to this House and the public Press, and that the editor of this journal is a man of military age whose calling-up notice was, in November last, cancelled by the War Office; and whether the "New Europe" is furnished with official information or receives other Government favours not accorded to other journals?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the negative; as regards the second part, I am informed that this man has been called up for military service and is serving as a private in the Royal Army Medical Corps.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL MOVEMENTS).
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUELasked the Prime Minister whether among the speakers who addressed him on behalf of a deputation to advocate women suffrage on Thursday last was one of the principal lady officials of the Home Office; if so, whether it is in accordance with the principles which have hitherto regulated the Civil Service that a chief officer of a Government Department should take a prominent part in any political movement; and whether this case is to be regarded as a precedent for the future?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; with regard to the second part of the question, in view of the fact that the circumstances on this occasion were exceptional, the Prime Minister thought it right to give special permission to women officials in the Civil Service to attend the deputation, and it was in pursuance of this general permission that the lady referred to in the question attended and spoke. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.
    Sir C. HENRY: In what sense was this deputation exceptional?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It was exceptional in the sense that an effort has been made, with a certain amount of success, to treat this as a non-controversial question.
    Sir C. HENRY: Does my right hon. Friend expect to succeed in that view?
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the apology take the form of a palinode?
    Sir S. COLLINS: Now that a precedent has been set up, will Civil servants generally have the opportunity of taking part in public matters? [HON- MEMBERS: "No !"]

    MANUFACTURERS (WORKS COMMANDEERED).
    Mr. HERBERT WHITELYasked the Prime Minister if the Government will make a declaration as to the treatment to be awarded to manufacturers whose works may have to be closed down owing to the Government commandeering for national purposes supplies of raw material necessary for their continuance in business?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: One of the objects of the purchase or control of raw material is to secure a proper distribution of available stocks, and thus, so far as the national interest permits, to prevent disturbance of industry. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the action of Government Departments in this direction has not yet had the effect which my hon. Friend apprehends.

    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of excess of War Profits Tax that was budgeted

    1125
    for in the financial year 1916–17; and the amount that the Excess Profits Tax has realised?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Budget Estimate of the yield of Excess Profits Duty (including Munitions Levy) in the year 1916–17 was £86,000,000, and the actual receipt amounted to £139,920,000. It will be remembered that the provision of the Finance Act, 1916, allowing interest on payments of duty made in advance of the due date was inserted after the Budget Estimate had been framed, and a sum of from £30,000,000 to £40,000,000 of the excess may be attributed to this provision.
    Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, when he is framing his new Budget, will make serious propositions to dip further into these excess profits?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is one of the points I am not likely to forget.
    Mr. BILLING: In view of the fact that the Government fix prices, why are prices fixed which permit these enormous profits?

    DEUTSCHE BANK.
    Mr. GEORGE FABERasked whether the Deutsche Bank in London has now been finally wound up and its licence cancelled and the premises sold; and, if not, when that vital enemy stronghold is likely to fall?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The work of handing over the securities to the Public Trustee has not yet been completed, and is proving to be work of great detail and complexity, which, owing to a further depletion of staff, is taking longer than was expected. The sale of the premises by auction had been advertised for the 19 th June and will take place on that day.
    Mr. FABER: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman said a short time ago in this House that he hoped the Deutsche Bank would be finally wound up by the end of March or the beginning of this month, will he take such steps as are possible to expedite the matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Really all possible steps are being taken which do not involve a waste of money.

    DEESDNEE BANK.
    Mr. G. FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Mr. Paul Schluckwerder, a clerk in the Dresdner Bank in London, who has lately had his exemption from military service extended to 30th May next on the application of Sir W. Plender, is a British-born subject or naturalised, and, if so, when; what is his age; and, in view of the above-mentioned date, whether he can say when the said bank is likely to be finally wound up?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed that Mr. Paul Schluckwerder, who has recently been exempted from military service by the City of London Tribunal until the 30th May, 1917, on the application of the Dresdner Bank, supported by the controller, was born in Germany and became a British subject by naturalisation on the 18th June, 1910. He is thirty-one years of age and classed as B 3. For similar reasons to those I have just given in connection with the Deutsche Bank, I cannot name an exact date when the affairs of the Dresdner Bank in London are likely to be finally wound up, but the premises will be offered for sale on the 19th of June next.
    Mr. FABER: Seeing that this gentlemen was only naturalised in 1910, would it not in all the circumstances have been advisable to avoid the employment of a man with these antecedents?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: He was born in the same village as Lord Milner.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This is really a question of the value of a man's services. He would certainly have no friends in Germany.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be possible to sell the premises of this Dresdner Bank?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is the same as I gave with regard to the Deutsche Bank, that it will be put up for sale on the 19th June.

    CENTEAL PRISONERS OF WAR COMMITTEE.
    General IVOR PHILIPPS(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the informal Committee of Members of both Houses of Parliament set up to inquire into the organisation and methods of the Central Prisoners of War

    1127
    Committee will have power to take evidence on oath if necessary, and whether witnesses summoned to give evidence before such Committee will be protected against any evil effects from their fulfil-ing their duty under the Witnesses (Public Inquiries) Act, 1892, and whether the Sessional Orders of the House dealing with such matters will operate in the case of this Committee, and whether the members of the Committee will have the protection and the privilege of this House in conducting their inquiries and in making their Report?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that I can usefully add anything to what I said in reply to the hon. and gallant Member on Thursday last.
    General PHILIPPS: If the Noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee makes representations to my right hon. Friend, will he undertake to give them careful consideration?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said that if we find that this Committee cannot do what it was set up to do we shall certainly reconsider the question.

  UNITED STATES AND GERMANY.

    PRESIDENT WILSON'S SPEECH.
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Leader of the House whether he is in a position to give any information to the House as to the decision of the United States Congress in regard to the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have just received a telegram from our Ambassador in Washington, which, after referring to the speech of President Wilson, adds that, in his opinion, it was well received by Congress, and he expects that the authority asked for will be given.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—
    Army (Annual) Act (1916) Amendment Bill, without Amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An act to authorise the Mansfield Railway Company to raise further capital; and for other purposes."[Mansfield Railway Bill [Lord.]
    Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to confer further powers upon the South Staffordshire Mond Gas (Power and Heating) Company."[South Staffordshire Mond Gas (Power and Heating) Bill [Lords.]
    Also, a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Yorkshire Registries Act, 1884, in its application to the North Riding of the county of York."[Yorkshire Registries [North Riding) Bill [Lords.]
    Also, a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the capital powers of the West Kent Electric Company, Limited; and for other purposes."[West Kent Electric Power Bill [Lords.]
    And, also, a Bill intituled "An Act for enabling the Aluminium Corporation Limited, to arrange for the extinction of its participating shares and for -issuing preference stock in satisfaction of such shares; and for other purposes." [Aluminium Corporation Bill [Lords.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. LOUGH: May I ask the Leader of the House what Orders we are going to take to-night?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We shall take the first two Orders, and, if possible, Order No. 8 on the Paper.
  Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. I would like to ask whether I am in order, having asked a question which has not been answered on certain important points, in rising to put supplementary questions?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Whether the hon. Member may or may not put supplementary questions is entirely within the discretion of the Chair.

MILITARY SERVICE (REVIEW OF EXCEPTIONS) BILL.
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate, on Amendment proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended [2nd April.]
MILITARY SERVICE (REVIEW OF EXCEPTIONS) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Call Up Certain Excepted Men for Examination.)
  (1) The Army Council may, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act, at any time, by written notice require any man who is for the time being excepted from the operation of the Military Service Acts, 1916, as being—

  (a) a member of the Territorial force who is, in the opinion of the Army Council, not suited for foreign service; and

  (b) a man (in this Act referred to as a disabled man) who has left or been discharged from the naval or military service of the Crown in consequence of disablement or ill-health (including an officer who has ceased to hold a commission in consequence of disablement or ill-health); and

  (c a man who has been previously rejected on any ground, either after offering himself for enlistment or after becoming subject to the Military Service Acts, 1916,

  to present himself for examination in such manner and within such time, not being less than fourteen days, as may be specified in the notice:
  Provided that no man shall be required to submit himself for re-examination within six months of his previous and last rejection or discharge.
  (2) Any man to whom a notice is so sent shall, as from the date of the notice, be deemed to come within the operation of Section one of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2), and not to be excepted therefrom as being unsuited for foreign service, or as being a disabled man, or as having been previously rejected, as the case may be; and the Military Service Acts, 1916, shall apply accordingly.
  (3) If a man fails to comply with a notice under this Section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months [but a man shall not be. liable to a penalty under this provision it he shows that he did not receive a notice.]
  (4) Where a disabled man has had at least one month's service with the Colours or where his disablement has been caused or aggravated by naval or military service, no notice shall be given to him under this Section till after the expiration of a year from the time when he left or was discharged from the Service.
  (5) Where a man has been required to present himself for examination in pursuance of this Section and is not accepted for service, no further notice shall be given to him under this Section until after the expiration of six months from the date of the previous notice:
  Provided that a man who is not accepted on the ground that he is permanently and totally disabled for service shall receive a discharge.
  (6) A notice calling up a man to present himself for examination under this Section may be served by registered post at the last known address of the person on whom it is to be served.
  Amendment proposed [2nd April:] In Sub-section (1), after the word "man"["by written notice require any man"], to insert the words "who is not now employed in agriculture and".—[Mr. Peto.]
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think I should inform the House that owing to the pressure of the work yesterday there is a slight omission in the print of the Bill

  1141
  issued this morning, which I have given instructions should be corrected. An Amendment which was agreed to in the Committee at the end of Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 has not been printed, namely, to add at the end of Sub-section (3) the words "but a man shall not be liable to a penalty under this provision if he shows that he did not receive a notice." I have caused the official copy to be altered to carry out what was the decision of the Committee. [Words referred to are. printed above in italics,]
  Mr. MOLTENO: This Amendment deals with the exemption of those employed in agriculture, and it is evident by the Amendment which the Government have placed on the Paper that they do not intend to accept this Amendment. My objection to the Government Amendment is that it does not do what we ought to do in facilitating the calling up of these men. It is already admitted that out of the 1,000,000 men who will come under the operation of this Bill only 100,000 are expected to be called up—that is, one in ten. We have to limit the estimate by the fact that the men who are employed in agriculture, if they obtain a certificate from the Board of Agriculture are not to be called up, and therefore the proportion would be much smaller. Instead of proceeding in this way, it would be perfectly simple to put it upon the Government to show that any particular Man they desire to call up is not indispensable for agriculture, and therefore ought to be called up.
  We are all agreed that we intend to exempt 99 of these men out of 100. Yet by the method suggested by the Under-Secretary we are going to require all the ninety-nine to come forward and bring certificates from the Board of Agriculture. That means that all the agricultural employers in the country will have to approach the Board of Agriculture for every man of this type whom they employ, and they will have to lose the time of these men at a most critical moment to agriculture. That will all be because the Government suggest this cumbrous method, instead of exempting all those whom we are agreed should be exempted, and calling upon the rest to show cause.
  The situation in the country with regard to agriculture is very grave, and we ought not to subject agriculture to a process which will involve a waste of time and a
  1142
  disturbance of their work. A number of men have gone into agriculture because they have been invalided. It is admitted that out of all the men employed in agriculture only those in Class A are to be taken, and you therefore have a still further limitation of the number who can possibly come under this Bill. You have an infinitesimal number of those employed in agriculture who can be taken under the provisions of the Government Amendment, but you are going to compel all the men employed in agriculture to come forward and prove that they ought to be exempted, instead of putting the onus on the military authorities to show that a man ought not to be exempted. That is the difference between the Government Amendment and the Amendment which I suggest. It would be quite easy to alter the Government Amendment, and I would propose that it should be altered so as to read,
  "Provided also that the powers under this provision shall not extend—
  (a) To any man who is, for the time being, engaged in agriculture and who was engaged on such work on the 31st March, 1917, and whose work has not been certified by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (or, as respects Scotland, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland) not to be work of national importance."
  That would place on the military representatives the duty of getting from the Board of Agriculture certificates to say that the men whom they wish to call up are not indispensable. That would only disturb those who are liable to be taken under this Bill, and it seems to me it would be a businesslike proceeding, instead of disturbing everybody. We ought at this time to make every effort to save unnecessary disturbance to the industries of the country, and particularly to agriculture. The position is extremely serious. I would like to read a letter from a man in authority as to the position of agriculture in my neighbourhood. He has been vice-chairman of the parish council for twenty-one years, and he was employed to make an agricultural survey of his parish. He says:
  "I am a farmer and farm bailiff, and I was requested by the West Sussex War Agricultural Committee to go over the farms in this parish. On the first three farms that I visited there was no one to do the work except the farmers, and their time was almost fully taken up in milking and feeding stock, the horses nearly always remaining idle. These farms would average about HO acres each. On another farm of about 230 acres, that was fully stocked, I found one carter, one old man in poor health and over seventy years of age, and

  1143
  the farmer. They were fully employed in feeding stock, and a fine team of horses were standing idle most of their time. On another farm of nearly 100 acres that was let, there was no one left on the place. The stacks were rotting for want of thatching. For the whole parish I made out forty-three reports, and in nearly every case I reported that there was a shortage of labour, and that the food production must be less unless something was done quickly to put more labour on the land."
  Then he continues:
  "This morning the carter on my farm which I manage informed me that he had received final instructions to join up on 29th April. That will leave me with a blind cowman, one other who helps with the cowman (he always must have a stick to walk with), and one over sixty years of age—this on a farm of 70 acres. The horses are big, powerful ones, quite beyond the control of a lad or a woman. This farm must go out of cultivation for want of labour. On my own farm, before the War, I always employed four men and casual labour in haying and harvest time. I have now only two men and one of these, my carter, has been ordered to join up. I may get him off on appeal, but the uncertainty of this is such that one does not know how to farm with advantage."
  There is a simple man in country life, giving an account, after careful investigation, of all the farms in his parish. I want to urge upon the Under-Secretary that he should not place upon men so situated with inadequate labour the unnecessary burden of going to the Board of Agriculture or writing to the Board of Agriculture, of getting an examination of their farms and of those whom they employ, and of sending their men up to the Board. All this involves serious delay at a time when every moment is precious, as it is in this spring time with the weather that we are having. I would therefore ask the hon. Gentleman if he could see his way to accept the Amendment in the form which I have suggested, instead of insisting upon his own Amendment, entailing quite unnecessary toil and labour and a waste of time for a result which we all admit is not going to be attained.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. MASON: It is really essential that we should understand the difference between the effect of the Amendment now-proposed and the Government Amendment, because I do not read the Government Amendment exactly the same as the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I understand the idea of the Board of Agriculture issuing a certificate is that the Board will have to be satisfied that the man's work is absolutely essential in the place in which he is situate. The Board would discriminate between the skilled agricultural labourer, men like milkers and carters, and the ordinary labourer whom they might say was not essential. The Amendment poposed, on the other hand, would exclude every man engaged in
  1144
  agriculture. I would like also to understand whether the words "engaged in agriculture," such as are used in the Amendment, would enable the men connected with the agricultural industry, but who cannot be said exactly to work in agriculture—men of the clerk or storekeeping type—to obtain exemption? Many of those men are not essential. An Amendment of this kind, embracing the ordinary agricultural labourer who is not skilled, is too wide. My own feeling is that this suggestion that agriculture can give up no more men who are fit for Class A in the Army is exaggerated. I believe there are many parts of the country—it is certainly true of the part of the country in which I live—where the shortage of men is not so great as the shortage of horses. In such parts of the country, if a better system of substitution existed than does exist at present, it is quite possible that some men fit for foreign service might be obtained.
  Mr. PETO: May I point out to my hon. Friend that this Amendment is intended to be read with the proviso which appears on the next page of the Amendment Paper in my name and in that of another hon. Member. We fully recognise the point the hon. Member is now making.
  Mr. J. MASON: I see that there is a certain qualification there. The point I wish to make is that there should be some discrimination. The mere fact that the man is engaged in agriculture should not be accepted as a sufficient reason why, in no circumstances, he can be touched for military service. When we come to the machinery which is apparently suggested in the Government's Amendment, we find that a certificate would appear to be necessary for each man. I do not see how it is possible for the Board of Agriculture to issue individual certificates to the men and I cannot understand how the machinery for that is going to be set up. If some power of discrimination is given, and if an effective form of substitution can be devised, it would be quite possible to take some of these sound men and substitute others for them. In districts where there are no munition works, the drainage of agricultural labour unfit for military service has not taken place; while, of course, in districts near munition works, older men and unfit men have been drained away, and the shortage of labour is very acute. There are districts

  1145
  where that does not arise, and there ought to be some discrimination between the two.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The House will recollect that when we discussed this Bill on Friday we devoted no less than two hours and a half to the discussion of a particular Amendment relating to agriculture, and that, after a good deal of speechifying from both sides of the House, I gave a promise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) and to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) that I would, on the Report stage, introduce an Amendment. I think I am right in saying that both my right hon. Friends, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert), agree that the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper represents accurately the pledge which I gave. I will read that Amendment to the House:
  "Provided also that the powers under this provision shall not extend—
  (a) to any man who is for the time being engaged in agriculture, and whose work is certified by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (or, as respects Scotland, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland) to be work of national importance, and who was engaged on such work on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and seventeen."
  It was represented, rightly or wrongly, in Committee, that the War Office and the Board of Agriculture were at daggers drawn over this particular point. It was represented that the Board of Agriculture were most anxious to keep men upon the land. On the other hand, it was represented that the War Office, despite the efforts of the Board of Agriculture, insisted upon dragging men off the land and placing them in the Army. It was further represented that so bitter was the strife between the two Departments that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, when he sits in the House, sits on the bench as far away from me as possible. In order to reassure the House, I thought it advisable and politic to bring him down and show himself—[An HON. MEMBER: "Will he speak?"]—he is going to speak—I thought it advisable for him not only to come down and to show by his
  1146
  contiguity to me that there was no personal dissension between him and myself and by his words hereafter he will show that, instead of there being any animosity between the two Departments, for the last eight months, at any rate, they have been working in the best of harmony. I think I may now deal with the Amendment we have placed upon the Paper. I feel sure that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), who has taken a very great interest in this subject and has always placed his case before the House with very great fairness, will realise that there is really no distinction between his Amendment and mine. It is the old way of using a double negative for a positive affirmative. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J-Mason) has brought to light the only difficulty which I can conceive might arise so far as either the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devizes or my own is concerned. The difficulties were, first, the question of machinery and, secondly, the question of a definition of what is really meant by the words "being engaged in agriculture." My Noble Friend the Secretary of State had a conference with the President of the Board of Agriculture and it was agreed, first, that the local representative of the Board of Agriculture should give a certificate to any man whose case was concerned, and, secondly, that the definition of "being engaged in agriculture" to be relied upon should be as follows:
  "It is agreed that exceptions should only be given to a man whose whole time is given to agricultural work of national importance."
  That is the definition of what we mean by "being engaged in agriculture" under my Amendment. I think that carries out accurately the promise I made. If in any case the War Office think that this certificate has not been justly given, we have the right to appeal to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. A few days ago, in Debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton and a colleague of his from South Devon emphasised the necessity of there being, in every case, an appeal to the President of the Board of Agriculture. In every case we have given that appeal, consequently I feel bound to say that I am going very much further than what I promised to do on the Committee stage. Therefore, I hope, in view of what I have said, that

  1147
  the House will realise that a complete fulfilment of the promise has been made, and that the hon. Member for Devizes will not see fit to press his Amendment.
  Mr. PETO: In view of the fact that the Government have an Amendment later on upon the Paper which is susceptible of slight Amendment in order to substitute the effect of the Amendment I have put forward, and in order to save the time of the House and to close this Debate by dinner-time, may I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment at once, so as to get on with the Government's Amendment, upon which that subject can be raised?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "man"["by written notice require any man"], to insert the words "not included in one of the classes set out in the Schedule to this Act."
  This is an Amendment which I had down for the Committee stage, but was unable to move. It is an attempt to get this Bill into line with the French Bill. It is not an attempt to get the Government now to observe pledges which may or may not have been satisfied, but it is an attempt to do what I believe the Leader of the House wished, namely, to make this Bill as nearly as possible identical with the French Bill. During the course of the Debate on the Second Reading, in introducing the measure, the Leader of the House spoke of this as
  "the same measure,"
  In the French Bill, a copy of which I have here, there is a number of classes of persons which may be found in the Schedule which I suggest and which appears upon the Amendment Paper. Those persons are in all cases persons who have an exceptional family or other claim to exemption for exception from this Bill. For instance, I include fathers of not less than four children now living and under the age of fourteen years and who, therefore, almost certainly must be beyond the earliest and best years of military life. I also include fathers who are widowers with not less than three children dependent upon them, the sons of families of which five members at least are serving with the Colours, or of which not less than two members have been killed on active service, and men who have been prisoners of war and have
  1148
  escaped or have been repatriated or exchanged. These classes speak for themselves I they are classes which were in the original French Bill, and which nobody in France, so far as I know, has ventured to suggest should be called up. I hope very much for a sympathetic reply and for the acceptance of this Amendment. These cannot be very large classes. They are classes which in every case must mean hardship, and, probably largely, a very heavy expenditure for allowances and, in certain unfortunate circumstances, for pensions.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to second the Amendment, and hope that it will receive the sympathetic consideration of the Government. I should like to see a. statutory protection given to some of the classes mentioned in my hon. Friend's Schedule, because the experience of the working of the tribunals has shown that we cannot trust the tribunals to give a sympathetic consideration to claims which are justified by the provisions of the principal Act. Within the last few days. I have received countless letters from people living in all parts of the country in regard to this Bill—letters in regard to each of the four classes mentioned in the proposed Schedule. Yesterday I had a letter from a man who had four brothers serving in the Army, two of whom had been killed and the other two had been invalided and had since gone back to active service. They were all voluntarily enlisted men, and they joined the Army in the early days on the distinct understanding that the fifth son was to remain at home, as he would be the only support of his aged parents.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope my two hon. Friends will not press me to accept the Amendment. I quite realise that it is the instinct of sympathy that has persuaded them to put it on the Paper, but I am quite sure they will be convinced that it would be quite impossible, from an administrative point of view, to extend indefinitely all the exceptions and exemptions in the Bill. The system in France is entirely different from the system here. We have here a system of local and Appeal Tribunals—in France they have not any such system—and in any case of individual domestic hardship the local and Appeal Tribunals have the right, whether they exercise it or not—that is another point—to consider such a case and to examine the man. In

  1149
  view of that fact, we have really gone much further than the French have, and I hope, therefore, when I tell my hon. Friends we should like to meet them if we possibly could, they will not press the Amendment to a Division.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move to leave out the word "six"["for reexamination within six months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "twelve."
  My purpose in moving this is to harmonise, this proviso with Sub-section (4) of the Clause. The Sub-section gives to a man who has been discharged from the Army with at least one month's service the protection of twelve months' time before he can be called up for further re-examination. The paragraph provides that no man shall be required to submit himself to re-examination within six months of his previous rejection and discharge. Between these two provisions there is an anomaly which wants straightening out. Therefore I propose, to substitute twelve months for six, so as to give to everyone the protection which is given to the large majority of discharged men by Sub-section (4). That would remove what is felt by a very-large number of persons to be a great hardship which is going to be inflicted upon them by this Bill. Judging from the enormous correspondence I have had during the last few days, I am sure there is no feature of this Bill which is so unpopular and so much resented by the men as this recurrent calling up of men for reexamination, and I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. HOGGE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I think I can submit good reasons why it should be made, apart from synchronising with Sub-section (4), which is quite a good and useful point. A great many of these men have been rejected, and are almost entitled to regard their rejection as final, on account of the diseases from which they are suffering, and have entered into obligations of one kind and another on the strength of the conviction that they were never to be called up again. When these men have entered into these obligations, to re-submit them to the continual worry of a six-monthly examination is
  1150
  neither fair to them nor to the work which they may be called upon to do. Like other Members of the House who are interested in this question, one has a tremendous. number of letters. I will read one in order to show the kind of case that we. have in our mind when we are asking what I think is a perfectly reasonable thing. This man says:
  "To a man who has a delicate constitution all these-new Orders and Acts are terribly worrying and tend to-further hamper his powers of making a living. I myself am quite unable, whilst all this worry lasts, to-give my mind to my work. There are many more men like myself who have been constantly under the doctor for many years."
  The House may be interested in listening-to this man's letter, because he is the type of man who will be called up under this Act:
  "This new Bill is surely never intended to force-weak men into the Army, but only to re-examine those who at the time they were rejected were unfit but who-may now have recovered. In my own case I have had within the last six years the following illnesses: congestion of the lungs, double pneumonia, diphtheria; also chronic gastric catarrh, which necessitates my following a strict diet and leading a very careful, everyday life. I have also had to seek the assistance of the following specialists En addition to my ordinary medical practitioner—"
  and he gives the names of three or four specialists, which I can give my hon. Friend. He also suffers from a dilated stomach and recently had to seek the advice of Sir James Mackenzie, who was a member of the Medical Appeal Board. In addition to his before-mentioned trouble, he has suffered from chronic varicose veins in both legs:
  "I hare been under the same local doctor for the past sixteen years and can produce enough documentary evidence to prove my unfitness."
  I do not see why the House should laugh at this man. There are a great many men in that position who will be called up under this Act. It may be true, and I give my hon. Friend credit for this, that when they are called up they may be rejected again, but under this Clause they will be brought up six months after again for another examination, and six months after that again; and if my hon. Friend does not accept the Amendment, he ought to agree upon some form of rejection which would turn that type of man down finally, so that he can walk out of any of the Military Service Acts and be free from any worry. Everyone of us knows many cases of which the example I have read is only a type, and it is to protect that type of man from worry that my hon. Friend and I and those interested in getting a longer period between the re-examination ask for some

  1151
  declaration that there will be something done to get rid of that type of man once and for all.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment. I think the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) professes to be moved by a desire to bring this part of the Bill into conformity with a later Sub-section, but I think he has omitted to notice that there is a real difference between the cases of the men who are dealt with. The men who have given some service are entitled under this Bill to a period of twelve months before they are called up. There are, on the other hand, a large number of men who have never given any service at all, and I do not see why they -should have so long a period free from reexamination. I do not think their cases are on all fours, and if we were to accept the Amendment we should be, causing needless delay in securing the services of some of the men who I think will very properly be called up under the Bill. The hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) was anxious -that the men who are suffering from ill-health to the degree of his correspondent should not be subjected to frequent and recurring medical examination. I think they would be dealt with under the Amendment which I moved yesterday to
  the effect that men who were permanently and totally disabled would receive a final discharge. I cannot imagine anyone who is suffering from such endless diseases as the hon. Member's correspondent could possibly be of the slightest use.
  Mr. HOGGE: It is quite true that the hon. Gentleman moved that Amendment, but who determines that that man is permanently disabled and will not be recalled, and when he is put into that category, supposing the Medical Board says he is not permanently disabled, and he can prove by such a letter as I have read that he is, what protection has he?
  Mr. FORSTER: The Medical Board will, of course, give the certificate on which the man would be discharged or not. The hon. Member is suggesting that we should reopen the question on this Amendment of the civil practitioners' certificate and of the Appeal Boards which have been referred to on former occasions. Those are separate questions. The question here is whether or not this man would be entitled to a final discharge. I think he would, and the Medical Board who examined him would be the authority to decide.
  Question put, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 33.

  Division No. 24.]

  AYES.

  [4.28 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

  Astor, Hon. Waldorf

  Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

  Hewart, Sir Gordon

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hills, John Waller

  Ballour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Currie, George W.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

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

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Howard, Hon, Geoffrey

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Fabar, George Denison (Clapham)

  Jones J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Blair, Reginald

  Fell, Arthur

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Boyton, James

  Fletcher, John Samuel

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

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Forster, Henry William

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Foster, Philip Staveley

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

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Lonsdale, Sir John Browniee

  Butcher, John George

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Carew, C.

  Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Carilie, Sir Edward Mildred

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T J.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

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

  Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. (Prestwich)

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hancock, John George

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hardy, Rt. Hon, Laurence

  Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Morgan, George Hay

  Robinson, Sidney

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Wardle, George J.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Rutherford, Sir John (Darwen)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petsrsfield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Wedgwood, Commander Josiah C.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Whiteley, Herbert J.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark'

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  Parkes, Ebonezer

  Shaw, Hon. A.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Partington, Oswald

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

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

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Smith, Sir Swire (Kelghley, Yorks)

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Stewart, Gershom

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Younger, Sir George

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Mr. James Hope and Mr. Beck.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

  NOES.

  Aldan, Percy

  King, Joseph

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Baker, Joseph Alien (Finsbury, E.)

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Radford, Sir George Haynes

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Rowlands, James

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Martin, Joseph

  Snowden, Philip

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philip

  Hackett, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Hogge and Mr. Anderson

  Mr. PETO: As the Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of the Under-Secretary of State for War deals with totally different men under paragraphs (a) and (b), could it not be moved in two parts?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes. I think so, when we reach it.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Would it be convenient to move it in two parts?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: As I undertsand it, the first Amendment to insert words after the word "discharged" must be moved now. The Amendment relating to paragraphs (a) and (b) come later.
  I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), after the word "discharge"["last rejection or discharge"], to insert the words "except where the Army Council otherwise direct in a case in which it appears to the Council that the previous rejection or discharge was obtained by fraud."
  I would remind the House that there have been discussions upon this question. There was no provision that a man who had been recently rejected should get the benefit of this six months' provision. In the course of the discussion I made it clear
  1154
  to the Committee that the Army Council were quite willing that a man who had been rejected on genuine grounds should get this six months, but they were afraid of giving the benefit of this six months to men who had obtained their previous rejection by fraud. I think that was the general sense of the Committee. It is in fulfilment of that pledge that I have put this Amendment on the Paper, and I hope the House will accept it.
  Sir J. SIMON: I think the House should agree to this Amendment. It proposes a distinction which some of us have always wanted to see, and that is, a distinction between the cases, be they many or few, of men who have been rejected by practical fraud, and men who have been rejected though they have done their honest best to serve. I cannot believe that the cases are very numerous which will be covered by this proviso, but, be they many or few, I hope this Amendment will be accepted as a right one.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I am entirely in sympathy with the object of this Amendment and my only doubt is whether the words will really effect what my hon. Friend-has in view. I would like to have a little information on that point. What is the

  1155
  meaning of the words "in a case in which it appears to the council"? Does that mean that any sort of proof which would be accepted as legal proof is to be offered to the council before it comes within the terms of this Amendment? It is notorious that there have been a great many fraudulent cases. I was told the other day by someone who ought to be well informed that there were probably thousands of these cases in London alone. I do not know whether these oases can be brought under the terms of this Amendment. I am only afraid that the Government are not giving themselves a sufficiently wide scope by having such precise words in the Amendment as "in which it appears to the council." I do not know whether that point has been considered, and I should like to be assured on it.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not think that absolute legal proof would be demanded or would be necessary in these cases, but I think there must be a prima facie case, and the Army Council would be the judge as to whether they would proceed in the matter or not.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the Army Council ever be able to consider one of these cases?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Perhaps not, but in any case they should have the power.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope not, for the sake of Army administration.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Since it is the desire of the House, the next Amendment will be moved in two parts.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,
  "Provided also that the powers under this provision shall not extend—
  (a) to any man who is for the time being engaged in agriculture, and whose work is certified by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (or, as respects Scotland, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland) to be work of national importance, and who was engaged on such work on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and seventeen;
  I do not think it will be necessary for me to repeat the speech which I made when
  1156
  I spoke against the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto). I am hopeful that most hon. Members did me the honour of listening to me at that time. Briefly, I think I proved to the satisfaction of the House that this Amendment was a complete representation of the pledge which I had given, and that the Board of Agriculture and the War Office were united in thinking that this would be the best way to meet a very difficult problem.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "and whose work is certified by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (or, as respects Scotand, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland) to be work of national importance."
  I am not quite sure that the House will agree with my hon. Friend in thinking that the words which he proposes to insert accurately represent his pledge to the House on Friday last. I would like to recall to the attention of my hon. Friend an episode which took place in that Debate, which may perhaps lead him to reconsider for a moment his thoughts upon that subject. The House will remember that the Under-Secretary, after a very harassing, continuous Debate, yielded to practically the unanimous wish of the House that some such words giving exemption to agricultural labourers should be inserted in the Bill. Previous to the surrender of my hon. Friend the intervention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been sought in aid, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech to the Committee dealing with the views put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Among other things, a suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Barnstaple, which it is worth while to recall to the memory of the Under-Secretary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was saying that he was unable to yield to the wish of the Committee. Then the hon. Member for Barnstaple said, "Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he would accept the certificate of the Board of Agriculture that a man is indispensable for agricultural work?" The Chancellor of the Exchequer said really he did not think that it is for any Department to be the absolute judge of its own case, and he proceeded practically to reject the suggestion of my hon. Friend. To-day the Under-Secretary proposes that under

  1157
  this particular Bill the Board of Agriculture should be permitted to be the sole judge of its own case.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Was not that the wish of the entire House?
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: It was the suggestion of my hon. Friend. There is no other mention of this proposal in the Debate save that by the Member for Barnstaple which the Chancellor of the Exchequer rejected. Why does he accept it to-day having rejected it yesterday? I confess I am afraid that we have recollections of previous encounters between the Board of Agriculture and the War 'Office, and in every case where those encounters have taken place sufficiently in public for this House to be aware of the result we have found that the Board of Agriculture has been forced to yield to the importunities of the War Office. What has taken place behind the scenes we do not know. It may be that while in public the Board of Agriculture was defeated, in private it has been invariably successful, but so far as the public know it does not appear possible for the Board of Agriculture to stand up successfully against the War Office.
  Mr. G. FABER: They have stood up.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member will permit me to state my own case and afterwards he is at liberty to refute it if he can. Under the proposal which is now made, it seems to me that what the House had in mind last Friday, namely, the continuance, and, if possible, the increased production of agricultural produce, may be frustrated. I would ask my hon. Friend to consider the method by which the Board of Agriculture would carry out the provisions of his Amendment. It may either act generally over the whole country or in specified areas,?or it may attempt to go into individual cases. If I might ask the consideration of the House for the general proposal, in that case the men who are called up will have to attend at some place, a tribunal or recruiting office, or wherever it is. Then they will have to show that they are engaged in some sort of agricultural work, and then they will have to submit to the Board of Agriculture their case, showing that they come within the rules laid down by the Board of Agriculture, and that they are exempt from the provisions of this Bill. There will be, first of
  1158
  all, the attendance at the recruiting office—I do not know whether I am right in making that the particular locale—and then there will be a subsequent attendance for the purpose of explaining that they are employed in an exempted kind of agriculture, because, as I read these provisions, the Board of Agriculture has to show that some sort of agricultural work is essential, and that some sort—though I do not know what it is—is non- essential, for the purpose of increased I production of agricultural produce. That is the general statement, but I will beg my hon. Friend to remember that this is a very exceptional agricultural year. The season is far later this year than I suppose it has ever been within the memory of man. Agricultural operations have to be crowded not into the space of one or two or three months, as has been possible in recent years in this country, but into the space of two or three weeks. Here we are, and in the first two weeks of April we should finish the spring sowings, but it is not possible. In three or four days we ought to be planting potatoes. These crops will follow one after another as fast as they possibly can with no possible time between the planting of each crop. No sooner have you got that over than you will have to set to work to harvest the winter wheat. Therefore, it is essential not only that there should be no cessation of work upon agriculture, but that there should be no interruption of worK, and that not only should no single man be taken away from the cultivation of the soil, but should be even interrupted for one day in his work upon the soil.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: They will not be.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Then no doubt we shall get an explanation of the procedure of the Board of Agriculture, and my intervention will not have been in vain. Now I may put the other case. Suppose that the President of the Board of Agriculture does not adopt the general method, that he does not classify whole districts as exempt, or various agricultural occupations as exempt, but a exempts to deal, as indeed he ought to deal, if he is to deal satisfactorily, with the individual farm or the individual labourer on the farm. I should like to remind the House that every individual farm or holding wants a particular local knowledge of the cultivation of the cultivated area, and to know

  1159
  what amount of labour to assign to successful cultivation in that area. There is no good in bringing back a substitute A. B. and saying that he is a good substitute for C. D. whom you are taking from the farm. He does not know anything about it, whether it is wet and cold or dry land, or whether it is deep or shallow, or how to put a particular crop into that particular soil. Therefore, I suggest both to the Under-Secretary for War and to the President of the Board of Agriculture that you must deal with cases of particular farms, and with the particular labour upon the farm. Otherwise you fail in obtaining production. How are you going to do that? I imagine that the suggestion will be that the agricultural representative of the Board of Agriculture before the tribunal, or whatever the authority is, will say, "This man is necssary. There are five men upon that farm. You ought to be able to cultivate it with four. Therefore, one of the five must go."
  From my knowledge of them, the representatives of the Board of Agriculture, who always try to do their work, and very often succeed in doing it admirably, when they are dealing with general propositions are perfectly unable, on account of the great extent of the areas of which they have charge, to deal satisfactorily with the requirements of the individual farm or the possibilities of rendering work of the individual labourer. What would happen? Either they will not be able to go in detail into the requirements of the individual farm or else they will create anomalies as between one farm and another, which is fatal to the successful prosecution of agricultural industry during the next two or three months. I do not think that one can get away from the dilemma. What is the alternative? All agricultural work is of national importance. Every sort of agricultural work is at the present moment vital to the maintenance not only of the whole population, but of our Army over the sea. I should like to give one illustration. At this moment. one of the great difficulties in the successful prosecution of agriculture is the fact that the prolongation of the winter has increased enormously the consumption of hay in this country by stock which usually feeds itself at this season upon grass, and the production of hay will, in a couple of months, be of vital importance, both to agriculture itself and
  1160
  to the farmers, and any attempt to interfere with the number of men on the grass farms, just as much as any attempt to-interfere with the number of men on the arable farms, would be likely to cause the greatest damage to agriculture. There never was a time when agricultural land was producing less than at the present moment, not because people are not willing to come in, but because labour is not available to come in. For those reasons I move this Amendment, because I believe that if the words which I propose to leave out are deleted, the effect will be to prevent these men from being interrupted in a work which is of national importance.
  5.0 P.M.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): I will not follow the right hon. Member into the means by which the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill has been introduced. I do not think that it very much matters. As President of the Board of Agriculture I welcome its introduction, and I am not disposed to look a gift-horse in the mouth. The hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill gave a description of the relations of the War Office to the Board of Agriculture as they appeared to one of the public. It seemed to me that he represented us as a sort of happy family in which the agricultural rabbit played with the tail of the War Office python. Quite obviously there must be conflict of opinions between the Board of Agriculture and the War Office. The object of the Board of Agriculture is to grow the maximum amount of food for the people, and, on the other hand, it is the duty of the War Office to send as many men to the front as possible. These are two conflicting duties. The War Office are anxious to carry out the one, and I, as President of the Board of Agriculture, am anxious to carry out the other. Whatever our opinions, we are often necessarily in conflict, but I must honestly say that the Secretary of State for War and I have long ago agreed that it is better for us, as far as possible, to act together rather than against one another. There has been a certain amount of good resulting from that decision. Hon. Members have spoken of the scarcity of labour on the land. The War Office has really treated agriculture, for temporary purposes only, very liberally, and, so far from there being a small

  1161
  amount of labour on the land, there is a larger amount' at the present moment than there has been for the last eight months. And that increase is not only in quantity, although some of it is not much good. It is also in quality, because the War Office took the trouble to get back for us some 14,000 skilled ploughmen. I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the War Office for that, and if they will only keep these men on the land after the spring operations are over I shall be comparatively happy. Still, for the time being, we have a larger supply of skilled labour on the land than we have had for eight months.
  As regards this particular Amendment to the Bill—the Government Amendment I mean—I entirely support it, and for this reason, that it gives us the power which we wanted to prevent men being called up unnecessarily before military tribunals of any sort. The process by which it will be done is this: The War Office will send to the war agricultural committee a list of the men who come within the extremely limited range of this Bill—that is to say, men who have been exempted from military service on the ground of previous rejection, or previous naval and military service. They will send in the list of these men to the war agricultural committee, which will consist of farmers and others closely concerned, and the farmers will hand over the list to the agricultural representative before the tribunal, and between them they will certify that such and such a man is a whole-time agriculturist engaged in agricultural work of national importance. If the War Office object to that, it is open to them to appeal to me at the Board of Agriculture, and whether they exercise that power or not will depend on the honesty with which the certificates are granted. The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir C. Hobhouse) is of a very much wider character than that. The right hon. Gentleman proposes, in effect, that any man who is engaged in agriculture shall be exempted from the Bill. That means, if he does not follow it up by a further definition, that any man—say, a clerk—who in his leisure moments cultivates a garden will be eligible for this certificate of exemption. Now, that is not the meaning of the concession of the War Office. An hon. Member objects to my statement, but I Bay it is as I have said, and a clerk could claim if he were cultivating his garden in
  1162
  his leisure moments that he is engaged in agriculture. The Amendment being in this vague form, I hardly think it is one which the right hon. Gentleman really meant to move. He cannot mean that a man who spends an hour a day, perhaps, in cultivating his garden is to be entitled to say he is engaged in agriculture and come under this exemption provision. I may say, of course, that the chief value we attach as agriculturists to this Amendment of the Government is that the farmer will know that he will not have to go or to send his man long distances to be examined. They will not have to go to the Court. The whole thing will be carried out in their own neighbourhood, and in all probability on the farm. Thus exemption will be secured at a minimum of inconvenience and trouble to the farmers.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to point out what actually did occur last Friday. It is quite true, as my right hon. Friend says, that the only objection of the Board of Agriculture was made quite early in the Debate on the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Devonshire which was rejected by the Leader of the House. The Debate went on for a long time after that, and finally this was what took place. I will quote the words I then uttered:
  "I think we should accept the proposal which has been made by the hon. Gentleman in charge of tile Bill, because I think he has endeavoured to meet us most fairly. He has given, as I understand, a distinct pledge that he will introduce words to carry out that object, namely, that men who were engaged in agriculture at the time of the Registration Bill shall not be taken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March. 1917, cols. 817. and 818.]
  After that I went on to talk about the Report stage and asked if there would be one, and the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill replied, "Yes." There was nothing there about the sanction of the Board of Agriculture having to be obtained. Now I should like to deal with the speech of the President of the Board of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman naturally said that he would support the Amendment. He added that he would not look a gift-horse in the mouth. That evidently conveys a feeling which I object to very strongly, but which I am sorry to say is very paramount, and, indeed, is uppermost in the mind of the right hon. Gentlemen who hold these distinguished positions. The feeling is that all the power and work shall be given to their Departments, and that is exactly what we

  1163
  want to stop. We do not want any more departmental interference. We do not want any more committees or local advisory committees meddling in these matters. We want the farmers and men to be let alone—
  Mr. G. FABER: You cannot.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Why not?
  Mr. G. FABER: Because there is a war on.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What has that to do with it? If it is a question whether it is quite right that men engaged in agriculture should be taken away and sent into the Army or if it is quite as much in the national interest that they should remain on the land, then I say both of those are intelligent positions to take up. But it is not an intelligent position to take up to say that, after all, these men who first of all have been registered and have been before the tribunal at least three times already should again be taken before the tribunal to see whether or not their exemption should be maintained when all the facts are well known. If we were at the commencement of the War there might be something to be said in favour of it. But these men have already attended. I have on several occasions wasted three or four hours in this way. I have had to go fourteen miles about a man, and now the same process is going to be repeated. The light hon. Gentleman I notice shakes his head, but I understood him to say that the Advisory Committee and the War Agricultural Committee, in association with the agricultural representative, would review these cases. He suggests that the committee will probably go to the farm. Even that would mean the man being taken away from his work, but I personally do not think the committees would go to the farm.
  Again, I am not at all sure that these local bodies, which are composed of rival farmers, are the best people to choose for this purpose. In some cases they are actuated by personal motives, and I say they would be quite the wrong body to choose. The right hon. Gentleman tells us he has come to an agreement with the War Office that they should always act together. So they do, but then the War Office has its own way, and the Agricultural Department has to give way. That is what we object to, and we are afraid
  1164
  that this which has happened I the past will occur again. No doubt there will be agreement, but it will be agreement, according to the War Office view, and not. in accord with the view of the Board of Agriculture. I really do suggest, first of all, it is not in accordance with the pledge given us that the sanction of the Board of Agriculture should be required. What we really want to avoid is this continual taking away of men—of farmers and labourers—and sending them to tribunals, and calling on them to waste their time in filling up any number of forms. Only the other day a farmer told me he had to go thirty miles, to hire a motor car at the cost of £5, to spend the night away from home, and to travel home another thirty miles in order to try and get a man exempted. Farmers who have to do this get very little sympathy from those who hold a little brief authority. The result is that both farmers and labourers are-rendered uncertain. They never know where they stand. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the position of the farmers at the present moment is a very difficult one. It is very hard indeed to keep the labourers on the land, and if they are to be constantly disturbed in this way they will assuredly go into other occupations where they will not be so-liable to be moved about. I trust that after what took place last Friday the Government will consent to adopt my right hon. Friend's Amendment.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I think it right to-say at once, in view of the speech of my right hon. Friend, that when I spoke earlier on this subject, I understood from the spirit which was manifested in the. House, that the Amendment on the Paper in my name redeems the pledge which I gave. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) suggested, if I remember aright, that we should allow to remain on the land the men registered as being in agriculture—that is to say, he differed from those on the corner of the Front Bench opposite, who pressed me to remember the fact that the Registration Act was passed in 1915. The discussion went on, words were bandied from one Front Bench to the-other, and the general impression was given me that it would not be reasonable-to regard the date of the Registration Act as the date appointed in the Amendment which I submit, and which I feel sure represents, the opinion of those engaged in agriculture and the opinion of the country

  1165
  The agriculturists hold a common view on the question of date and any Amendment would be utterly useless if it took the date fixed upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I notice that the extract which I read just now was the last word in the Debate, and nothing occurred after that.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am only giving my recollection of the Debate, but in any case I may state that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) came to me afterwards, and pointed out that he had been in conversation with agricultural friends, and said that before I consulted with my Friends with regard to the Amendment, I should know that any idea of referring to the date of the Registration Act would not be acceptable, and accordingly I was forced, in view of my own impression of the Debate, and in view of the observations of my hon. Friend in regard to agricultural opinion upon the point, to put down the Amendment as it stands on the Paper. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London seems to think that every man who is in agriculture at the present time is an able-bodied man, and he proposes to deal with the men who are bonâ fide agricultural men; men who were in agriculture in 1914 and 1915, before the War, are to be regarded as bonâ fide agricultural labourers. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture has pointed out that this Bill does not affect these men at all; this measure is dealing with an extremely limited number of men—not with B or C men, or even a lower category. We have given assurances in this House and out of it in regard to rejected men, and men of a very low category, and we will not call up B 1 or C 1 men engaged in agriculture.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Am I to understand that this is only to the 1st of May or permanently?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: It is temporary assistance which the President of the Board of Agriculture mentioned to the House. We have pledged ourselves, for the time being, not to call up B 1 or C 1 men. But there are men who have been registered quite recently as being engaged in agriculture. These men are not engaged in a bonâ fide manner in agriculture; they are fraudulently engaged in that industry. I do not think I am overstating the fact when I say that there are a great many
  1166
  hundreds of men in this country at the present time who are defined as being engaged in agriculture, and who would be included in my right hon. Friend's Amendment, and who ought not to be included in it, as men bonâ fide engaged in agriculture. I have a letter from a lord lieutenant in the south of England putting before me three cases which had come under his consideration as chairman of a tribunal. He described one as a coal dealer and another as a thatcher.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: Thatching is essentially agriculture.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The cases which the letter mentioned showed how extremely wide would be the meaning given to men employed in agriculture. I am perfectly certain that under the agreement come to by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and my Noble Friend the Secretary of State, these men would not be regarded as being employed in agriculture, a work of national importance. I think we ought to have in view the fact that there are so many of these men who do not come within this definition, and I, personally, prefer the Amendment which I moved to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol. Notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend has said, I feel sure that the Amendment put down by me represents correctly the feeling of the House as it existed at three o'clock on Friday afternoon, and, in view of that fact, I think this Amendment is a much more reasonable one than that of my right hon. Friend opposite.
  Mr. J. MASON: Will the right hon. Gentlemen explain his reference to B and C men?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I was stating that this Bill deals with an extremely limited number of men, and I said that B and C men are not included in this Bill.
  Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD: I intervene to make my protest against the Amendment now before the House. I must say that after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer making a most urgent appeal for this Bill, in order-to secure recruits for the Army, to have now the Government giving in under the pressure of representatives of agricultural interests in this House and outside this House, and proposing this Amendment, is to me a most deplorable thing. If the Gov-

  1167
  eminent need the men—and no Government would ask for re-examination of a million men unless the Army was urgently in need of them—no exemptions should be made of any kind. But here we have the case of one of the most prosperous classes of the community, which, through its representatives in this House, is pressing and forcing the Government to exempt it from doing its share, and shouldering its portion of the common burden of sacrifice necessary for the prosecution of the War. The fact that the Government has yielded to this pressure seems to me a dangerous precedent. What is to stop any organised body of people, outside this agricultural body, from bringing pressure to bear upon Members of this House and compelling the Government to deliberately set the example of yielding and of exempting a whole class from military service?
  It is true that this Bill only refers to disabled persons, persons not fit for service, and discharged soldiers, but what will be the position in the future when tribunals—excellent bodies, in my opinion—have to carry on their work of calling agriculturists to the Colours? I would remind the House that on the 1st January, 60,000 exempted agriculturists were due to join the Army. Under pressure the War Office called up 30,000, and owing to more pressure they brought to the Colours only 10,000. In other words, there are 50,000 agriculturists at this moment exempted. [Interruption.] I am speaking of manpower, and I am thinking of the Army first. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have to feed the Army!"] As a matter of fact, the Army are almost wholly supplied with sea-borne food and not with home produce, and the hon. Member for Hertfordshire knows that. If the 50,000 agriculturists were to go before the tribunal the military representative of that tribunal would be bound by the decision of this House, and it practically amounts to this, that in futuare it will not be possible to get another recruit from the land, and that the agricultural community will now be sealed as against the War Office taking men for recruits. I fear that the agricultural community will cast a greater burden on other classes of the country, and I think it is an extraordinary result that the Government should give way to this particular class. The troops are really needed, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer insisted, and the effect of the exemption of the agricultural class means
  1168
  the exacting of further sacrifices from other members of the community. I protest against this giving a privilege to one of the most prosperous classes of the community. It has broken the unity of common sacrifice and deprived the Army of urgently needed recruits.
  Brigadier-General HICKMAN: I hope the Under-Secretary for War will adhere to his Amendment, though I regret that the War Office are not going to get all the men they want, though they are going to get some of them. I think it would be a poor thing if we allowed an Amendment to go through this House which would allow shirkers to escape. By the Amendment which the Under-Secretary has proposed the Board of Agriculture will be enabled to make certain that men who are shirkers shall not get exemption. If the Amendment to the Amendment, cutting out the words of the original Amendment, were adopted, all these shirkers would get exemption. I hope the Under-Secretary will stick to his own Amendment.
  Mr. MARTIN: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has gone beyond what was understood on Friday as the definition of persons engaged in agriculture. It was suggested that the registration of 1915 should be taken, but he has taken 1917, and in that respect he has fully or even more than fully fulfilled his pledge. The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman finds no fault with the definition contained in the Government Amendment. I think mostly every speaker on Friday pointed out that not only did farmers want the War Office not to take these men, but that they did not want their labour interfered with at all in the way of proving a matter of this kind. The Under-Secretary in none of his speeches suggested that he was going to propose a change like this. The effect of the Government Amendment is entirely to place the onus upon the farmer to prove that the men are not entitled to be called upon. I suggest that in that respect the hon. Gentleman has not carried out his pledge. There was no reference to that, and it has come entirely as a surprise. For these reasons I have tabled an Amendment.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: We have had a very interesting discussion. I do not poropose to press my Amendment to a Division, but I do hope that the House will take note of the promise made by the President of the

  1169
  Board of Agriculture that his plan was designed—I do not know that it is successfully designed—in order to give as little friction to the farmer and the labourer as possible. I hope that, in the interests of the Board of Agriculture and of the War Office, that that plan will be carried to a successful conclusion. I beg leave to withdraw.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  Mr. PETO: I want to respond to the appeal made by the Under-Secretary to say whether this Amendment really carries out what was the arrangement made with regard to it in so far as it does not confine the scope of exemptions of agricultural labourers amongst those who are registered under the Registration Act. The final word was said by the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir E. Lamb). After I had been led to withdraw my Amendment, several hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Spear) pointed out what would be the effect of going back to that date of the registration, and I conveyed those views to the hon. Gentleman. With regard to this Amendment, I extremely regret that the Government have not accepted an Amendment which I put down and which would have given effect to what was exactly understood in all quarters, that agriculture should first of all be omitted, and then, if necessary, we should give powers to the Board of Agriculture to make any exceptions to the general rule with regard to classes or districts or individuals that they, on their responsibility, saw fit to make. I am sorry that method is not the one adopted, and for this reason: The President of the Board of Agriculture has just been explaining to the House how simply this is going to work, and that, under the Clause as put down by the Government, agricultural labourers who have been rejected already will not be called up for re-examination at all. He is going to work it through agricultural representatives in each district dealing with a list, and that only very few will be called up. He suggested that the war agricultural committee should go and visit the actual farmer and talk it over. That sounds a pretty picture, as pretty as the one he drew of his own connections with the War Office. It would be very nice if it in the least bit
  1170
  resembled what we believe will really take place. I am not certain that that is what is actually offered by the right hon. Gentleman does. The Act is not to apply to any man who has been engaged in agriculture and whose work is certified by the Board of Agriculture to be work of national importance. That means, if it means anything, that they have got two exceptions to prove to enable any man to show that he does not come under the Act. First, he has got to show that he is engaged in agriculture, and the hon. Gentleman told us on Friday that that was a matter it was almost impossible for him to define. Secondly, he has got to show that he is certified to be engaged in that particular part of agriculture which is certified by the Board of Agriculture to be of national importance.
  I disagree with the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir C. Hobhouse) in deprecating putting any power in the hands of the Board of Agriculture, and still more from the right hon. Member for the City, who said we did not want to give any more power to the Board of Agriculture. I do, at any rate, in this matter. I deeply regret that the War Office did not see their way to accept my proposal, which I know met with the approval of a good many people who have a great deal to do with the practical working of whatever is put into this Bill. My proposal was that for England and Wales the President of the Board of Agriculture, upon representations made to him by the Army Council, should authorise the application of the provisions of this Act to such agricultural districts and men or class classes engaged in agriculture as he might see fit. The effect would have been, as far as the limited scope of the Bill permitted, to have done something to equalise the extraordinary unequal distribution of agricultural labour throughout the country. All that the President of the Board said did absolutely nothing except to crystallise the present position, because these things are all going to be settled with cach individual man locally. For that we are to have an enormous amount of correspondence and journeys in motor cars about the country, in order to decide with the local people themselves whether anybody can be spared from a particular district.
  That does not seem to me to be the way to get the men that agriculture can spare, and I agree that there are men who

  1171
  can be spared from agriculture. The way to do it is for the President of the Board, with his wide scope and the knowledge he has of how the whole thing is working all over the country, and with all the figures he has before him of the exact quota already contributed by various counties, to authorise, on the representation of the Army Council, that the Act shall apply in certain districts or in certain sections of agriculture. As it is, I fear when this Amendment is brought into the Bill the position will be by no means clear to the farmer and the agricultural labourer. I am not at all sure that it is going to work so simply and as easily as the President of the Board of Agriculture said. I believe, on the other hand, there will be the same constant friction between the representative of the Board of Agriculture and the representative of the military authority in every little district fighting for the corpus vile, of each agricultural labourer. I do not believe that that is a practical or workmanlike way of carrying out the matter. I do not mean that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to carry it out properly, but I do say that the machinery proposed is about as cumbersome as any that could possibly have been devised. I believe it would have been a perfectly simple way to give the authorities of the Board of Agriculture power to enable them to be the final arbiters as to where this Act could be made to apply and where it could not. Therefore, I feel called upon to make a protest against the Amendment which crystallises the arrangement come to on Friday, and I am very sorry that it is not one that I think would work more smoothly.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed: After the words last inserted, to insert the words
  "or (b) to any officer or man who has left or been discharged from the naval or military service of the Crown in consequence of disablement if the disablement is certified by the Admiralty or the Army Council to be the result of wounds (including injury from poisonous gas) received in battle or in any engagement with the enemy or otherwise from the enemy, but any such man shall, notwithstanding anything in any Act or Regulation, be entitled to offer himself for re-enlistment if he is willing to do so, and to be re-enlisted."—[Mr. Maepherson.]
  Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, as act Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "disablement"["consequence of disablement"], to insert the words "or ill-health."
  I think the House will be grateful to the Under-Secretary for the Amendment on the Paper, and the effect of which is that men who have been wounded or gassed while on service at the front, and who have been discharged from the Army in consequence of that, should not be brought up again under this Bill. I think that is absolutely and entirely right, but I propose my own Amendment because I think the Amendment of the Government hardly goes far enough. There are several consequential Amendments following by which I wish to ensure that whenever a man having served at the front has been discharged by reason of ill-health, whether due. to gas or nerve shock or disease, that man should not be called upon again under this Bill to serve. The Amendment of the Under-Secretary as it appeared on the Paper this morning applied only to men who had been wounded at the front and were discharged for that reason, but in the White Paper circulated later the exemption was made also to apply to men who had been gassed and who had been discharged for that reason. There is another class of case which is not provided for by the Government Amendment, and that is the case of men who suffer from neurasthenia or nerve shock—brought on by service in the trenches. I notice that a little later down on the Paper the hon. Member for Don-caster (Sir C Nicholson) has got an Amendment which will meet that case, and if the Government tell me that they are prepared to accept that Amendment, in one respect my Amendment becomes of less importance. I would suggest to the Government that a man who has been in the trenches in Flanders or France and who has suffered from nerve shock or neurasthenia which has had such a permanent effect upon his system that the doctors have thought it necessary to discharge him from the Army, ought not to be called up again under this Bill. There appears to me to be a most clear and distinct difference between men discharged from the Army in consequence of some accident at home and men discharged by reason of this nerve shock sustained by service in the trenches, which in most cases, I should have thought, rendered the value of their services as fighting units so

  1173
  little that it is not worth calling much. Looking at it from their own point of view, is it not reasonable that a man who has been discharged for nerve shock should not be called on again to serve?
  There is only one other case I want to refer to, and that is the case of the man who has contracted or aggravated a disease during his period of active service and has been discharged from the Army for that reason. I venture to think that that man ought not to be called up again. I think of the many men who served in Gallipoli and contracted dysentery and other diseases owing to the severe and trying conditions under which they lived on the Peninsula. Is there any reason why those men who were discharged from the Army should be called up again? I expect that the number of men who suffered from disease and were discharged from the Army may possibly not be so very great. They would not be discharged from the Army on account of disease unless it was very severe, but in those cases where, in the opinion of the medical authorities, the disease was so severe that it necessitated their discharge, I think they should be granted exemption under this Bill.
  Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY: I rise to second the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend, and I would press it upon the Government not only in the interests of the men themselves and of the general acceptance of this Bill, but also in the interests of the Army. We all acknowledge how completely the Government have met us in the Amendment they have themselves put down, and I quite agree that the understanding in Committee was that the Government would put down an Amendment dealing with the cases of men who had suffered from wounds, and that they did not promise to put down anything dealing with the cases of men who had suffered from ill-health, but I should like to press it on them for several reasons. I think they hardly realise how very strong is the feeling in the country with regard to this question. I have had a number of letters, not only from my own Constituency, but from people all over the country, pathetic letters dealing with the cases of men who have been wounded and who have suffered from illness at the front and are now asked to go out again, and every one of those letters refers with very great bitterness to the fact of the numbers of young
  1174
  men who for various reasons have been kept at home and have never done anything of any kind towards the actual -fighting in this War. This Amendment-raises the case of ill-health, but there are subsequent Amendments which confine that ill-health to ill-health which is due to disease contracted or aggravated on actual active service. His Majesty's-Government have, since they put down this first Amendment, altered it to a certain extent by adding the words "including injury from poisonous gas" What is-the difference between a man who is injured by poisonous gas and a man who is injured by poisoned water? We all know that our opponents, among the other things which they have done, have-been guilty of a crime—a crime which we thought had been gone for the last two thousand years—of poisoning wells. If a man has suffered from poisoned water to-an extent which has compelled his discharge from the Army, is it quite fair to call him up again? Is it quite fair to subject him to a medical examination, and, if the medical board happens to think that he has recovered, to send him out to all the hardships of the front when there are other men who have suffered very little? There is also the case of the men who have been discharged in consequence of nerve shock and neurasthenia. Those cases are dealt with by an Amendment which is down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster further on, and I would press that Amendment strongly on the notice of the Under-Secretary.
  But apart from the question of these men themselves, I should like to point out. that the Army will gain nothing whatever by including these men. What you will do if you put them in is this: You will examine a certain number of men, out of whom you will get a small number who are available as soldiers. You will cause a considerabe amount of ill-feeling by so-doing, but you will get a small number. You will also get a very large number of cases where the medical officers have-really made a mistake, because everybody knows that when a man has suffered from a serious illness, and particularly when it is due to poison, or typhoid, or to dysentery, or any of those digestive diseases,. he may appear to be perfectly well and entirely recovered, but that if you take him out and subject him to a serious strain in nine cases out of ten he will break down. Everyone who has taken any in-

  1175
  terest in military matters knows that the worst thing an Army can have is to have a large number of men in its ranks who, the moment they are subjected to any strain, fall out and have to be nursed and brought back to health; and unless I am very much mistaken the actual fighting Army at any given moment will be a great deal stronger if this Amendment is accepted than if it is rejected and you take these men in, who will be not only useless themselves, but will take a whole, lot of men, who would be better employed otherwise, in order to look after them when they break down. I would honestly press the consideration of this point on the notice of my hon. Friend, and if he will yield to this Amendment he will not only be doing a very great kindness to a very large number of men, but he will also be improving the actual strength of the Army.
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: The Amendment on the Paper in the name of the Government is, I believe, in redemption of a promise given yesterday to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir C. Hobhouse) to extend the area of the class of cases that would be covered, and prevent them being called up again for further examination. I venture to think that the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher), although it does yet further 'extend the area of exemption, hardly goes far enough in that direction, and I submit that the distinction that should be drawn should not be the distinction between cases of battle wounds or illness as the result of active service at the front, but whether the case is or is not one of total and permanent disablement, whether the result of battle wounds, of accidents at home—of which I have seen a good many examples—or of cases of illness, such as neurasthenia or other forms of nervous diseases, in which satisfactory and conclusive evidence is forthcoming that the disablement is of a total and permanent character. The Bill has already been samended so far that where on re-exami-? nation total and permanent disablement is discovered there at length finality is to be reached, and a man is to be given a certificate of permanent discharge. The same principle should apply to cases called up for this re-examination, that if the Army Council have in their possession satisfactory and conclusive evidence that the case is already one of total and per-
  1176
  manent disablement, it is unnecessary to call up that person for further examination. Therefore, I say it is a false and confusing distinction merely to put in the case of battle wounds or gassing, and that it ought to be really cases of permanent and total disablement from whatever cause.
  I am aware that many criticisms are made with regard to the medical examination, and I think the Leader of the House indicated on Second Reading that he was desirous of making the future medical examination as satisfactory and as conclusive as possible, and I hope for that purpose there may be called in to the aid of some of these medical boards special and expert advice, or at any rate that there will be consideration of satisfactory certificates from the person's own doctor when they are produced, and not, as has sometimes been the case in the past, total disregard of such certificates. I would urge that as, if on re-examination the disablement is found to be total and permanent finality is reached and the case will not be called up again under any circumstances, the same principle might apply where the Army Council has satisfactory evidence that the disablement is permanent and total, and that then the man should not be put to the unnecessary grievance of again being called up, even for the first re-examination under this; Bill.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. The House may recall the history of this Amendment, or, rather, the Amendment which I have placed upon the Paper. In the original Bill there was no exemption of this sort so far as men who have been disabled and discharged were concerned. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) pressed me upon this subject, and I gave a pledge that on the Report stage I would introduce an Amendment dealing with those men who had been disabled and discharged on account of wounds received in battle. After giving that pledge I thought that there was a case where, though an actual wound may not have been inflicted upon the soldier or officer, or he might not have lost a limb, yet he might have received an injury from poison gas. Accordingly, I extended the original pledge, and put in this extra injury or disability. I see the result of it to-day ! My advisers, who probably knew more about Parlia-

  1177
  mentary procedure and Amendments than I do, advised me that if I once moved away there would be no termination to suggestions of amendment.
  Mr. HOGGE: Why should there be?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Accordingly, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, come forward to-day and suggest that I should extend the exceptions to a very great extent indeed; because in this particular Clause, if you are going to extend disablement and injury, there is no limit to extension, and this Bill will probably become dead ! In regard to the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Derby, I noticed that he emphasised that we were putting men who were permanently disabled to the trouble of being called up again. Throughout the whole of these discussions there has been a continuous mixing up of two different things, namely, the calling up of men for re-examination, and the calling of men up for battle service or actual service in the field. I have only to point out to the hon. Member for Derby that if a man is permanently disabled from battle wounds, sickness, or ill-health, and he is so certified on re-examination, that he has not the remotest chance of being sent on active service. I think that that completely covers the point which my hon. Friend pressed upon me.
  Sir W. COLLINS: Why re-examination if the Army Council possess satisfactory evidence to that effect?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: If we have in our possession satisfactory evidence that a man is permanently disabled we have no intention of asking him for service. We will not even send him a notice. I think the good intentions of the Army Council have been shown when I accepted the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle), and when we said that when we knew as a fact that men, even in civil life here, were permanently disabled and devoid of a limb, the War Office would not go to the trouble or expense of sending them notice to come up for reexamination. I think my hon. Friend can rest assured upon that particular point.
  Sir W. COLLINS: It does not appear in the Bill?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The Amendment is on the Paper to-day in the name of the? hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Lanark. I think, therefore, that I have certainly shown that the Government cannot accept this Amendment as my own Amendment was meant practically to cover the whole of the diseases and disablements which appear- in the category. I think that is a very good test. I would ask the House now not to press this matter, but to come to a decision.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to know, first of all, what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had in view when he says that "if disablement is certified by the Admiralty or the Army Council," etc? I have contemplated that men suffering from battle casualties, who have been invalided out of the Army on that account, should not be brought within the scope of this Bill; or that any further -action of the Army Council or the Admiralty should be necessary for that purpose, or that they have not already discharged their function when they have invalided men out of the Army. I want to know, first of all, whether I am right in my assumption that that is the intention with which the hon. Gentleman has put the Amendment on the Paper; otherwise-there is no meaning in it at all?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I think that is the intention.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Well, then, let us make the intention absolutely plain. I would suggest that my hon. Friend should accept the words "has been" instead of "is" ["disablement is certified."]
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I will accept that.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: And instead of the word "by" the words "under the authority of" the Admiralty or Army Council. That makes it quite clear that it is not a special and a fresh operation to be taken in regard to these men by the Army Council; that it is a matter which lies in the past work of the ordinary medical boards. I will move-these words when the Amendment is proposed. I quite recognise that this is an important concession. I think the House-should not close its eyes to that fact. Let me, however, point out that what is really-extraordinary is that such a proposal as this should ever have been made; that it should really have been proposed to take-these totally disabled people and casualty.

  1179
  men and put them through the mill again with a view to seeing how many of them are to be sent out to France. It was an extraordinary proposal that that should be done, and all this other very large class which is in everybody's mind is not being brought within the area of our recruiting operation. It shows, I think, how very far adrift are the War Office from the real sentiments of the people of this country with regard to measures taken. I recognise fully that the hon. Gentleman has done his best, and has made an important concession. My hon. and learned Friend below the Gangway has moved to extend this Amendment to a question of the men who are invalided for ill-health. It seems to me that there is no doubt whatever that that is desirable. It is perfectly clear that men invalided out of the Army for ill-health while on active service, and considered permanently disabled from that ill-health, should not be called up and sent to the front while there are, as we all know, quite young and active men in many industries throughout the country within the age limit who have not yet been out to the front at all. Everybody knows it. Everybody feels it. I do not, however, myself, press that point upon my hon. Friend. I confine myself to the suggestion I made at the beginning as to the question of battle casualties alone. As the hon. Gentleman has met me on that, so far as I am concerned, although I fully sympathise with the view that has been expressed by my hon. and learned Friend below the Gangway, I do not feel able to press the point further on my hon. Friend.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I regret I cannot accede to the request made by the Under-Secretary to accept his statement as satisfactory. There were one or two statements in the speech he delivered just now from which I do not think his account of the genesis of this Amendment was quite accurate. This matter was raised on an Amendment which proposed to relieve from the operation of this Bill men who had been discharged from the Army or the Navy on account of physical unfitness. It will be remembered that that Amendment, which we carried into the Division Lobby, received a very considerable amount of support. There is no doubt about it that the measure of support received in the Division Lobby did not actually represent the amount of sympathy with the Amendment in the
  1180
  House. The Government majority on that occasion fell to something like ninety. The Under-Secretary said that if the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York was carried it would knock this Bill into smithereens—or he used some such expression. We understood him, at any rate, to say that no men would be obtained as a result of the operation of this Bill. Surely that is a most extraordinary statement to be made! It is admitted that these men have, every one of them, been medically examined once, or more than once, and some of them at least half a dozen times—practically all of them within the last six months. Therefore, that admission of the hon. Gentleman means that the authorities are hoping to get men by the operation of this Bill who have repeatedly been declared, on medical re-examination, to be unfit for military service.
  I come more directly to the matter of this Amendment. I shall certainly support the Amendment moved by the hon and learned- Gentleman the Member for York. It seems to me quite impossible, either logically or practically, to draw any distinction between men who have been discharged as unfit whether that unfitness be due to wounds received in battle or to illness which has resulted from Army service. For instance, a very common cause of discharge from the Army is rheumatism, which is the result of the hardships the men have to endure in the trenches. I remember an hon. and gallant Member, speaking from the opposite bench a few weeks ago, and he described the awful condition of the trenches as he had seen them a very few days before. The expression he used was that, "The men were up to their eyes in mud." It is quite certain that in a very large number of cases very serious physical results will follow owing to the terrible hardships the men have had to endure. Can anybody draw a distinction between men discharged as a result of wounds in an engagement with the enemy or a man crippled for life as the result of rheumatism owing to the hardships of the trenches? Take the case of frost-bite. We know that a great many men have suffered from that and have been crippled for life, many of them having had to undergo amputations. As I read this Amendment these men will not come within the protection of it. We will have to rely upon the medical

  1181
  boards. It has been assumed by the Under-Secretary more than once this evening that we trust the medical boards and the Army Council to carry out fairly and justly the provisions of this measure. In view of the experience that we have had during the last eighteen months it is impossible to convince me that that would be so. Only yesterday I had a letter sent to me in relation to the case of a blind man. The case was cut from a Northampton paper of only two or three days before. That soldier was discharged from the Army. That is by no means a solitary case. Now the Under-Secretary has left altogether untouched the point that it is impossible to draw the distinction in question, and I am not at all satisfied with the extent to which he has gone in attempting to meet us.
  Let me just endorse an observation made by the hon. Baronet as to the state of feeling in the country about this measure. I have had evidence of feeling arising out of the Military Service Acts, but I can honestly say to this House that during the last eighteen months I have never had so much evidence of widespread indignation, amounting to horror, as has been aroused by this Bill, and it is well to remember that there are 1,000,000 persons affected by it. All those are in poor physical condition. I heard only this afternoon of the case of a man who had been repeatedly rejected suffering from heart disease. Before this Bill was introduced he was able to do a little work, but the prospect of having to undergo again the torture of a medical examination, and the possibility of being taken into the Army as the result of an arbitrary decision by a medical board, has made that man quite prostrate, and at the present time he is lying ill. There must be a great many cases of that sort. Why could not the Under-Secretary be—I do not say generous, but just in this matter? While he is making a concession, why cannot he make a concession which is going to be of practical value to these men?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I conceded more than I was asked.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: You have not conceded more than the Amendment I moved, which received a great deal of support. If the Bill is left as proposed, the result will be that an arbitrary, unfair, and unjust discrimination will be created between men who had more or less active service and are entitled to consideration by this
  1182
  House. Therefore, I shall support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for York, and I hope it will be carried to a Division.
  Sir G. GREENWOOD: I only rise to ask the Under-Secretary to answer a question which, I think, is relative to this Amendment. I have already called his notice by correspondence to a case in my own Constituency. This is the case of a gentleman who suffers from cerebral hemorrhage, and he has been several times examined, and, of course, rejected. He holds a certificate not only from a local doctor, but from one of the best known specialists in Harley Street—I could give his name—who says that he is "totally unfit for military service whether at home or abroad, and the only hope of keeping him fairly well is absence of worry, anxiety, and exertion." He is in a state of very great anxiety, because he knows if he is called up and endures, perhaps, four hours before a tribunal, it will lead certainly to a nervous breakdown, and perhaps something worse. Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that if those certificates of the specialist in 'Harley Street and the local doctor are placed before the proper authorities he would be exempt from coming up? Or must he risk his life, and certainly incur a nervous breakdown by being called up under the provisions of this Bill? If that is the case I shall certainly support the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand the constituent about whom my hon. Friend is speaking is not a discharged soldier, and that he has not yet been called up?
  Sir G. GREENWOOD: He has been rejected three times.
  Mr. J. MASON: If the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend were accepted it seems to me you would lose the whole of those men discharged from the Army in the early days of the War, a great many for very small ailments. I know, for instance, a man who joined in the early days of the War in 1914. He was discharged after some months of service for slight rupture. He went back to civil employment, and was able to enlist again in three months. That man was a patriotic man, and wanted to serve again, but I think you would lose a great many men who have been discharged for very small ailments.
  Sir C. SEELY: This is confined to men whose disease is due to active service.
  Mr. MASON: This man to whom I refer had been ruptured and discharged. Since then has served again and been wounded.
  Sir C. SEELY: Was he ruptured in a fights?
  Mr. MASON: No.
  Sir C. SEELY: Then he does not come under the Amendment.
  Mr. BILLING: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary what is the position of pilots in the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service who have been invalided out for neurasthenia or nerve shock consequent on flying either in this country or in France? It is quite a common thing for pilots' nerves to break down after two or three months' flying, and under those circumstances I should like the hon. Member—
  Sir C. NICHOLSON: On a point of Order. Will this discussion prevent my raising this point later on?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that is so. It had better be raised on the other Amendment.
  Sir C. SEELY: With the leave of the House, might I just say one word? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!" Other HON. MEM-BEES: "No!"] It is that this Amendmen—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is only entitled by the leave of the House to speak twice on an Amendment on the Report stage.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 151

  Division No. 25.]

  AYES.

  [6.25 p.m.

  Anderson, W. C.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Bliss, Joseph

  Hudson, Walter

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  King, J.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Snowden, Philip

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Partington, Oswald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H

  Butcher and Colonel Sir Charles.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. H.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Seely.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Rendall, Athelstan

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. M.

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Gretton, John

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Hancock, John George

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Bathurst, Capt. Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Currie, George W.

  Hewart, Sir Gordon

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Boyton, James

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Hills, John Waller

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Fell, Arthur

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Brookes, Warwick

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Bryce, John Annan

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Bull, Sir William James

  Forster, Henry William

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Johnson, William

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Cautley, H. S.

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Kenyan, Barnet

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

  pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Stewart, Gershom

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Tickler, T. G.

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

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Whiteley, Herbert J.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Robinson, Sidney

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Younger, Sir George

  Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

  Rowlands, James

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.

  Ogden, Fred

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Primrose.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Sir J. SIMON: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill), I move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment in paragraph (6), to leave out the word "is" ["if the disablement is certified by the Admiralty"], and to insert instead thereof the words "has been."
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I accept that Amendment.
  Mr. HOHLER: I should like to know from the Under-Secretary for War what is the result of this Amendment. Does it refer to what appears on the discharge paper, and, if so, is that regarded as certification? I would like to know what we are gaining by this Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made to the proposed Amendment: In paragraph (b) leave out the word "by" ["certified by the Admiralty"], and insert instead thereof the words "under the authority of."
  Sir C. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "enemy" ["otherwise from the enemy"], to insert the words "or any officer or man who has been discharged from the military service of the Crown in consequence of neurasthenia or allied functional nerve disease which has been so certified by a special medical board."
  I have seen a good many of these cases recently, and only yesterday I was in consultation with the president of a medical board who deals with a large number of these cases, and he told me that if there was one thing that was going to retard the
  1186
  recovery of a large number of these cases it was the fear that they would be brought up again for a medical re-examination. I have spent several hours recently on the medical board, and I am certain that there is not a single hon. Member of this House who, if he saw the cases which I have seen, would consider it was possible to put those men back to any kind of military service whatever, because some of them were trembling from head to foot and some could only speak in a whisper, and when they were brought up for a two minutes' examination they trembled with excitement in their speech. There is only one way in which they can be treated, and that is to keep them away from excitement. Men of this type ought to be positively relieved under this Bill.
  It is quite possible with care that some of these men may be brought to such a state of health as to look perfectly fit and well, but if you once take them out again and subject them to the strain of actual service, they will break down for certain, and nobody can say what damage might be caused by a man running amok with a fresh attack of nerves. I have some hopes that my Amendment will find favour with the Under-Secretary for War. I am not at all sure that really in their hearts they do not realise that this is a very necessary thing to be carried out. There is just one other ground I should like to give, and it is with reference to pensions and the cost to the State. I am quite certain that if you are going to send back men who have been subject to this violent nerve disease, such as I have described, the chances of the recovery of these men will be considerably less, and they will become a further charge on the State when the War is

  1187
  over. I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more, as I think those two grounds are sufficient to exempt these men from a further re-examination, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my proposal.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I wish to second this Amendment. I do not think the facts in favour of this proposal could be put with greater weight than they have been put by the hon. Member for Don-caster (Sir C. Nicholson), who has studied this matter very carefully. I ask the Government to consider this very special case which is quite exceptional, and I urge my hon. Friend most earnestly to consider this proposal favourably.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: This particular type of case has excited the sympathy of many people in this country, and I feel, and so do my advisers, that it is a special case, and I would like to suggest that instead of his proposal the words to be inserted should run, "or in consequence of neurasthenia or allied functional nerve disease, certified as the result of military service abroad in the present War." [An HON. MEMBER: "Why abroad?"] I think my hon. Friend will realise that you cannot have cases of shell shock and neurasthenia at home. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Yes—in the Flying Corps!"]
  Sir C. NICHOLSON: Will my hon. Friend allow me to point out that the words he has suggested will not cover the cases in the Flying Corps? I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "enemy" ["otherwise from the enemy"], to insert the words "or in consequence of neurasthenia or allied functional nerve disease if so certified by a special medical board to be the result of naval or military service in the present War.
  Mr. FORSTER: May I explain what is meant by a special medical board? In the case of the disease of neurasthenia in connection with the pensions administration, we have set up a special medical board to deal with this particular disease, and it is to that special medical board that we should look for certification in connection with these cases.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that covers the next of three Amendments on the Paper, and brings us to a manuscript Amendment handed in by the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle).
  Mr. PRINGLE: An Amendment standing on the Paper in my name is directed to a different point from that which we have been discussing. The Government Amendment dealt solely with the case of discharged men, whereas my Amendment relates to the re-examination of men previously rejected, and it provides for an appeal in their case under certain conditions.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I had not observed that there was a new point involved.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words,
  "Provided also that in any case where a man so examined and passed for military service produces a medical certificate that he is unfit for general service, or for any form of military service, he shall be entitled to be re-examined by a special medical board."
  This Amendment is intended to deal with men who have been rejected in the past. On the Committee stage this question was raised, I think, in a somewhat unfortunate form, because it gave the representative of the Government the opportunity of riding off into opposition purely on the form of the Amendment. It is common knowledge to all Members of the House that nothing has given greater dissatisfaction in recent months than the method of re-examination of men who have been rejected in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir G. Greenwood) endeavoured to bring forward a case on one of the Amendments just disposed of, but, as everybody knows, that is not an isolated instance. During the Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary promised that there would be an improvement in the medical examination, and that there would be greater safeguard. A similar promise was made on Second Reading by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has come to my knowledge that at the very time these promises were being made men

  1189
  absolutely unfit for service were being passed into the Army in a careless and reckless way. I was told by a medical man, for example, about the case of a man whom I know very well. He has been rejected on many occasions. He has always been anxious to serve; so anxious was he to do National Service that he went for several months into a munitions factory and was practically advised to leave if he did not want to be further seriously disabled. This man suffers from two serious diseases, and yet on Friday of last week he was passed C3 and was ordered to go on the land. That man, under my Amendment, would be entitled on producing a medical certificate to have his case determined by a special medical board, and, I think, in view of the cursory method of medical examination which prevails, the House should insist upon the security of an appeal in these cases. It seems to me that we have no real ground, apart from a statutory safeguard, for believing that the interests of these men can be protected, and I think the House ought to insist on the machinery for their protection which this Amendment suggests.
  Mr. HOGGE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do not know that it is necessary to make any lengthy speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed !" I hope it will be agreed, and, if necessary, we will take it to a Division and see if my hon. Friends who say "Agreed!" vote for it. This Amendment is intended to cover the case of men who have already more than once been medically rejected. If they are to be taken into the Army on the examination of an Army medical board, there are a great many of us in this House who would not give much for their chances. We have lost all faith in the Army Medical Board. We are convinced from our experience of the working of those boards that there is duress put upon the boards to get men into the Army. I have said that before in this House, and I say it again this afternoon deliberately. I remember when I said it before that the Under-Secretary said it was not true, but I myself have seen letters written by the War Office to various commands in this country stating that they thought there had been far too many exemptions in these commands and that they must stop. If that is not duress, what is it? It is a plain indication to the medical boards that they are letting off too many men in the command, and that they have got to get them
  1190
  into the Army. I know that from my own personal experience, and, although it has been denied from that Front Bench, it is true, and they know it is true. We therefore want to secure that men who have already been rejected more than once on medical grounds shall have a right of appeal against any medical board if they can produce, as most of them can produce, other medical testimony of as great or even greater weight proving that they are unfit. The House ought also to remember that every mistake in this matter means a vast expenditure of money to the country. Everyone of these men turned out later will be entitled, probably for thirty years, to a pension of something like £70 per year. I hope this point will be yielded, but if it is not we can go to a Division and see how far the Government are prepared to go.
  Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) drew from his experience of the past fears for the future, but, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out, it is intended that the medical examination of these men who have been previously rejected on medical grounds shall be thorough, and I hope that it will be more searching than some of the medical examinations which have occurred during the last three years. The mere fact that these men have been previously rejected and that the medical board will know that they have been previously rejected will in itself be sufficient to put the medical board on. its guard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I think that is a reasonable view to take. I am afraid, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said earlier in the Debates, although undoubtedly there is much to be said in favour of a special medical board acting as an appeal court in certain cases, that it is quite impossible for us to establish such a system generally throughout the country, and we cannot therefore accept the Amendment.
  7.0 p.m.
  Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I am very sorry that the Financial Secretary to the War Office has taken up this attitude. Throughout the whole of these proceedings the House has gone on the assumption that they were not entirely in the hands of the military authorities, and that supreme power was given to the civilian side. For instance, the question whether a man is to be exempted or not is settled

  1191
  by a civil tribunal. The military representative has no voice; he Simply gives evidence. When we come to medical examination, the War Office appear to take up the attitude that no one but the military doctor is to have any say or voice in the settlement of the question. I think that is entirely a wrong course of procedure. If it is necessary to go before a civil tribunal on these questions of exemption, surely every man, if he so desires it, especially in a case of this description, if he considers himself improperly treated by the Army medical authorities, ought to have the right to appeal to the civil medical board. It is no use talking about this House in any way controlling the operations of the Act if on these supremely important questions of the re-examination of rejected men you hand the thing over practically in told to the Army medical authorities. I am not speaking with any prejudice against the Army medical man at all. My experience is not in the least like that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). I believe that the majority of these Army doctors conscientiously try to do their duty, but they are up against a very difficult proposition. I spent a portion of my early life receiving the first beginnings of a medical training. I gave it up because it did not look to me to be the sort of career which I should find sufficiently remunerative. I was mistaken in that view. It was one of the delusions of my youth. But from my slight experience I have always carried with me the recollection of the supreme difficulty of medical diagnosis. I find that men who come before an experienced medical man can simulate all kinds of complaints. No doubt the diagnosis in many complaints consists of answers to questions which the medical man puts. If the medical man considers that the man is giving honest replies, of course that would materially influence his diagnosis. I believe that in exactly the same way it is quite possible for a man to come before the most expert medical board in existence and, if he is a dull and rather stupid man, who does not know how to answer questions put to him, the medical board may not discover important physical disabilities or diseases which would render that man quite unfit for military service. To turn an ignorant man into a room with an Army doctor who is anxious to pass
  1192
  him and only gives a short time to the examination, may be all very well for the ordinary average man, but where a man is suffering from any serious complaint or has a disease of an insidious character which is not apparent from a cursory examination, to do so is to run the most serious risk of passing a man who is-entirely unfit for military service. The Amendment comes in at the critical moment. It says that if any man who has been previously medically rejected can produce a medical certificate of unfitness for military service. he should have the right to appeal to a special medical board. In nine cases out of ten the medical man who would give such a medical certificate is the medical man who has attended him, who knows all about his constitution and has probably treated him at various times when suffering from various complaints which, to the medical man's knowledge, render him unfit for military service. You might have a clear case of that kind, where the competent medical man, perhaps an eminent specialist, discovers an insidious disease, which the average practising medical man would not discover. I remember going once myself to an eminent consulting physician in London and asking him to give me a prescription. He said, "No! every prescription a man writes for a man he does not know is merely an experiment in poisons; the man to write the prescription is the man who knows your constitution, and who has attended you before." In cases where men who have been previously rejected can produce certificates from competent medical men that they are unfit for military service, and especially giving particulars why they are unfit for military service, those men ought to have the right to an appeal to a special medical board.
  Without in any way questioning the conscientiousness and honesty of the Army Medical Boards, there is a little point of professional etiquette which arises in the case of these rejected men. If a man has been rejected and comes up for re-examination, if the Army Medical Board has any sort of suspicion, indeed, they may have actual knowledge, that the man was not examined by an Army doctor, but was examined under the Derby Scheme by a civilian doctor, who did the work in a time of great pressure, there is a natural professional disposition on the. part of the Army medical man to say, "This is all fudge. These civilian doctors have been

  1193
  rejecting everybody. They do not understand what are the qualifications for military service. Whatever the civilian doctors have said, speaking as Army medical men, we know that this man is fit for military service and to military service he shall go." That is not an intentional injustice to the man, but a subconscious professional instinct which we all have in our various professions. It is the business of this House to consider these subconscious prejudices and to safeguard a man who is likely to suffer. I am not in the least anxious that men who are fit for military service should escape that service, but I do not want to turn our Army into an army of cripples. I get so many scores of letters from men who have been rejected, men who have been called up, and upon a cursory examination passed into the Army, but soon to spend all their time in hospital—some of them break down and are permanently injured for life by having a strain put upon them for which they are not physically fit—that I would earnestly appeal to the Financial Secretary to reconsider his decision. Do not let us place them entirely under the control of Army medical men in cases of this kind, but do let us have this right of appeal in certain cases.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I should like to deal with two points mentioned by the last speaker, which are quite distinct in their character. In one part of his speech he seemed to urge that the only satisfactory judge of a man's health was his own medical adviser, who must be appealed to in every case, and if he decided that the man was unfit there must be an appeal to a special board. That cannot possibly be done without the consent of the men's private medical advisers. The other point he raised was that the Army medical doctors were not to be trusted as compared with civilian doctors. I am afraid that he is ignorant of the manner in which the examinations are carried on and of how these boards are constituted. Does he think that all these medical examiners are the same as the old Army doctors? Nothing could be a greater delusion. Does he know that out of 35,000 doctors—I am giving the figures in round numbers—in this country at this moment about 12,000 have placed their services at the disposal of the War Office and are being constantly used for such examinations? An immense number of cases constantly come before doctors who are ordinarily
  1194
  in civil life, but who are giving help to the War Office at this moment, and act perfectly independently of what are called Army doctors. The idea that you are placing the fate of these persons who are to be examined in the hands of a small section of the medical profession who are in the R.A.M.C., and that the civilian doctor is shut out, is, I can assure my hon. Friend, and I am certain that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will confirm me, a complete delusion.
  Mr. G. THORNE: I would join in urging the Financial Secretary to be good enough to reconsider his decision. This is a most important and most reasonable Amendment. The Financial Secretary seems to suggest that it provides that any man has a right of appeal to a special medical board, but the Amendment specifically provides that he can only have that on producing a medical certificate showing that he is unfit for general service or any form of military service. We can assume that no medical man of position would give such a certificate unless he were satisfied that it was a just case that ought to come up for reconsideration by a special medical board. That is a very reasonable and fair proposal, having regard to the special conditions of this Bill.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I rise for the purpose of enforcing the point made by my hon. Friend opposite (Sir H. Craik), and putting forward another for the consideration of the House. The hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Sir T. Walters) seemed to base the whole of his case upon the distinction that he drew between civilian doctors and Army doctors. I should not admit that that distinction, so far as regards scientific knowledge, can be so well maintained now as it might have been formerly, because' one of the most remarkable things in the reform of the Army Medical Service of this country has been the advance in the scientific attainments of Army doctors. The distinction does not really hold good in this case. These boards are composed almost entirely of civilian doctors. I would ask the House to consider whether it can readily be supposed that these civilian doctors, because they have temporarily, under the stress of their country's need, put on khaki, and are rendering loyal service to the interests of their country, should at the same moment be able to divest themselves of

  1195
  their medical skill and medical conscientiousness—that is the word used by the hon. Member—simply because they are wearing khaki? The distinction does not exist. Therefore that basis of argument for the Amendment fails.
  There is another point with regard to the medical certificates which a soldier will have to produce to entitle him to this appeal. From what I have heard I am sure it is true that the medical certificate's that are produced and brought to bear upon the medical board which is examining for military purposes are a very dangerous feature in the whole process. Very wide and extensive use has been made of them in the past. I am sorry to say that they have very often been obtained or used in a manner in which they ought not to have been obtained or used. It is possible for almost any man to obtain such a certificate, which is given very often from motives of humanity, but which is based on very imperfect knowledge of the case, and of which use is made in innumerable cases to defeat the accuracy and justice of the examination by a military medical board. Of course, where those certificates are based, as the hon. Member for the Brightside Division says, upon a real knowledge of the past medical history of the individual, then I grant that they ought to have great weight with the medical board. There are very few people indeed in the position of the private soldier who are able to have constant medical attendance. Consequently there are very few cases of such men who are able to go to a man who knows their medical history. I have had many cases where men have applied to me to ask whether I could not by some influence get them a medical certificate on the spot before they went up for examination. I have said in many cases, "Cannot you produce a certificate from your regular medical attendant?" and in almost every case they have answered, "We have no regular medical attendant. No one who knows our medical history because we have had very little medical history." Therefore, for this Amendment to rely upon a medical certificate from outside would be to introduce rather a dangerous principle into the whole system of military medical examination.
  Sir W. COLLINS: I am sure if the hon. Member for Sheffield had pursued his original intention of entering the medical
  1196
  profession he would not only have been a great ornament to that profession, but he would have learnt, in the course of his. studies, that medicine is not an exact science. You must not expect too much even out of a medical examination. Nevertheless there are medical examinations, and medical examinations, and I was somewhat disappointed to hear the Financial Secretary intimate that future medical examinations would not be different in many respects from those with which we have been familiar in the past. The Leader of the House on the Second Heading said he hoped in the future medical examinations would be so perfect that the risk which had been run in the past would not be run in the future, and it is because I cannot help thinking some improvement might be made in the constitution of the medical boards, at any rate in certain classes of cases, that I regret the reply which the hon. Gentleman gave. As an old teacher in one of the largest medical schools in London I have had the pleasure of teaching both those who have become civilian doctors and those who have entered the Army Medical Service, and I can certainly testify to the equal efficiency of both, and I do not think it fair to institute the comparison which has been made to the detriment of the military as against the civilian. At the same time, only yesterday, I endeavoured to bring before the representative of the War Office a very striking case which came under my own personal notice in which a man suffering from night blindness had been repeatedly examined by medical boards and passed for general service. Although he produced a certificate from a well-known oculist to the effect that he was so suffering, that certificate was disregarded, and it was only when I appealed personally to Sir Alfred Keogh that I secured in a couple of days that man's discharge. Presumably he will come up for re-examination under this Bill, and I am anxious that he shall not appear before the kind of medical board that has hitherto examined him and disregarded his certificate. He has written me a letter saying he dreads a repetition of the jeers and obliquy to which he had submitted, being accused of insobriety and of being a slacker when he was actually suffering from a well-known disease, night blindness, with degeneration of the back of the eye. Anyone with ordinary proper methods of medical examination would have been able to detect it. It is because you cannot expect these

  1197
  medical boards to be composed of universal specialists that it is necessary that they should have an opportunity of calling to their aid specialists and experts. I am anxious to obtain some assurance that that will be the case in the future, as it has not always been the case in the past. I regret that my hon. Friend has not seen his way to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. E. HARVEY: After the very weighty appeal which has been made to him I hope my hon. Friend may see his way to reconsider his decision. The Amendment does not make a general attack upon medical boards. It merely deals with exceptional cases of exceptional hardship which will provide a way for preventing these very grave cases of hardship and injustice from recurring in the future. They have happened in the past. I can give a single instance which will be convincing in itself, and which I have brought to the attention of the War Office, where a man suffering from Bright's disease, with one of his kidneys removed within the past year, was passed for service by a medical board. There was no possibility of appeal. The case was so outrageous that I brought it to the attention of the Secretary of State for War. All he was able to do was to refer it to the same medical board, and they, of course, said they confirmed their previous decision. What happened was that the unfortunate man went up to be drilled and at once became ill. He was only three weeks in the Army, of which he spent sixteen days in hospital, and he has taken five months since he was discharged to get back to a tolerable state of health in which he is able to begin to earn his own living again. That case could never have occurred if there had been a medical court of appeal. It is all that we ask for. It is no reflection on the medical boards, as a whole, because the very best medical board must sometimes make a mistake. It is to provide some means of rectifying these occasional mistakes. I very much hope the Government will consider their decision.
  Mr. NIELD: I have just come from sitting for some hours from a tribunal over which I preside, and I have again met flagrant cases—I do not hesitate to say scandalous cases—in which medical boards have given a variety of decisions gravitating from the worst, that is, Class C 3 to A, and I expressed my astonishment, as no one could help doing before whom this evidence was placed. There is one class of
  1198
  complaint which I put prominently in the speech I made on 1st March. It was persons suffering from internal ulcers. I am sure I impressed the Under-Secretary because he promised that those cases should receive special consideration. I asked the House to think what it means that men who have suffered for years from duodenal ulcer, who can take no solid food, who have been treated as an invalid and have had everything prepared for them, and have been under the care of the medical profession in some cases for eight or ten years and sometimes longer should be sent into the Army classed as A, general service, over and over again. I have the records now. If the House doubts it they can be fetched in ten minutes. I think any impartial person examining those records could only pass one verdict on them—that the diseases are wholly ignored. I have sent information of a Bournemouth case which I mentioned on that occasion where there was pending a final appeal to the special medical board. This man had been absolutely incapacitated for work. It is not a pleasant story to tell, but this poor man was liable to instant fits of the most violent vomiting at all times. He has been before the special medical board. One man examined him for his eyesight, another tested him for his heart, and when a third man was told of this malady, which had made his life a burden to him for many years, he pressed his stomach and finally passed him for general service. I myself have never found a tendency on the part of the private practitioner to abuse his position. I have often noticed the careful wording of the certificate. The certificate stops short sometimes from saying he is not fit for any form of medical service. It says, "I do not think this man could long sustain the duties of general service or of garrison duty abroad or at home," as the case may be, and therefore I think I am entitled to say the evidence shows that the certificate is not being used fraudulently or with intent to mislead.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I drew a great distinction between a certificate which was granted with knowledge of the medical history and an ad hoc certificate obtained without it.
  Mr. NIELD: I accept that quite. I would not suggest for a moment that the certificate of a man who sees a patient for the first time is anything like comparable to that of the man who has treated him

  1199
  for years It would possibly be prudent to qualify it by saying "the production of a certificate of the man who has attended the patient in question." What I am concerned to do is not to keep him out of the Army, because I have done my best for upwards of twelve months to supply men for the Army, but my object is to supply fit men for the Army. I gave the case of Dyer, who only served one effective day, a porter in the central meat market, put upon light work by his employer because he could not do the ordinary drudgery. He was made to appear before a tribunal at the instance of the employer. He got temporary relief, but was finally refused more and was sent into the Army. The second day after he was taken to the depot he was sent to hospital, and from that day forward never did a day's work, and in two months was a dead man. Evidence was given at the inquest that he died as the result of taking food given him which he was not able to take. That is not an isolated case. My Bournemouth correspondent tells me of another case that happened in the West of England. It is prudent that I should refrain from going into too great detail of the calamities which have followed on a persistent policy of sending men into the Army who are not able to take the proper food of the Army when these men might be easily utilised as an Army unit in a definite centre where they could be in billets or treated specially. The evidence I have shows me that the special board is prepared to pass these men in for general service. It is a terrible chapter. We desire to do everything we can to prevent men shirking—there are a great many trying to shirk—but while we are inflicting upon them tremendous pecuniary hardships we ought to prevent them from being sent into the Army only to go into hospital.
  Sir J. SIMON: I have listened carefully to the whole of the Debate, and I am confident that it is the earnest desire of the House to press the Government to consider whether they cannot do something to remedy this matter. I do not think anyone desires to institute comparisons between the Army Medical Service and the great mass of civil doctors, who, indeed, have become for all practical purposes part and parcel of the military service. I have no knowledge which would justify me in condemning in any wholesale way the work which has been done by the ordi-
  1200
  nary medical boards. I am sure they desire to do their duty, and I am quite sure they have had a very hard task put upon them, bat it is perfectly plain from what has been said in this Debate, and from what many of us have heard outside the House, that some serious mistakes have been made, and the House of Commons is only doing its duty if it does its best to see whether these mistakes can be minimised in the future. What is the position of the man whose case we are now considering! He is a man who has already been twice rejected, and he is a man who if his own doctor expresses an adverse view about him is in fact rejected for the third time. Ought we not to find some way by which these men might, under proper safeguard, realise that their case is going to be carefully considered? I have been looking at the Amendment to see whether it is possible to suggest some modifications in it which would induce the Government to alter the Bill in some way. I can imagine that it may be said that though the standard of professional probity is high there may be cases where a medical certificate got at short notice from a man who has no previous knowledge of the case may not be worth very much. That is a perfectly fair observation to make, and we are not passing any undeserved reflection upon a great profession because we say so. If I may give an illustration which comes within my own knowledge, I know from time to time that when a witness who is about to be cross-examined puts in a medical certificate that he is ill and unable to appear, that certificate does not inspire universal confidence. That is perfectly natural.
  Is it not possible for the Government in some way to define what they would require? Is it not possible to insert in the Amendment some words which will require that this medical certificate shall come from a medical practitioner who speaks from personal knowledge of the man's medical history? Is it not possible, if need be, to stipulate that no such certificate shall have this effect unless it states what in the medical man's opinion is the reason why the man in question cannot serve? If limitations of that sort were found to be practicable, at any rate we should feel that some people who are otherwise going to suffer grave injustice, and it may be, as said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Field) great torture, may be protected from that great wrong. I would ask the Financial Secretary, who I am

  1201
  sure has been most anxiously considering this, whether there is not some modification of this Amendment which would commend itself to those who advise him and who at the same time would secure the substance of what is wanted? I cannot help thinking that the particular stress of the argument on the grounds that the country is going to incur a great expense in the matter of pensions if mistakes are made, is a serious consideration, but it is not the real fundamental one. The fundamental one is this, that we are sifting rejected men for the purpose of finding here or there men who though they have borne the heat and burden of this business can none the less be used again, and we are in common decency bound to secure that, at any rate, we do not expose these persons to the unmerited risk of unnecessary suffering, if by good will and by ingenuity we can provide a suitable protection in the form of this Amendment.
  Sir S. COLLINS: I trust the Financial Secretary will reconsider his decision in view of the request that has come from all quarters of the House imploring him to do so. I plead on behalf of the men who have suffered already. I would like to draw attention to the letter which has been referred to. It is a letter received from a poor man who dreaded being re-examined. Perhaps many hon. Members I did not hear it when it was read. The man writes:
  "I have little doubt, from my past experience of Army medical boards, that I shall be passed fit for general service again. Will you let me know what course I ought to adopt? As you know, I am perfectly willing to do what I can; the fact that I enlisted before I was called, and did not appeal, proves that; but rather than go through a second experience of what I had before I would deliberately take my own life and put an end to my troubles once for all. The jeers, the threats and the cruelty are more than I can bear again."
  I will say no more. Those words are an eloquent appeal to the Financial Secretary.
  Mr. FORSTER: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but I am sure the House will allow me to respond to the observations of my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Simon) and other hon. Members. We are all at one in trying to secure fair treatment for the men and fair treatment for the Army. I have been appealed to to allow greater weight to medical certificates. I do not want to make any reflections upon the medical profession, because it is admitted that, as a whole, it is a singularly honourable profession, but it is generally agreed, and has been recognised in the Debate, that some medical certificates are worth a great deal more than others. If we could secure that the medical certificates which were going to be submitted to the Medical Boards were of the better category, then I should not hesitate to accept this at once, but I am afraid from the experience we have had the danger is of a greater character than the House generally recognises, and I am afraid that I cannot at the present moment undertake to accept the view that the presentation of a medical certificate by a man who is being examined ought to secure an examination by the special medical board which my hon. Friends desire. But I clearly recognise the strong view which has been expressed, not only this afternoon, but on the former occasion, and I will undertake to consult with my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War and our advisers, before this Bill goes to another place to-morrow, and I will undertake to see how far we can go in the direction of meeting the views of the House. Further than that I am afraid I cannot go now, and I would ask the House to let us come to a conclusion upon this matter now.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 128.

  Division No. 26.]

  AYES.

  [7.40 p.m.

  Anderson, W. C.

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Rowlands, James

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hogge, James Myles

  Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir C. H. (Mansfield)

  Bliss, Joseph

  Hudson, Walter

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  King, Joseph

  Snowden, Philip

  Clynes, John R.

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Nield, Herbert

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wiles, Rt. Hen. Thomas

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Sir Godfrey Baring and Sir Tudor

  Hackett, John

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Walters.

  NOES.

  Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. M.

  Fetter, Philip Staveley

  Newman, John R. P.

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk. E.)

  Boyton, James

  Gretton, John

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Griffith. Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Brookes, Warwick

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Hancock, John George

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Haslam, Lewis

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Rutherford, Sir John (Darwen)

  Butcher, John George

  Hewart, Sir Gordon

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cave, Rt. Hon. sir George

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hughes Spencer Leigh

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Johnson, William

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cowan, William Henry

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

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

  Tickler, T. G.

  Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Turton, Edmund R.

  Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Whiteley, Herbert J.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wilson, Lt.-Ct. Sir M. (Beth't Green, S. W.)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Fell, Arthur

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, Sir George

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

  Beck and Mr. James Hope.

  Fletcher, John S.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): It had been intended to move, after 1916, "[1916 shall"], to insert the words "including any rights of appeal thereunder." But, in view of what has been since discussel, it does not appear to me that these words, which never were necessary, can even be thought to be desirable.
  The matter arises out of a discussion which took place yesterday. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lanark is about to move an Amendment, which I believe will deal more adequately with the question of substance.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move to insert at the end of the Sub-section the following new Sub-section:
  "If any voluntarily attested man who has been rejected but not treated as discharged is called up for further examination, he shall have the same rights of appeal under the Military Service Acts,
  1204
  1916, as a man on whom a notice requiring him to present himself for examination is served under this Act."
  This Amendment deals with the case of the voluntarily attested man who was subsequently rejected for military service. In the Committee stage we had a long discussion, which was carried on in the main under a misapprehension on both sides, on the part of the Movers of the Amendment and of the representatives of the Government. That misapprehension was that the voluntarily attested man, who had been subsequently medically rejected, came within the terms of Clause 1 of this Bill. This, however, is not the case; and, consequently, unless some further provision is made, he is not entitled to the rights of appeal which are granted to the Conscript under the Military Service Acta. Exception was taken to the Amendment that has been suggested on the gorund that its effect would be to make every voluntarily attested man a Conscript under the Military Service Acts. Accordingly, this Amendment has been devised in the

  1205
  form of a new Sub-section to secure to the voluntarily attested man who has been medically rejected the rights of appeal to which the Conscript is entitled and at the same time not to make him a Conscript under the Military Service Acts. The effect of the first sentence is that if a voluntarily attested man who has been rejected but not treated as discharged had been discharged he would have come under Sub-section (1) of Clause 1, but as he is not treated as discharged he is a soldier and in the Reserve, and consequently comes under none of the three categories in the Sub-section. Consequently this new Sub-section brings within the terms of the second Sub-section all those who are at present outside, and secures to them the rights of appeal to which they would otherwise not be entitled. In other words, this Sub-section creates a legal right of appeal, similar to that enjoyed by the Conscript, on behalf of the voluntarily attested man.
  Mr. HOGGE: In seconding the Amendment, I desire to congratulate my hon. Friend in discovering something which the Solicitor - General and Attorney-General could not discover when this Bill was being discussed previously. It only shows how absurd it is to get a Bill of this sort in the last days of the Session. This question was discussed by the Attorney-General, I think, on Friday, and it was then stated there was nothing in this point, whereas there was a large class of men who were being cut out. This has been discovered, and I only mention it to emphasise the fact that these things do happen, and as an evidence of the absurd lengths to which legislation goes when it is rushed through at the end of the Session.
  Sir G. HEWART: The Government will accept this Amendment, and I will not be provoked by what the hon. Member says to refer to questions about discovery or even to questions about authorship. But there was one observation of his so inaccurate that I must at once correct it. He said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had stated that there was nothing in this point. What the Attorney-General did say was that the voluntarily attested man had a right of appeal, and that, if I may be permitted to say so, was perfectly accurate. But the right of appeal which he has rests at present upon certain instructions. What we are doing in accepting this Sub-section
  1206
  is to put the right of appeal on a statutory basis. I hope that this Sub-section will meet the sense of the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert the words "or if he shows that owing to the loss of a limb or any total or permanent disablement he is incapable of military service."
  The House will remember that this-matter was under discussion on Friday and that I promised my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-West Lanark that on Report we would introduce words similar to these, and I hope that the House-will accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. J. MASON: I think that the House has passed this Bill with some considerable degree of reluctance, and it is desirable that we should ask ourselves why a Bill so unpopular, as we all realise this is, should have been necessary. I do not hesitate to-say that this Bill became necessary in a very large degree owing to the refusal of the House of Commons to accept the facts which have been brought about by the War. The House of Commons has always so far been in favour of extending exemptions, and refusing to face the real question of the supply of men. We all know that the position as regards exemptions is quite different from and far more unsatisfactory than it is in any other country engaged in the War. We have a large number of men who are sheltering in. Government Departments. We have a very unsatisfactory system created by the trade union card system. We have also a considerable number of exemptions made by the tribunals unreasonably. But these difficulties are aggravated by the fact that we have no proper substitution system by which we can provide substitutes from men who are either unfit for military service or who are too old for military service for the men who could be got if substitutes could be found, and who are fit for military service. The system of substitution that was attempted for getting men into Classes B and C to be used as substitutes for Class A has not proved satisfactory. Great numbers of these B and C men are still employed in very unessential work, though they could be

  1207
  employed as substitutes? With all due respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not agree that the new voluntary system is a success. I know a considerable number of men who have volunteered under the National Service system and I do not know a single man who has been made use of or called on. It is quite time that some system should be found by which real substitutes can be got from men who are not doing essential work in the country to replace the men who are fit for foreign service, and who now are employed either in Government Departments or other places, and who should be set free by finding substitutes to take their place. It is quite time that the House of Commons deliberately faced this, and tried to find some system of substitution which would be really effective, and which would work out in such a way as to give us the men whom not only we need so sorely, but whom we must have in time if they are to be of real use.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I quite appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about the feeling of reluctance throughout the House in connection with this Bill, but I am not going to do more than repeat what I have said on more than one occasion, and that is that the justification for it—and I think it is a sufficient justification—is its necessity. I would remind the House of the understanding at which we arrived last night. I am quite sure that but for that understanding there would have been a desire to have a general discussion on the Third Reading, but I hope that, under the circumstances, the House will agree to the Motion at once.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: In view of the understanding to which my hon. Friend has referred I shall refrain from making any general observations on the measure which has now been reported to the House. I cannot, however, refrain from observing, when my right hon. Friend says this Bill is a necessity, that that statement is not founded on fact. The Bill is not a necessity. The number of men required for the Army is undoubtedly a necessity, but there could be hardly a worse way of meeting that need than the one that has been chosen. I have not opposed the Government in the course of this measure, and, indeed, they have been generally supported by the House. But my right hon. Friend will make a very great mistake if he underrates
  1208
  the amount of resentment that will be felt throughout the country at the inequitable, unfair, and harsh provisions which are inserted in this Bill, and at the very partial and clumsy manner in which it attempts to meet the needs of the State. It is not true to say that the Bill will supply the men which the Army needs. It will do nothing of the sort. The 100,000 men of whom my right hon. Friend has spoken by no means cover the needs of the War Office at the present time. The establishment of the Army requires a larger number than that to place it at its proper strength, and these 100,000 men neither relate to the needs of the State nor are the methods by which they are to be obtained in any general relation to the resources at our disposal. Everyone knows there are very large areas of recruiting which should have been brought under survey simultaneously with these invalided and disabled men who are the principal subjects of this measure. If we were going to deal with this question, we ought to have dealt with it with design on an orderly system and on a scientific basis. The Government should have made up their minds how-many men they were going to take from the essential industries of the country—shipbuilding and agriculture—for the service of the Army in the present year, and when they had decided what that number was to be they should have arranged their war policy during the present year accordingly, and made it clear that the operations which are to be undertaken must be of a character to conform with our available resources. Then having done that, their object should be to bring all the available resources under survey, not only the classes which come within the scope of this measure, but those other numerous classes which ought to be drawn upon pari passu with the men covered by the scope of this Bill. I regret very much that the Government have dealt with this great question of man-power in a way which shows that they are relying on a hand-to-mouth policy and endeavouring to meet the great difficulties of the War not by any scientific method of supplying the needs of the Army in relation to the competing needs at home, but by small detached, partial, harsh and fallacious expedients such as that embodied in this Bill.
  Mr. BILLING: On several occasions I have endeavoured to make some small contributions to the Debates on this Bill and it is with considerable reluctance that I rise now, because if I had had an oppor-

  1209
  tunity earlier I should have availed myself of it in order to deliver the remarks I now desire to put before the House. In the first place, I would like to echo the words I have just heard from the Front Opposition Bench. I too have endeavoured to raise by question and answer in this House the subject of National Service. I am perfectly satisfied that the voluntary National Service scheme is going to be a fiasco. I am equally satisfied that if, three months ago, a form of compulsory National Service had been introduced we should now be in a position really to meet the necessities of our essential industries. The absence of a carefully thought-out system of National Service is, to my mind, responsible for the present what I may call pannicky legislation which is being passed through this House.
  Sir H. CRAIKrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the House will come to a decision very shortly. There was an understanding arrived at last night as to the time by which these stages of the Bill should be completed, and the House is always accustomed to observe such understandings. I think, therefore, it will come to a decision without any necessity for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. BILLING: I am exceedingly sorry if I am trespassing on the time of the House, but I do propose, with the permission of the Chair, to exercise the privilege which I have as a Member of this House of rising in my seat and contributing to any Debate in which I feel it my duty to take part, and I must ask you for facilities for exercising that right. If I had had an opportunity—which I endeavoured to secure time after time—of making the remarks I wish to give expression to now, I should not have found it necessary to rise now. What I wish to state is that I hope this Bill has taught the Government a lesson in this respect, that this House is not going to accept lying down any form
  of Bill which it cares to introduce. I hope these proceedings will also suggest to the Government that it is not always advisable to leave one Minister—no matter how able—and I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Under-Secretary for War on his accomplishment of the exceedingly difficult task he has had in hand—it is not always advisable to leave one member of the Government to fight a Bill like this single-handed. I would suggest that if the Under-Secretary for War had had some assistance he might have been able to close down quite a number of highly debatable points.
  Furthermore, may I add that I think the whole of this question could have been solved if the Government had decided to raise the age for recruits. I have suggested time and again that a sound man of forty-five is better than a crock of thirty-five. There are plenty of sound men in this country between the ages of forty and forty-five. I believe I am right in saying that our Allies, the French, have raised the age to fifty years, yet we are still combing out men under forty years of age, and we are sending back to the trenches, not merely for the second time but possibly for the third time, men who have already done their bit and are now totally unfit to go. All this is being done simply because the nation has not been properly organised or combed out. There are thousands of men in Government offices to-day, and in non-essential trades as well, who could be called up. This Bill is about as unpopular a piece of legislation as any which any Government has. had the misfortune to introduce. I trust it. will be successful, but that is all I can say. I do not propose to register the one vote I possess against it, because I consider that no Member of this House should do-anything to hamper the Government in getting the men that are needed, no matter how much we may disapprove of the methods adopted.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 19

  Division No. 27.]

  AYES.

  [8.11 p.m.

  Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

  Bliss, Joseph

  Carew, C.

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Boyton, James

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Barnes, Rt. Hen. Geerge N.

  Brookes, Warwick

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Billing, Pemberton

  Butcher, John George

  Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.).

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Croft, Lieut.-Col. Henry Page

  Johnson, W.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Jones. W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Robinson, Sidley

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Rowlands, James

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs, Darwen)

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Samuels, Arthur W.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Macmaster, Donald

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Aston)

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

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

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Stewart, Gershom

  Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Gretton, John

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

  Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Hancock, J. G.

  Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

  Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Monro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  Haslam, Lewis

  Nield, Herbert

  Wilson, Lt.-Ct. SirM. (Beth'l Green, S. W.)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Wilson-Fox, Henry

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pratt, J. W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr.

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Primrose.

  NOES.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

  Snowden, Philip

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Thorne, G. R (Wolverhampton)

  Clynes, John R.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Goldstone, Frank

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Hudson, Walter

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Hogge and Mr. Anderson.

  King, Joseph

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.—[progress, 2nd April.]
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Relief from Disqualification for Membership of House of Commons in Certain Cases.)
    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—

    (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

    1212

    (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.

    Amendment proposed [2nd April]:] To leave out paragraph (a).—[Mr. Rowlands.]
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'property,' stand part of the Clause."—[Mr. Rowlands.]
    Sir G. HEWART: I intervene at this moment in order to deal with certain difficulties which were raised, or were being raised, at the close of yesterday's Debate. Exception was taken to Clause 4 upon two main grounds—first, because it contained paragraph (a), which is in some respects contrasted with paragraph (b), and secondly, because, from the generality of

    1213
    the words employed, some at any rate of the hon. Members of the Committee thought it might go somewhat beyond the necessities of the case. Therefore, in the meantime, I have drafted certain Amendments which I venture to hope will meet the difficulties that have been raised in various quarters. Perhaps it will be convenient if, before I move, if I may move, indeed, the first necessary Amendment, I were to read the Clause as a whole, as it would read in its amended form. I would like to say just this about it before I read it, that it seemed to some of us that this Clause, which is manifestly of an exceptional nature, should be prefaced in the Statute by some words of an explanatory and introductory character, that will clearly explain to the casual reader of the Statute, if any such curious person should arise, the special circumstances in which this Clause became law. That is my first observation. My second is that the effect of the alteration which I shall propose to make is to limit the relief granted by the Clause to cases in which there has been in some form or other requisition by a Government Department. I venture to hope that these two ingredients have been secured—first, the explanatory and limiting words, and secondly, a clear statement that the foundation of that which is being dealt with is in some form or another a requisition—though it may be sometimes a rather informal requisition—for the purposes of the War. The new Clause, with the Amendments which I propose to submit, if they are accepted by the Committee, will read in this way:
    "Whereas, by reason of the emergencies of the present War, Members of the Commons House of Parliament have sometimes been, or may hereafter be, required to supply property to, or to permit the use thereof—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeds further, I would suggest to him that it is necessary that the hon. Member for Dart-ford (Mr. Rowlands) should withdraw his Amendment.
    Sir J. SIMON: I understand that the learned Solicitor-General is now generally dealing with certain Amendments, and indicating the form of those Amendments, and I do not understand that he is
    1214
    going to move them, and therefore it would not be necessary that the hon. Member for Dartford should withdraw his Amendment.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought it well to make it quite clear, before the Solicitor-General came to the end of his observations, as I was under the impression that he was then going to move the first Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Have we not agreed that all the words of the Clause down to paragraph (a) are to stand part?
    Sir G. HEWART: No Amendment has yet been put or accepted on this Clause.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Dart-ford (Mr. Rowlands) has been put, but it is quite open to him to withdraw it.
    Sir J. SIMON: Assuming that the question was put and negatived, would not the Solicitor-General then be in order in moving his Amendments?
    Sir G. HEWART: My right hon. Friend (Sir J. Simon) was perfectly right in saying that I was speaking to the Amendment which has already been moved. With the Amendments which I propose to move the Clause would read:
    "Whereas by reason of the emergencies of the present War Members of the Commons House of Parliament have sometimes been or may hereafter be required to supply property to or to permit the use thereof by a Government Department for purposes connected with the present War, it is hereby declared that 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 a contract or agreement entered into during the present War as to the price or compensation to be paid for any property so requisitioned or taken or as to any other terms on which any property so requisitioned or taken is to be handed over or supplied."
    It will be apparent at once that if those Amendments are accepted that which is desired by the Amendment of my hon. Friend will have been done, because there will be no paragraph (a) or paragraph (b,) and the words which distinguish those paragraphs will have disappeared. The

    1215
    whole matter will then be founded on requisition, I do not know whether in those circumstances my hon. Friend is prepared to withdraw.
    Sir J. SIMON: I feel certain my hon. Friend would want to consider these words before he withdraws. I think the suggestion made by the Solicitor-General has got these two very considerable advantages. In the first place, if we are going to do anything at all, surely we ought to do it in a form which shows upon the face of the Statute that we are doing something entirely exceptional. If we put it in the form in which it appeared in the original Bill I think it was open to very grave objection, because it undoubtedly did give the impression when you read it that we were quite prepared to throw over the well-known provisions in our Statute which prevent Members from making contracts with the Government. I think it is a very desirable thing that we should adhere to that quite strictly in ordinary times, if only for the sake of example. The circumstances of the time are exceptional. Probably we have all had experience of that in the different stages of the War. If you happened to be a person who owned a horse, or a rick of hay, or many other things, it would probably happen that someone representing the authorities would come along and intimate their desire to take what belonged to you for the service of the State. I think it is only proper that not only should a man show himself not unwilling, but that he should do everything he could to assist the authorities to carry the transaction through without any loss of time. In many cases Members of this House with the best of motives may have assisted in transactions of that sort. As long as we have something to show that the Government are not seeking' to cover up some flagrant case, but are endeavouring to meet what is an incident in connection with the requisitioning by the authorities, I should rather hope we may be disposed to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman. As I took objection to the form of the Clause as it originally appeared, and as I do not feel the same objection to what is now proposed, it is only right I should get up and say so. I am sure we are very grateful to the Solicitor-General not only for the care he has taken throughout the Bill in explaining its provisions, but for the suggested form
    1216
    of words which may meet what my hon. Friend wishes to effect. As far as I am concerned, I do not propose further to resist this proposal, but I hope my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of studying these words, which I have only just read, before he is really asked to withdraw his own proposal.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Waltham-stow (Sir J. Simon) in thanking the Solicitor-General for the way in which he has set to work to meet the desire we had and the objection some of us raised to the Clause in its present form. If I decide to withdraw, seeing that this is an entirely new Clause, has not the first part of the Clause to come out, and that stood part, I believe, before I moved my Amendment?
    Sir G. HEWART: My proposed Clause is, in fact, the old Clause with the middle part left out. and with a new introductory part.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: How will the hon. and learned Gentleman get that; new part in without going back?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In order that we may go back the hon. Member must withdraw. If he does not withdraw. then in all probability his Amendment will be negatived, and the negatived words, proposed to be left out will stand part and therefore we will have to go on from those. If he withdraws his Amendment there is nothing to prevent us going back to the beginning again.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Under those conditions, I beg leave to withdraw, and we-can consider the matter on Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words "Whereas by reason of the emergencies of the present War Members of the Commons House of Parliament have sometimes been or may hereafter be required to supply property to or to permit the use thereof by a Government Department for purposes connected with the present War, it is hereby declared that."
    This is the first of the little series of Amendments which will give effect to the reconstruction of the Clause that I have outlined.
    Mr. KING: I believe I was the first Member of this House to call attention to this Clause. I spoke on the second read-

    1217
    ing and interested other Members in the peculiar nature of it. I have followed the discussions on it right through, listening more than speaking upon it. In the first place, I thank the Solicitor-General very heartily indeed for his attempt to meet what has evidently been not only the strong feeling, but I venture to say also the better sense and higher aspirations of the House in this matter. Whatever may go in these times of war, let our integrity and our high sense of public spirit and freedom from all desire of personal gain or suspicion of profiteering be maintained. I am quite sure we are all at one in that, and we thank the hon. Gentleman very heartily for his Amendments. Let me say, however, that he must not expect us entirely to give him the reputation of being infallible until we have seen his Amendments all together on the Report stage. I shall not interrupt at all now, but he must allow us to have the Report stage after Easter, when we shall have it all before us, and I hope that any delay in the Bill will be of no real public detriment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (a).
    I am quite sure my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Rowlands) will hear this suggestion without reluctance.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move to leave out the words "on or after the said date," in order to insert instead thereof the words "during the present War."
    The effect of that is to provide that the operation of this Clause is limited to the period of the War.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move to leave out the words "by any Government Department for purposes connected with the present War."
    That is because, as the Clause is now sought to be reconstituted, these words become unnecessary inasmuch as they appear in the earlier part of the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "supplied," to insert the words "This Section shall not affect any legal proceedings instituted before the 21st day of February, 1917."
    1218
    The object is quite plain, namely, that if legal proceedings have been already instituted which this Section would now prevent, those proceedings shall not by this subsequent legislation be prevented from going on. I understand the Solicitor-General will accept this, as it is quite obvious that it is a necessary addendum to the Clause.
    Sir G. HEWART: I propose to accept this Amendment, and I do so for this reason only, that in the absence of the fullest particulars of the case in question it seems to me and to others to be a strong thing to ask the House of (Commons to pass a Bill which would have the effect of defeating an action known to have already commenced. My hon. Friend was good enough to tell me of this action on the eve, I think, of the Second Reading of the Bill, and since then I have had the opportunity of learning a little more about it, and in accepting this Amendment I should like to make this observation, in order that there may be no mistake: It must not be in the smallest degree inferred from the fact that this Amendment is accepted that I think there is any foundation at all for the action to which my hon. Friend has called my attention. It must not be in the smallest degree inferred that I anticipate for that action a certain result, but in the circumstances, and without prejudice to any question arising in that action, it did seem right to provide that nothing in the new Clause should affect the proceedings commenced before the date of the introduction of the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. BILLING: I did not hear what you said, Mr. Maclean. I was listening very carefully, so that I might be able to move an Amendment to leave out Clause 4. standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) and myself.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry. I thought I put the Question quite clearly, "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill." We have passed it.
    Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. I have been waiting the whole evening to move my Amendment, and I thought that the Question you put would be spoken in the tone that one could hear. I must say that I was sitting here carefully listening,

    1219
    and I did not hear you put the Question. Perhaps you will admit, Mr. Maclean, that you read it rather quickly, and that it was quite reasonable that I should not have heard it. Under these circumstances, perhaps you will permit me to make the remarks I intended to make on the Clause.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot add anything to what I have already said. I read the Question quite distinctly.
    Clause 5 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Relief in Respect of Certain (Contractual Obligations.))
    (1)Where by virtue of any contract of tenancy any person is bound to do or abstain from doing or is under any liability if he does or abstains from doing any actor thing, and by virtue of any regulation made under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm the doing of such act or thing is restricted or enjoined, he shall not during the continuance of the contract or on the determination thereof be liable to pay any sum of money or incur any for feiture or other penalty in respect of the failure to do or the doing of such act or thing if and in so far as the failure to do or the doing of such act or thing is attributable to compliance with such restriction or injunction as aforesaid:
    Provided that the relief afforded by this provision from the obligation to do any such act or thing in consequence of such a restriction as aforesaid shall be subject to the following provisions:—

    (a) If the restriction is removed during the currency of the contract the obligation shall be fulfilled as soon as may be after the restriction is removed;

    (b) If the restriction has not been removed before the termination of the contract the person to whom the relief is given shall be liable to pay as damages a sum equal to the expenditure (if any) which would have been entailed by the fulfilment of the obligation.

    (2)Where upon any application by any party to a contract the Court is satisfied that owing to any restriction or direction imposed or given by or in pursuance of any regulation made under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm any term of the contract cannot be enforced without serious hardship, the Court may,
    1220
    after considering the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties to the contract and any offer which may have been made by the party for the variation of the contract, suspend or annul the contract on such conditions (if any) as the Court may think fit.—[Sir G. Heuart.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    May I say what is the purpose of the Clause, and its scope? It relates, and relates only, to contracts of tenancy. It is designed to meet the difficulty that sometimes under the Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act a tenant is required to do something which by his contract of tenancy he has covenanted not to do, or to leave undone something which by his contract of tenancy he has covenanted to do. Take, for example, the not rare case which occurs by reason of the work—the admirable work, if I may say so—of the War Agricultural Executive Committee. That: Committee, under the Cultivation of Lands Order of last year, may require, and does require, agricultural tenants to do certain acts, and to do those acts notwithstanding that their leases or their agreements of tenancy may require that they should not do them. There may be leases in which there is a covenant not to break up pasture. There are leases which provide for the payment of damages if pasture is broken up. Similarly there are leases in which there is a provision that the lessee shall leave the land in grass at the end of the tenancy. These are not uncommon cases. It would seem hard indeed upon the tenant in such cases that he should suffer penalties or incur damages because at the bidding of the War Agricultural Executive Committee, under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act, he is compelled to do, by reason of the requirements of the War, something which by his lease he is forbidden to do. A similar hardship occurs in the case of a tenant of a dwelling house, where, for example, there is painting to be done, and where, by reason of the Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act it is impossible for him to have the painting done. In that class of cases, and that class of cases alone, it is proposed to give the relief contained in this Clause. The relief is subject to this proviso:

    1221

    (a) If the restriction is removed during the currency of the contract the obligation shall be fulfilled as soon as may be after the restriction is removed;

    (b) If the restriction has not been removed before the termination of the contract the person to whom the relief is given shall be liable to pay as damages a sum equal to the expenditure {if any) which would have been entailed by the fulfilment of the obligation.

    Sub-section (2) has a somewhat wider scope. It applies to any contract of whatever kind which comes with in its definition. It extends to contracts in general the kind of remedy which is given in Clause 1 to certain contracts, but only in cases where the difficulty arises by reason of Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act. I do not know that I need take up the time of the Committee further by explaining these matters. Both Subsections are designed to meet grievances which have come to the knowledge of the various Departments of the Government in the course of the War, and the Clause has been framed, and carefully framed, in order to meet those grievances, and not to go beyond them.
    Mr. SALTER: There are one or two observations which I should like to make which perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind between now and the Report stage. Dealing first with the second part of the Clause which is concerned with cases of hardship, I have nothing at all to say against it, because the Courts may be authorised to deal with such cases of hardship. I would suggest, however, to my hon. and learned Friend whether this part of the Clause might not be improved by giving the Courts power to vary as well as to suspend or annul contracts. Contracts to which this Clause applies will doubtless in most cases be partially fulfilled, and either suspension or annulment may sometimes be a very incomplete and inadequate remedy. It is a very great novelty, no doubt, to allow any Court to make a bargain for the parties. I cannot help thinking it might be expedient to entrust the judges with discretion, in the very exceptional circumstances of the present time, of varying as well as suspending or annulling contracts. As to the further part of the proposed new Clause, about that I have felt some little uneasiness, is it more than a
    1222
    declaratory Clause, and perhaps a not very happily phrased declaratory Clause? It appears to be a Clause providing for this state of things: A person has undertaken to do a thing which is lawful at the time when he undertakes to do it, but which becomes unlawful by subsequent enactment, and in that state of things the Clause provides, in short, that no action for damages shall be incurred. Is it not a long-established law that where a contract to do a thing is lawful at the time when the contract is made, and becomes a contract to do an unlawful thing by subsequent legislation, no action can be brought? Is it not merely a Section declaratory, in a narrow and an inconvenient way, of long settled law? If it is, my hon. and learned Friend will be the first to agree that it is undesirable to enact it. I suggest that to his consideration. Perhaps he will turn it over in his mind before Report.
    There are two smaller points which puzzle me a little. I have some difficulty in reconciling the enacting part of this proposed new Clause with the second proviso. The enacting part provides, as I have just said, that where there is a nonperformance of a promise, in consequence of the performance of that promise having become illegal through subsequent legislation, then there shall be no liability to damages. Then comes the second proviso, which appears to provide that in that very case—that is, if the restriction should not be removed before the termination of the contract—the person to whom the relief is given should be liable to pay damages, and either I have read the thing unintelligibly—I have read it as carefully as I can—or else there is a. contradiction between the enacting part of the proviso, which provides that he shall not be liable for damages, and the proviso which says that he shall. The last point—a comparatively small one—to which I would ask my hon. and learned Friend to give his attention is the description of the proposed damages. The damages a person has to pay is "a sum equal to the expenditure (if any) which would have been entailed by the fulfilment of the obligation." I do not think that that can have been intended. Take a short, concrete instance. Take the ease of a tenancy of a house and garden for three years expiring next July upon condition that the landlord builds a wall round a garden, which might cost him some hundreds of pounds. Then comes a restriction which prevents him from

    1223
    building, and, if these words are to be read as they run, the sum to be paid in those circumstances to the outgoing tenant would be a sum equal to the expenditure which would have been entailed by building the wall, which might be two or three times the rent of the premises for the whole of the three years. The expression is not very happy, because I think I am. right in saying the damages are always greater, not by the cost to the person who breaks the contract, but by the damages sustained by the person who suffers. Is this not expressed in the wrong way? Should not the words be "sustained by the non-fulfilment"? That would put the matter right at once. I hope the learned Solicitor-General will consider whether any part of the first half of the proposed new Clause is desirable.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. BOYTON: Like the hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter), I do not rise in any spirit of criticism with regard to this new Clause, but only of inquiry. I take it that the object of this Clause is largely to relieve the lessee from the performance of a covenant for dilapidations and repairs during the War. But I observe that it says, "he shall not during the continuance of the contract or on the determination thereof be liable to pay any sum of money, or—"Those words make it practically impossible for landlord and tenant to agree between themselves over a money payment for an obligation which falls upon the tenant. It does seem to me that that is taking the option of contract between parties entirely away from them, and it would be better if the words "liable to pay any sum of money" were left out, and it was left to the parties to agree between themselves. Then does not the second part of the Clause go too far when it gives the Court the power to annul the contract? The hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke suggested "suspend or vary," which might be good, but "annul," I think, goes too far. I should be obliged if the learned Solicitor-General would clear up the doubts in my mind as to the position between landlord and tenant. As I said, I do not rise in any spirit of criticism. I realise, in times like these, that legislation is very necessary to prevent any unfair action on the part of landlords trying to force covenants against tenants who are quite unable, owing to the circumstances of the times, to comply with them.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I should like to try to reinforce two or three of the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke. First of all, I was interested to find that he asked power to vary, as I asked last night, but the learned Solicitor-General was unable to accept that alteration, and I confess I did not follow him. When I find the hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke asking that there should be something in between the extreme penalty of annulment and suspension, I desire to reinforce his observations. I do not think the hon. and learned Member for Basingstoke quite appreciated that Sub-section (1) applies "during the continuance of the contract," and with regard to the proviso (b,) that deals with the-question of what is to happen at the termination of the contract.
    Mr. SALTER: I think the hon. and learned Member is wrong. The words are, "He shall not during the continuance of the contract or on the determination thereof."
    Mr. POLLOCK: Be it so. Perhaps I am wrong. The learned Solicitor-General will tell us what he means about that. But if you are going to put in any damages at all, you had far better leave the question of damages at large to be settled by ordinary rules, which are far more flexible, and provide a suitable standard by which to measure, than put a purely arbitrary measure in the Bill itself. The last observation I desire to make is with regard to Sub-section (2),. which is of a much wider application than. Sub-section (1) which deals with a contract of tenancy only, while Sub-section (2) deals with wider cases of contracts which were not merely contracts of tenancy. If so, I hope he will move that as a separate and independent Clause, otherwise it is very inconvenient to find those words appended under a Clause which deals with a contract of tenancy and which are intended to have a much wider application.
    Colonel GRETTON: With regard to the observations which have been made by my two hon, and learned Friends in reference to variation of contracts, it seems to me quite anomalous that the Court, on application made to it, can inquire into the variation of a contract proposed by one of the parties, and after having considered those variations, have the power to suspend or annul the contract. Surely if these variations have been accepted the

    1225
    Court should have power to enforce variations which are just and equitable. It seems that the words about continuing variations of contract are meaningless unless the Court has power to deal with this point. I am not trained in law, but I am a man accustomed to deal with business, and it certainly strikes me as anomalous that the Court should be required to take cognisance and consider certain things, and yet they are not able to deal with those matters.
    Sir G. HEWART: I will endeavour to deal with the points which have been raised in the order in which they were raised. First of all, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Salter) and others raised a point with regard to Sub-section (2) of the proposed new Clause, and they contended that the power which was given to the Court in the cases to which the Sub-section applies ought to include power to vary the contract. The objection to that course is the same as the objection that I urged yesterday when a like Amendment was proposed with regard to Clause 1, and it is that it seems impracticable to put upon a learned judge of the High Court, or in the cases in which he would have jurisdiction a learned judge of the County Court, the task of making a new contract between the parties. It does at the first blush appear anomalous that a Court which is given power to suspend or annul is not given what at first might be thought the lesser power of varying. I submit to the Committee that when one looks at the Clause as a whole it is apparent that the power given to the Court is not a mere power to suspend or to annul, but such powers of variation are entrusted to the Court as ought to be imposed upon the Court by the existing provisions of the Clause. Let us see how it stands. When an application is made to the Court, the Court may take into consideration not only the circumstances of the case, and the position of the parties, but also any offer that may have been made for the variation of the contract.
    Let us suppose a hypothetical case. A person who finds that, by reason of a restriction or direction imposed in pursuance of a Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act, he cannot perform his contract goes to the Court and the learned judge ascertains that he has made a very reasonable offer, or what appears to be a very reasonable offer, to the other party to the contract. The judge may very well
    1226
    say that unless that offer is accepted the Court will exercise its power of annulling the contract. If the other party demands his pound of flesh, then the Court may annul the contract or postpone the performance of the contract. Therefore, I submit that the practical utility that could be got out of an express power of varying the contract in the Court is contained in the provisions of this Clause.
    With regard to the criticisms made upon Sub-section (1), I gather that my hon. and learned Friend contends that it is superfluous, but I venture to say that it is not open to that criticism. It is true that where a contract lawful at the time of its being made is rendered unlawful by a subsequent enactment its performance is excused, but the cases which arise, and have caused considerable trouble and inconvenience, are by no means so simple.
    Take the case I mentioned of a lease containing a covenant whereby the lessee undertakes to pay an additional rent if pasture is broken up. In a way that may be said to be a covenant not to break up pasture, nor would he be disposed to break up pasture unless some influence of an external kind were brought upon him to compel him to do so. The Cultivation of Lands Order requires him to break up his pasture. There is nothing unlawful in it, and it is contemplated by the lease itself, nor is there anything unlawful in his being required to pay the additional rent. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that if the case were as simple as he supposes, a contract lawful at the outset rendered unlawful by subsequent legislation, there would be no difficulty and no occasion for this Clause. The difficulty arises because the cases are by no means of that simple character. Then the hon. and learned Member says that the proviso in Sub-section (1) of the Clause takes back that which the Clause itself gives, but I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend and to those who assented to his criticism that that is not quite fair to the words of the proviso. It will be apparent that Subsection (1) refers, as it is bound to refer, to covenants of two kinds, covenants to do certain acts and covenants to refrain from doing certain acts. There may be in the one case acts of commission and in the other case acts of omission. The proviso is more limited in its scope. The proviso relates only to covenants of a positive character, where there is an obligation to do some act or thing, as, for example, to take a simple case, to paint at stated

    1227
    intervals during the term or upon notice during the term. The tenant is excused from the performance of that covenant at the time when it should have been performed. Then cornea the proviso: If the restriction which prevents him from getting the painting done is removed—
    Notice taken that forty Members were not present. House counted; and, forty Members being found present—
    Sir G. HEWART: I was referring to the words in the proviso, and taking as an example a covenant in a lease to paint. What the proviso does is to ensure, if the restriction is removed during the tenancy, that the covenant shall forthwith be performed. On the other hand, if the restriction is continued until the end of the tenancy, the tenant is not to escape altogether from the burden of his covenant, but he is to pay a sum by way of damages. Criticism was directed to the measure of the damages. In ordinary circumstances the measure is the damage which is suffered by the person who has to be paid. Here, to ensure that the person who cannot fulfil his covenant at the time when it should be fulfilled shall not pay an undue amount in consequence of the non-fulfilment at the conclusion of the tenancy, a different measure is taken, I am so far in agreement with my hon. and learned Friend as to think that it would be well to substitute for the words "a sum equal to the expenditure," the words "a sum not exceeding the expenditure." Subject to that Amendment, I submit that the criticism upon the Clause fails. My hon. and learned Friend suggested, and others have also suggested, that this Clause contains material which may well be considered between the present hour and the time of the Report. I sincerely hope that it is not in the minds of members of the Committee that the Report Stage is going to be taken upon some other day. This is a Rill which, for various reasons, has suffered considerable delay since the Second Reading took place, and the matters in controversy have been so thoroughly thrashed out that I hope most sincerely, when the deliberations of the Committee have been brought to an end, that we may be able to get the Report stage of the Bill to-night.
    Mr. POLLOCK: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point I suggested as to dividing this into two Clauses?
    Sir G. HEWART: I really do not think, with all due respect, that the difficulty which my hon. and learned Friend mentioned is so great as he seems to fear. The marginal note is "Relief in respect of certain contractual obligations." The Clause is divided into two parts. The first part relates to contracts of tenancy and the second part relates to contracts of various kinds. I do not know that any useful purpose would be served by dividing the Clause into two.
    Mr. POLLOCK: There is no difficulty at all to those who are lawyers, but it would be easier for a great number of persons if there were separate catch-notes and the Clause were divided into two. It is a little difficult for a person who wants to understand it and has not got professional knowledge. I see no reason why it should not be done, and if it makes it a little plainer I hope that it will be done.
    Colonel GRETTON: May I support what my hon. and learned Friend has said? Acts of Parliament in their general features should be understandable by laymen. If a layman does not understand it he cannot go to one learned in the law for advice, because he does not know even the outline of the law. It certainly is most difficult for a layman to understand this Clause. It really deals with separate matters, and I would beg the Solicitor-General, in the interests of the general public, if not of those learned in the law, to give way.
    Sir G. HEWART: I am perfectly clear about one thing. The point is not worth a great deal of discussion, and I shall be quite happy therefore to divide the Clause into two.
    Clause read a second time.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (b,) leave out the words "equal to," and insert instead thereof the worde "not exceeding."—[Sir G. Hewart.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to be added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Maintenance of Contract for Life Employment.)
    Any contract securing for a person employment for life in any undertaking shall not be abrogated by such person entering upon any form of national service or military service during the period of the present War.—[Mr. C. Duncan.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The reason for the New Clause is as follows: There are in this country, especially in connection with insurance companies, many of which have been amalgamated within recent years, and, as a condition of such amalgamation, many men who are employed for the whole of their lives. It will be obvious to anybody that when these men are taken either into military service or National Service it may be alleged that the contract has been broken, and that the employer of the person may thereby be excused from the arrangement which had been entered into. I hope consideration will be given to the matter, as it does affect in a serious way a considerable number of people who are very much afraid that if a Clause of this kind is not put in the Bill their position will be jeopardised.
    Sir G. HEWART: I am afraid I cannot accept this Clause. I have not sufficient knowledge either of the kind of grievance to which the hon. Member refers or of the extent to which it prevails to be satisfied that any such provision is necessary. One can understand a freehold office for life, but, shortly, I confess, from the information which is before me, that I find it difficult to believe that any such Clause as this is required.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Enemy Raids Reinstatement.)
    In the case of damage to property caused by enemy raids an insurance company who pays or becomes liable to pay compensation for such damage shall not be entitled by subrogation or otherwise to the rights of the insured person, and the insured person who has received such compensation shall have no rights against any other party in respect of the damage for which he has received compensation.—[Mr. Boyton.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. BOYTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I have been induced to put down this new Clause because in one of the recent air raids a property to the value of some £3,000 was destroyed by Zeppelin bombs. The freeholder in that case had insured
    1230
    with Lloyd's, and Lloyd's paid him under that policy, but they claimed the right of subrogation in order to force him to enforce against the lessee of the freeholder the covenants which the lessee had agreed with the freeholding lessor to perform, namely, to maintain, support, sustain, uphold, and insure. The lessee was not a party to the policy. No doubt the underwriters of Lloyd's were strictly within their legal rights in their demand for subrogation, but if seems very hard that in times like these such power should be in the hands of anyone. In fairness to the underwriters of Lloyd's I should state that, on further litigation taking place, that is, upon the freeholder taking action at their request against the lessee, Lloyd's underwriters did, in fact, allow the repayment of £2,550 to the lessee. Nevertheless, in times like these, accidents of the kind are bound to happen. The policies are taken out not with the same exactitude that they would be taken out in times of peace for fire and other purposes, and in an emergency like this a freeholder might insure the property against enemy air raids and omit the name of the lessee or not consult the lessee, or the lessee might do the like, and the freeholder's name might not be inserted. The Government, as a Government, ought to be very merciful to my suggestion, because there is very little doubt that they are making large sums of money out of their aircraft insurance. Their payments out must be of a very small amount, while their intake must be of considerable magnitude. I would ask the Solicitor-General whether he cannot see his way at a time like this, purely as a matter of emergency—I know there is a question of legal rights, which in other times would form good ground for solid argument, and that it would not be right to interfere between freeholders and their lessees in this way—but in times of emergency such as these when such a dire calamity has happened to this property, and may happen again to property in various parts of the country, it is only fair and reasonable that no rights of subrogation should be given to an insurance office or Lloyd's or any other person who insures or in like manner if money is expended upon the property by the person who receives it.
    Sir G. HEWART: I fear that I cannot accept this new Clause. There is no doubt that the matters to which my hon. Friend refers are matters of difficulty and grievance, but they are also matters of contract,

    1231
    and I am not satisfied that there is a grievance either of such a character or so widely prevalent as would make it desirable for me to accept this Clause. This Bill deals only with difficulties and grievances arising by reason of the War. It by no means professes to deal with all of them. The proposal to which my hon. Friend has referred is one which, upon the information before the Committee, we cannot accept.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Relief from Liability when Fulfilment of Contract Interfered with by Requirement of Government Department.)
    It is hereby declared that where the fulfilment by any person of any contract is interfered with by the necessity on the part of himself or any other person of complying with any requirement, regulation, or restriction of any Government Department, that necessity is a good defence to any action or proceeding taken against that person in respect of the non-fulfilment of the contract so far as it is due to that interference.—[Mr. Pollock.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman may have to say as to whether the proposition contained in this Clause is disposed of by the Clause already added to the Bill in the name of the Solicitor-General.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time.
    This is the Clause which the Solicitor-General undertook to accept last night, subject to a slight variation which he intends to propose.
    Sir G. HEWART: I suggest the addition of the words "or of a competent naval or military authority," so that the relief would be granted to a person whose contract was interfered with by the necessity of complying with any requirement, regulation, or restriction of any Government Department or of a competent naval or militarj authority.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for suggesting those words, because my object in moving the Clause was twofold: in the first place, to make it very simple, and, in the second, to include the power which the naval authori-
    1232
    ties have, and which the Admiralty has from time to time exercised, of using what I may call the prerogative rights that they possess quite apart from what may be called the Departmental rights which have been given under the various special Acts passed in time of war.
    Mr. SALTER: I desire to ask the Solicitor-General to consider whether the Words "interfered with" should not be restricted? If not, this is certainly a Clause of a very wide kind.
    Mr. POLLOCK: They are taken out of the principal Act. It is only recast.
    Mr. SALTER: Is it intended that this Clause shall be limited to emergency matters arising out of the War?
    Mr. POLLOCK: As the Clause stood in the Bill it said:
    "Sub-section (2) of Section one of the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, of 1915, shall apply in the case of the fulfilment of a contract being interfered with by a requirement, regulation, or restriction of a Government Department, other than the Admiralty or the Army Council, in like manner as it applies in the case where such interference is due to a requirement, regulation, or restriction of the Admiralty or Army Council."
    In the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, of 1915, power was given to the Admiralty and to the Army Council, and this Clause was intended to give similar powers to other Departments, and the words in that Act are the words which have been moulded and brought up in the Clause that I have moved. The intention of my Clause was to avoid having to go back to the Act of 1915 and those fifty-eight Regulations which have been passed under that Act and which were incorporated with it, and to bring the matter forward and make a simple Clause, and the. words are "interfered with."
    Mr. SALTER: Does the Act of 1915 make it a matter of defence or a matter of indulgence?
    Mr. POLLOCK: I think they are exactly in the same terms.
    Colonel GRETTON: I wish to bring to the notice of the Solicitor-General two clases of cases which will necessarily arise and for which some provision may be reasonably asked. There is the case of a contract to provide certain food which is interfered with by the action of the Food

    1233
    Controller. Does the word contract cover a contract of that kind? I take it, it does, and that there is no doubt that if the Food Controller took certain action preventing the production of certain classes of food that would be a good defence to plead in case of action taken for non-fulfilment of such a contract. Then there is another class of case of a wider kind as to which considerable apprehension exists in the minds of the people affected. Recent Regulations have restricted the use of beer, spirits, wines and so forth, and in the course of these restrictions it is anticipated that many licensed houses will have to be closed and the licences temporarily suspended. In fact, the owners of such licences are told the Government expects them to take that course, although there is no absolute injunction or Order to close any licence for that reason as yet. There is a further case. It is intimated to owners of breweries that the Government desires, for the purpose of obtaining further labour for National Service and economising production and transport and so forth, that a scheme should be made for the amalgamation of breweries during the period of the restriction. Breweries and licensed houses sometimes form the security given to trustees for debenture holders, and the Solicitor-General knows the leading case which protects trustees who are debenture holders if they consider their security jeopardised, even though payment is continuing to be made. There is great apprehension that cases of this kind may arise if certain breweries are closed owing to amalgamation, and licences are temporarily suspended. It may be contended that a brewery which is not at work is not of the same value as a brewery which is at work. The point I desire to put is whether a covenant in a debentured trust deed to maintain breweries and licences, which might be interpreted to maintain them at work, would be a contract within the meaning of this Clause, and whether the necessity of complying with the restrictions of the Food Controller would be a good defence and delay till the end of the War, debenture holders proceeding to enforce their rights pending the solution of this question and the resumption of work by the brewery? If not, it would involve very great hardship, and the ordinary shareholders might lose the whole of their interest and the company be handed over to the debenture holders.
    Sir G. HEWART: My hon. Friend asks me to say whether a certain thing is or is not a contract within the meaning of this Clause. I should think that there would be no difficulty in deciding whether that which is taken to be a contract was a contract or not. I do not quite follow whether my hon. Friend desires to extend or to limit the application of this new Clause. I rather think he desires to extend it, and his illustration was mentioned for the purpose of showing a case of hardship which might arise if the Clause were not extended to that which he believed was a contract. I thought that was my hon. Friend's view. I desire only to say that this new Clause relates to any contract whatsoever, and provided that there is a contract and that there is interference from the source mentioned in this Clause, then, of course, there would be relief from liability within the provisions of the Clause.
    Clause read a second time.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, after the word "Department" ["restriction of any Government Department"], to insert the words "or of a competent naval or military authority."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to be added to the Bill.
    Mr. BOYTON: I beg to move the new Clause (Variation of Wages) standing in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto).
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not open to the hon. Member to do that now. He can move it after we have got through the Clauses on the Paper and the manuscript Amendments already in. The new Clause (Members Receiving Public Money,) standing in the name of the hon. Member for Herts (Mr. Billing), goes beyond the scope of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to Sums Made Irrecoverable by 5 and 6 Geo. 5, cap 97.)
    (1) Where any sum has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, been paid on account of any rent or mortgage, being a sum which by virtue of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, would have been irrecoverable by the landlord or mortgagee, the sum so paid shall be recoverable from the landlord or mortgagee by the tenant or mortgagor by whom it was paid, and

    1235
    may, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, be deducted by such tenant or mortgagor from any rent or interest payable by him to the landlord or mortgagee.
    (2) If any person in any rent book or similar document makes an entry showing or purporting to show any tenant as being in arrears in respect of any sum which by virtue of the said Act is irrecoverable, or if, where any such entry has before the passing of this Act been made by or on behalf of any landlord, the landlord, on being requested by or on behalf of the tenant so to do, refuses or neglects to delete the entry, he shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.—[Sir G. Hewart.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I move this new Clause in fulfilment of a pledge I gave yesterday to some of my hon. Friends who referred to the difficulties that have arisen under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, and also to carry out a further measure of relief that was asked for. May I recapitulate the difficulties that have arisen? Under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, it was provided that in the case of a dwelling-house to which the Act applied there should not be during the continuance of the War an increase of rent by the landlord above the standard rent, and it was further provided that such excess of rent, where an improper increase was made, should not be recoverable by the landlord. But the Act stopped there. It did not go further and provide that where the tenant, in ignorance of the law, paid that excess of rent, he should be able to recover it back from the landlord or deduct it from rent afterwards payable to the landlord. As the Committee was reminded yesterday, a case has arisen in which the Court of Appeal held, as it was bound to hold under the existing law, that the provision that a landlord shall not recover is not the same thing as a provision that a tenant may set-off. In accordance with my promise I have moved the new Clause which will fill that gap, and also deal with another and cognate matter. It has come to the knowledge of the Government from various quarters that certain landlords—I am glad to say not a great many; not landlords of the
    1236
    good kind—in various parts of the country have adopted this expedient: They know that under the Act an excess of rent cannot be recovered by them, nevertheless, in rent books or similar documents, they debit the unfortunate tenant with the excess under the head of "Arrears of rent," so that any person who takes up the rent book or similar document and looks at it draws the inference that the tenant is in arrear, and is a bad tenant. It therefore becomes difficult for the tenant to get another dwelling-house. In that kind of way the landlord of the undesirable kind has been endeavouring to get round the provisions of the principal Act. I trust that the two Sub-sections of the new Clause will deal effectively with the difficulties I have mentioned.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I should like as the Mover of one of the Amendments last night to thank the Solicitor-General for the way in which he has met us. I find it a little difficult to follow the precise legal phraseology of the new Clause, but it seems to meet entirely not only the case mentioned last night, but the difficulty that was going to be mentioned to-night by some of my colleagues and myself. The question of the rent book is in certain districts a rather serious matter. A clear rent book is the most important, testimony that the tenant has got that he is a good tenant. What has been happening, not in every case, but in a minority of cases, is that the landlord says, "You have either got to pay me Is. or 6d. a week above the legal rent, or if you refuse to do so, I shall enter it in the rent book as arrears." The landlord believes that he can practically frighten the tenant by this means into paying this illegal excess, because the tenant is afraid that if the amounts demanded are entered in his rent book as arrears, and he wants another house, the landlord will say, "You are a bad tenant. You are owing 25s.," and so on. I am very glad indeed that steps have been taken to deal with that matter. I think that the two points now seem to be safeguarded, and if the law is to be respected we have got to enforce the law. The great weakness on the part of the Rent Restrictions Act was that no penalties were attached to the landlord who deliberately broke the Act. If a munition worker breaks the law it is a very different matter. If he stays away for half a day he is liable to be taken before a Court and fined several pounds. It does not make matters any better when the munition worker

    1237
    knows that at the same time the landlord can break the law and no penalty is attached. I am very glad that this matter has been put right. I believe that it will help greatly to secure a proper enforcement and administration of what is the intention of Parliament and the Local Government Board in bringing the matter forward, and it will certainly help in the smooth working of this particular Act.
    Mr. YEO: I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the generous way in which he has met the point brought before the House last night. As one who has brought forward in this House the question of the raising of rents and the entries made by landlords in the rent books, I may say that there will be throughout the country a great deal of satisfaction at the fact that at last the Rents Act has been placed on a proper footing, and tenants can congratulate themselves on the fact that at last they are going to be protected, so that when they want to leave one place and go to another place they will not have the difficulty of the rent books being marked with false entries, in reference to the place from which they are moving.
    10.0 P.M
    Mr. BOYTON: I yield to no one in this House in my desire to see tenants of the class to which this Bill refers properly and fairly treated. I have some knowledge of the subject and a pretty extensive knowledge of house property. I should have liked to see one of these books to which the hon. Member referred last night. There are, of course, bad landlords and even bad tenants. Last night one hon. Member was good enough to say that all the landlords were not bad. I was very glad of that measure of appreciation. When the Rent and Mortgage Restriction Act was introduced I was an ardent supporter, as I am still, of the principle, but when I hear wholesale condemnations of landlords such as I have listened to tonight I should like to see some demonstration. I should like to see some of the rent books to which the hon. Member for Poplar refers. He always seems very keen on the matter, and rightly so, because he represents a working-class constituency. There was a very touching letter which he read last night from either the widow or the wife of a soldier, but that poor woman might know that if the rates went up in the neighbourhood the rent might be increased 6d. a week. These matters are often capable of explanation. This Act was the greatest possible boon to people
    1238
    who rent houses of this character, but people of that class have profited exceedingly since that Act was passed. Since the War broke out these sub-lettings are simply a course of very large income. You have tied down the landlord and the mortgagee, but you do not interfere with any sub-letting. What have they done in certain parts of London with some of these houses? They can charge the munition worker what they like. They put a wash-stand or a chest of drawers into a room and call it a? furnished room, and charge as much for it as they like. I hope that hon. Members will not be swayed so much by sentiment, and will allow that there are two sides to this question. It does not matter very much about the rental, but I am anxious to remove, as I am sure I can from my knowledge, the impression that tenants are treated badly, on the whole, by landlords throughout the length and breadth of the land. But when we come to this next suggestion we find that the landlords are to be subject to convictions and fines of £10. Only a few minutes ago I wanted some justice done in another matter and the Solicitor-General stood at that box and spoke about the sacred law of contracts. Is there anything in any law about taking a landlord to the Police Court and having him convicted and fined £10? Perhaps some of the lawyers in the House will be kind enough to answer me on this point. I do not know. I never heard of it. If you are going to allow a wave of sentiment not backed up by facts to sway you and by legislation of this kind have a landlord taken to the Police Court—
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I will show the hon. Member a rent book.
    Mr. BOYTON: I shall be glad to see it, though I concede that I do not make much of a feature of the rent book, but I do make a great feature of the conviction and the fine of £10.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Why should a landlord who breaks the law not be subject to a penalty the same as anybody else?
    Mr. BOYTON: Did I not say just now that there was such a tiling as law for landlord and tenant, and the Solicitor-General and others say it is sacred, and if I want a variation of it, to do justice, I am not to get it because the Solicitor-General says that it would disturb the law

    1239
    of contract, and, subject to the correction of eminent lawyers in this House, I say that there is no law of landlord and tenant which for the non-payment of an excessive rent would allow him to be dragged before the police magistrate, summarily convicted, and fined £10. I hope that the House of Commons has not lost all sense of decency, and that it will hold the scales in fairness, and will not allow such injustice as is suggested to be done by the Solicitor-General or anybody else.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: As one who took a very active part in the promotion of the Act of 1915, and who had some of the most striking cases of rent being raised on the poor people, and who at the instigation of the ex-Prime Minister supplied him with a large number of cases before the Bill was drafted, may I say that there was no question of the raising of the rent by 6d. per week, and that I have in my possession at the present time—not here, but I can produce them—cases in which in less than six months the rent was raised 2s. per week and then another 2s. per week, and there was a threatened rise of another 2s. per week when we stopped it by the Act of 1915. Now what is the proposition that raises the ire of my hon. Friend? The fact that a penalty Clause is put in. When this Act was passed in 1915 the Government of the day and the President of the Local Government Board in charge of the measure did not deny that a penalty Clause should be put in, but they asked us not to force the question before the House as they thought that when a measure of this kind was put upon the Statute book that then even bad landlords—they always differentiated between good and bad landlords—would toe the line and not raise their rents any more. Have they done so? My hon. Friend suggests that they have.
    I will give him particulars of a case which has arisen in my own Constituency—not an old case, a case of a tenant who was paying 5s. 6d. a week. It was raised to 6s., and then higher. That was in July, 1915. She had been paying the higher rent from 1915 to the present time. The landlord took advantage of the rise of rent while it was illegal for him to take the extra amount after November, 1915. This poor women gets a little bit behind with her rent. I have here what was given her and what she thought was a distraint order. It is in fact a bailiff's note. It was
    1240
    an intimation that her goods would be seized under distraint because she was 15s. 6d. in arrears. Yet this landlord for eighteen months had been receiving an excess rent to which he was not entitled under the law! We are not allowing the case to rest here. When the woman came to me I asked if the landlord had appealed to the Court and if he had got the right to levy distress under the Act of 1915. Of course he had never gone to the Court, and this notice was not worth the paper it was written upon. But it shows the dodges to which landlords will resort. Both the landlord and the bailiff must have known that they could not levy on the woman's goods without the consent of the Court. Yet they served their notice on a poor, ignorant woman and tried to frighten her under threats into paying. I could give numbers of recent cases where the landlords are evading the Act of 1915, and we can bring ample evidence to prove that the penalty Clause is absolutely necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson) asked why, if a munitions worker was subject to a penalty for breaking the law, the landlord should not equally be subject to a penalty for doing so. Hon. Members ask for equal justice. This is equal justice, and we are pleased that the Solicitor-General has had the courage to meet the requirements of the Committee and to bring in this new Clause, with both part of which we agree. We thank him for introducing it.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I, too, wish to add my thanks to those tendered to the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman has adopted a course which I hardly anticipated a fortnight ago when I asked a question on these lines—indeed, he rather gave me to understand it was not likely the present course would be taken. I am very glad he has thought right to introduce this Clause, because I think it fully expresses what were the real intentions of Parliament when it passed the Act of 1915. I am doubtful, myself, whether a very large number of cases have occurred to which this Clause will apply, but even if the number is only small it is only right that the remedy should be made applicable to them. I therefore desire to say how warmly I support this proposal.
    Mr. HUDSON: I, too, am very much obliged to the learned Solicitor-General for moving this new Clause, and I think that the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Boyton) will now be inclined to sup-

    1241
    port it, in view of the fact that I have shown him one of these rent books with the arrears entered up in it. There is a case in which 6d. has been improperly added to the rent and entered as arrears which have accumulated to the extent of 30s. This Clause is, therefore, only an act of justice. The case I have here is actually that of a munition worker who is living some distance outside Newcastle. I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the action he has taken.
    Sir G. HEWART: My hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone (Mr. Boyton) has spoken with some warmth of the fact that in this new Clause there is provided in certain circumstances a penalty. I am bound to say that he does less than justice to the Clause when he seems to suggest that it is a proposal to expose all landlords to a penalty. It is, of course, nothing of the kind. To begin with, it applies only to a limited class of landlords who, contrary to the provisions of the law, have increased their rents. It does not apply to all of them. It applies to those who have entered arrears against tenants in some book or document. It does not even apply to all landlords who have done that. So far as the Act is concerned, it applies only to those landlords who make such an entry after the passing of the Act, or who, having made it before the passing of the Act, refuse to delete it. I cannot respond to the appeal of the hon. Member which he said he made in the name of respect for the law, because the persons who bring themselves under this penalty are persons who have broken the law and broken it in a particularly mean and shabby fashion, and I cannot help thinking that it is only right that such a Clause should be made to apply to them.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: I should like to add my word of thanks to the Solicitor-General because by proposing this Clause, he has removed from my shoulders the duty of moving a Clause which had somewhat the same object. As far as evidence is concerned, the party with which I am connected can produce thousands of cases if it is necessary, and the hon. Member for Marylebone may take it from me that we are in a position to prove our case right up to the hilt. We know these things have occurred, and it is a satisfaction to us that the learned Solicitor-General has adopted this course.
    Mr. BILLING: I should like to take exception, if I may, to the words used by the hon. Member for Marylebone. I do suggest that a landlord who asks for the protection of the laws of this country has no right to claim not to be subjected to them in the way which the hon. Member suggested, and if any landlords have acted in the manner which has been described, then all I can say is that a £10 fine considering the financial status of landlords of this peculiar class of property, and the status of the tenant, is a very small penalty indeed. It is a most extraordinary thing to find that the more rotten a property is the richer is the landlord. I could take Members to places in London and outside where the property is a die-grace to civilisation, and you generally find that the owners of that property are among the wealthiest of the people of this country. When one remembers not merely that a particular landlord or a sub-landlord puts up these rents, but that there is a Member who stands up here in this House, and takes exception to the fact that when a landlord distinctly breaks the law which seeks to give protection, and that the landlord shall not be subject at all—I beg to call attention to the fact that there are not forty Members present.
    Clause read a second time, and ordered to be added to the Bill.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: I wish to move a new Clause—
    Mr. BILLING: I beg to call attention to the fact that forty Members are not present.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Duration of Increase of Bent and Mortgage Interest War Restrictions Act, 1915.)
    Sub-section (2) of Section five of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest War Restrictions Act, 1915, shall be amended to provide that the Act shall continue in force during the continuance of the present War and for a period of two years thereafter and no longer.—[Mr. C. Duncan.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    In moving this new Clause, I may say one of the reasons for it is this: It will be obvious to every Member of the House

    1243
    that, owing to the calling up of every fit male of the population of the country, there is very little, if any, building going on, and there is an enormous amount of congestion in the large industrial centres. It is felt that if the Act expires on the date originally fixed in the Bill, as soon as the War is over, and the time has expired, the rents charged by the landlord will undoubtedly increase to a very great extent. We think that the danger is a very real one, and we should like to ask the learned Solicitor-General whether or not the matter has received his consideration, and, if it has not, whether he will consider the matter, as it is a danger that I should say he, as well as we, are anxious to avoid in the future?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The Clause is not on the Paper, and I should like to have it read to the House; otherwise it will be very inconvenient to address the Committee.
    Sir G. HEWART: I will read the Clause which the hon. Member has moved. [Clause 'read.] My hon. Friend asked me whether I have carefully considered this matter. I have done so, and a somewhat similar proposal, not in the form of a new Clause, but in the form of an Amendment. I cannot see my way to accept this Amendment to prolong the duration of the Act of 1915, which would make it more onerous upon many persons upon whom the present burden is imposed, and properly imposed, during the period of the War. I think it would be going too far to provide, as the hon. Member desires, that the duration of the Act should continue for two years after the War. I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to meet the Committee, but I am bound to say, in regard to this particular Amendment, that I do not see my way to accept it.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: May I ask whether it is the case that this Act will not cease immediately peace is signed, but will go on like all other emergency Acts for some little time after the War, until such time as the whole of the emergency Acts will be put an end to?
    Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I am very much in sympathy with the legislation that has been passed to prevent the increase of rents and mortgages during the War, and if it were merely a question of
    1244
    rent and mortgage interest, I should have sympathised with the proposal for extending this period for some time after the War. But there is another matter in connection with housing that must not be lost sight of, and that is the supreme importance of giving some stimulus to building operations immediately the War is over. It is a short-sighted policy to say that rent shall be preserved at certain pre-war figures for some time. To preserve those rents at that figure is to withhold an inducement to provide housing accommodation for the immediate needs of the people. It is not only desirable that the people who have got houses should be there, but that the industrial needs and the increase of the population should also be provided for. I think that the real way to deal with this problem is not by increasing this period of restricted rent, but by the Government being ready for taking immediate steps and being prepared with some schemes for solving the housing problem after the War. They cannot do that without considerable sums of public money at moderate rates of interest. If you extended this restricting covenant for two years after the War, it seems to me that no additional housing would be provided and in two years' time the evil would be greater than at present. I therefore cannot support the new Clause of my hon. Friend. I do trust the Solicitor-General will convey to his colleagues in the Government that no time ought to be lost in tackling the housing problem, and that they ought to prepare schemes for after-war housing, boldly designed, and that for that purpose considerable State provision is urgently needed.
    Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. Will you kindly tell me why I am out of order in calling attention to the fact that forty Members are not present in an important Debate such as this?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is in the discretion of the Chair—a count once having been called—as to what time he will allow another count to be ordered, as long as he is satisfied that forty Members are within the precincts.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I think there is objection in the House to two years' extension of the Act, and, although this is an Act we think a great deal of, there is a great deal of legislation we want to get rid of as soon after the War as possible.

    1245
    At the same time, there is this very important aspect of the matter to be borne in mind. It will be in many ways rather a difficult time immediately following the War. There will then be a good deal of dislocation, and perhaps there may even be troubles of various kinds, unless the problems are well handled. What is going to happen? We have had no building practically for three years. There is great congestion in many places like Sheffield, in regard to housing. If this Rent Restriction Act is suddenly taken off there will be a tremendous bound in rents and there will be a real difficulty created in many districts. I think that ought certainly to be looked to, and that we ought to see whether some remedy ought not to be forthcoming with regard to that rather difficult time. I entirely endorse what has been said by the hon. Gentleman, that we ought to face the question of building houses, and to get ready the moment we are able to do so to face the tremendous problem in regard to house building. The present difficulty is very great, and I would ask that, at any rate, the Government should look ahead and should recognise that, if suddenly rents begin to bound up at a time when the pressure of war and the reactions of war on the working people are removed, and when there may perhaps be increasing labour difficulties, they are creating a difficult situation, and that that problem should be guarded against by some foresight and by some imagination on the part of the Government
    Sir CHARLES SEELY: I would like to support what has fallen from the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir Tudor Walters) as to the disadvantage of continuing after the War the special regulations made during the War on account of the War. They cover all kinds of rules and regulations applying to every class of the community, and they have been agreed to very often against the interests of the persons concerned on account of the War and from motives of patriotism, and with every sympathy for the object which is in the mind of the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment, I hope it will not be accepted, because it would be a very bad precedent to form. May I also press on the consideration of the Government what has been said as to the difficulties which may arise in regard to housing after the War? They will be considerably complicated by the fact that the pressure
    1246
    on housing accommodation which now exists will probably be very much altered when the War is over, because many places which are now congested may then become emptied, and many places which are now. empty may then become congested. It may therefore be well to consider whether anything can be done to meet that case, but I hope that nothing will be done in this House which might be considered as a precedent for continuing after the War rules and regulations which have been passed and arranged for on the distinct understanding that they were for the term of the War and for no longer.
    Mr. BILLING: I have pleasure in supporting what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I consider it would be a very serious thing if anything were done to carry on for one moment after peace breaks out any of the legislation that has been introduced during the War. If it were done in one case it would be very difficult not to do it in others, and when you consider the enormous amount of legislation which has been introduced during the War, including the Defence of the Realm Act, and the vexatious restrictions which we are all to-day most cheerfully accepting, to introduce a precedent for keeping on that form of legislation would be a most unhappy thing to do. I am sure hon. Members of this House, just as much as the people outside, are anxiou3 to enjoy that freedom and that liberty for which presumably we are fighting this War, and under these circumstances, despite the very excellent point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Anderson) as to the question of rents bounding up when peace comes, if it is so simple to pass a law now through this House to restrain rents, it will not be difficult then to find ten or fifteen Members to attend this House and get the Chairman of Committee to get through the Committee stage yet another Bill which will control the very point raised by the hon. Member and restrict the sudden booming of rents. Another thing is that there will be a redistribution of population in the country. Many towns, I know, during the War have had a large influx of population. Rents in the ordinary course would have gone up, but this has not been so. There is less competition for property and therefore not the inducement to put up the rent. Therefore I support the hon. Baronet in what he said, as well as the hon. Member for

    1247
    Sheffield, that it would be a very great mistake for this House to do anything to create a precedent continuing any emergency Bill that they now bring before the House after the cessation of hostilities.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Variation of Wages.)
    Where the rate of wages in any branch of the building trade shall have been varied as a result of an arbitration under the Munitions Acts, then such variation shall be allowed by the employer to the contractor in the case of an increase awarded, or by the contractor to the employer should a decrease in wages be the result of such an award, whether the contract affected by the variation is for a lump sum or under schedule.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir S. COLLINS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    In moving this Clause on behalf of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), I will not trouble to read it, as it is most clear and explicit. I only hope that the Solicitor-General will give the matter favourable consideration. I have one good reason for asking, because last night, when I was pleading for the builders, and suggested as a cause for consideration the rise of wages and the heavy cost of material, the Solicitor-General asked, "Would the builders, if there were a drop in wages and prices, 'say, We are willing to take less'"? He suggested that they would not do so. This Clause states clearly and very fairly that "where the rate of wages… has been varied as a result of an arbitration…" and so on, and I would call the attention of the Solicitor-General to this,
    "or by the contractor to the employer should a decrease in wages be the result of such an award"
    They are putting themselves here into the proper attitude. They are asking if there is an increase that they shall have the increase; but, on the other hand, they are willing to take off something if prices go down. The hon. and learned Gentleman is in a conciliatory mood to-night, and I leave the matter with him in the hope that he will accept the Clause.
    Sir G. HEWART: I am afraid I cannot accept this Clause. My hon. Friend has not argued his case at length, and I shall not attempt to argue at length in reply. I am bound, however, to say that this variation of contract goes far beyond anything we can accept.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Bill reported.
    Mr. KING: Is it competent for an hon. Member to oppose the Report stage being taken immediately after the Committee stage? If so, I intend to do so. If it is not competent, I claim the right after a Motion has been made to oppose it. That was done, I think, yesterday.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A single objection does not prevent the Report stage being taken. Of course, the House can decide not to proceed with the Report stage. It is open to an hon. Member to move that the Debate under consideration be adjourned. That will enable the House to come to a decision whether to proceed or not.
    Mr. KING: Then I beg to move, "That the consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned." I do so, because to my knowledge, certain Members who have taken great interest in this Bill are absent, believing that the Report stage was not to be taken to-night. I will point to the fact that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle), the hon. Member for the College Division (Mr. Watt), and quite a number of hon. Members who have taken an active part in this Bill, have gone away, believing that they would have an opportunity again, and it was distinctly understood by those hon. Members before they went that they would have an opportunity another day. There is also this fact: this Bill was introduced in the House on 25th February, and the Committee stage was not taken till more than four weeks after the Second Reading.
    Sir G. HEWART: If my hon. Friend will allow me, he was not present in the House when I appealed to the House to take the Report stage to-night. In the circumstances, however, I do not propose to insist on that course, and the Report stage will be taken to-morrow.
    Mr. KING: I thank the Solicitor-General very much indeed, but I was in the House when he made that statement.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Will the Bill be printed to-morrow? If it cannot be printed, might the new Clauses be printed to-night?
    Sir G. HEW ART: I understand that it will be difficult to do what my hon. Friend suggests. If it can be done it will be done.
    Mr. ANDERSON: It would be very desirable if we could get the actual Amendments before us when we come to the Report stage. I am quite sure none of us desire to hold up or delay the Bill at all, but it will be a matter of convenience if we can get it printed to-morrow.
    Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. During the Committee stage of this Bill, there was an Amendment down in my name and in that of the hon. Member for Somerset. When that Amendment was reached my name was not called, but I rose, and Mr. Maclean, the Chairman of Committee—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no appeal. The Chairman of Committees, whoever he may be, is in charge of procedure in Committee. There is no appeal from him to the Speaker or the Deputy-Speaker.
    Consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE (PART I. AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
I do not know whether the House will be so good as to allow this Bill to pass the Second Reading and perhaps the other stages to-night. It is not a controversial measure, and it arises from the fact that the Pensions Minister has by his recent Royal. Warrant altered the nomenclature of pensioners. Under previous Royal Warrants it was a total disablement pension, and under the present Warrant the description of total disablement pension has gone and in place of it there is the pension of the highest degree, coming down to the various other degrees. That means that the Act passed in 1915, which
1250
provided that the total disablement pensioner receives 25s. instead of 20s., with a reduction of 5s. in his insurance benefit, becomes inoperative simply because a new Royal Warrant has a different nomenclature. It would be for the convenience of everybody if we could bring the provisions of the 1915 Act into agreement with the new Royal Pensions Warrant. The first Clause in this Bill provides for the substitution of words in the direction I have indicated, and also provides that for those taking the higher degree of pensions there should be a waiting period enabling them to come back into insurance. Clause 2 deals with those who get a gratuity, and it provides that those who have the gratuity should receive from the Pensions Minister for sure twenty-six weeks at 5s. a week, instead of taking insurance benefit, because it is thought that these men who get a small gratuity are men who would speedily go back to work. A further proviso is to enable soldiers who were not insured before going into the Army, and did not belong to any approved society, to be dealt with by the Insurance Commissioners under the Army and Navy Fund, so that they would not be stranded by being uninsured persons. Those are the general provisions of the Bill I am not asking for the Second Reading of this Bill on any other ground than that of public convenience. It would be helpful to all approved societies if this Bill was passed, because if it is not passed they will be obliged under the present law, by the breakdown of the 1915 Act, to repay the full benefits which would afterwards have to be recovered because there would be the 10s. a week benefit added to the 27s. 6d. That would cause complication. Time does not allow me to go more fully into the Clause, and the House will perhaps take my assurance that there is nothing behind it except to straighten things up, help everybody, and facilitate the working of the National Insurance Act. If the House will give us the Second Reading as well as the other stages to-night I should be very much obliged.
Mr. ANDERSON: In so far as I understand the explanation that has been given, it seems very reasonable, but I really do suggest that it is rather a tall order to come to us at a quarter to eleven at night with a Bill of this kind and ask that it be put through all its stages. Unless there is the most grave and urgent public reason why it should be done, I think we should do well to allow the hon. Gentleman to

1251
get the Second Reading to-night and then let us go over it and see if it might not be amended here and there. He tells us that his intentions are excellent, and I am sure they are, but we ought to examine the excellence of these intentions and see if they can be improved. I think it would be a very reasonable compromise if we allowed the hon. Gentleman to get the Second Reading to-night and the subsequent stages of the Bill were taken later We ought to go over it carefully to see if it needs amendment here and there, but I should be sorry if any hardship resulted to anyone. After all, the hardship has been here for some time, and the Bill could be taken immediately after Easter, a fortnight from now.
Sir E. CORNWALL: It is not the fault of my Department that the Bill has been brought in a hurry. It is entirely due to the fact that the new Royal Warrant has altered the position. But in the circumstances I do not think it is possible for me to press for more than the Second Reading. I do not know, however, if it will be possible to take the other stages to-morrow.
Mr. KING: This is a very interesting Debate, but there is one thing about it which strikes me as curious. This is not a Bill for the convenience of the hon. Gentleman representing the Insurance Commissioners, but for the Ministry of Pensions.
Sir E. CORNWALL: The new Royal Warrant has altered the position.
Mr. KING: The Ministry of Pensions is really responsible for this Bill, and there ought to be here one of the two representatives of that Ministry. They are not greatly needed in the House, but when they are needed they are not here. That is a very good reason, in my opinion, why we should not proceed with this Bill at all to-night, but I am going to be more generous than that, and I am going to be a party to the Second Reading. If there is a Division, I shall be willing, once in a way, to vote with the Government, but the hon. Gentleman must not expect more than the Second Reading. He can have that, but nothing further.
Mr. BILLING: I rise to protest against this method of introducing legislation. I consider that for a Government to come down here at a quarter to eleven at night
1252
and ask us to pass a Bill through all its stages—look at the experience we had the other night, when three Bills were popped through with about two Members in the House—is absolutely disgraceful. I have been sitting here for the last four or five hours, and I have never counted forty Members in the House during the whole of that time. The Chairman succeeded in doing it on one occasion, but before he resumed his seat the House was empty again. How do we know what is in this Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it!"] I must admit that I have not had time to read it.
Sir E. CORNWALL: It has been circulated.
Mr. BILLING: I do not mind reading it to the House if the House wants me to read it. It is just as well that the House should know what it contains. There is an hon. Member of this House, the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) who for twelve months has been working night and day in the interests of pensions. I do not see him in his seat. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is in the Lobby!"] It would be a very fine thing if he were here—(An HON. MEMBER: "Send for him!"], I can imagine the hon. Member for East Edinburgh having the shock of his life if he were to read in the "Times" to-morrow morning that at five, minutes to eleven to-night a Bill in connection with pensions had been passed through, and he had not had the opportunity of contributing to the Debate upon it, or of urging any objections he might have to it. I am sure that he would have a considerable amount to say upon this Bill when he has had the opportunity of reading it. The question is whether he has had an opportunity of reading it. Personally, I have every faith in his decision on pension matters. Now that I see the hon. Member has come into the House I propose to leave the matter in his hands, because I do not think they could be in better.
Mr. HOGGE: I am sorry I was not present when the Comptroller of the Household introduced this Bill. I have had several conversations with my hon. Friend to-day with regard to the Bill, and there are one or two points in it which deserve some consideration. I do not propose to prevent my hon. Friend having this Bill to-night, but Clause 2 is one upon which something should be said at the moment. Clause 2 deals with the ques-

1253
tion of the payment of a sickness benefit in the case of a man who gets either a gratuity or a temporary allowance. I understand that the Minister of Pensions has definitely promised my hon. Friend that in the case of these particular men he will make a payment of £6 10s. That is quite satisfactory, except that it is a promise. I understand that my hon. Friend trusts the Pensions Minister in this matter, and that the money will be paid. The other complication is that the Prime Minister has himself promised that there may be a Court of Appeal, and I hope there will be, to which men who may be turned down for a gratuity may appeal for a pension. If they were successful in getting that pension it might alter the question of the payment of the sickness benefit for those twenty-six weeks.
My hon. Friend was very good in the matter. He certainly came to me and suggested that I should read the Bill, with a view to seeing whether I had any objection to it from the pensions point of view. The only objection I saw was to Clause 2. I am perfectly willing that he should have the Bill on the distinct understanding that he himself is absolutely sure in his own mind that there will be no difficulty with regard to the payment of that twenty-six weeks' sickness benefit. I hope that the hon. Member for East Herts (Mr.
1254
Billing), with that explanation, will withdraw any opposition he was inclined to make. I am very grateful to him for stopping the Bill until I was able to make this statement, which I think ought to be made in the interests of these men. These men are going to be badly dealt with in many ways, and it is our part to see that the money that is due to them for the national health insurance ought to be paid, and the only point is that it is not in the Bill. If my hon. Friend is prepared to tell the House that he is convinced that the promise holds good, I think he may have the Second Reading.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the I2th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes before Eleven o'clock.