Commons Sitting of 28 February 1917

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Seaham Harbour Dock Bill.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill.
Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company (Railways) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be committed.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Land Drainage (Ramsey) Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:
1. "That, in the case of the Cork Improvement, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill.
2. "That, in the case of the South Eastern, and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128, in the case of the Petition of the 'Institute of British Architects and the London Society,' the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
Resolutions agreed to.

DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order numbered D.I. P. 454, dated 15th January, 1917, entitled the Wart Disease of Potatoes Order of 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1917–18 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
Estimate presented showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1918 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 33].
ARMY (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT).
Copy presented of the Appropriation Account for 1915–16, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon, and upon the Store Accounts of the Army [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 34.]
ARMY (CLOTHING FACTORY).
Annual Accounts presented of the Royal Army Clothing Factory for the year 1915–16, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 35.]
MILITARY WORKS ACT.
Account presented for the period ended 31st March, 1916, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 36.]
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 28th February, 1917, continuing the operation of the Code of Regulations for Day Schools, 1915, with certain modifications [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    INDIA (MILITARY SERVICE).
    Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for India why the Ordinance recently issued by the Government of India, which makes all British subjects of European origin between eighteen and forty-one liable to military service in India, exempts men who are employed in work of national importance; and whether this exemption is being used by heads of Departments to keep men in civil employment, particularly in the Public Works Department?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The Government of India have informed me that the Ordinance which they have recently made is confined to the one matter of securing the registration of European British subjects as a preliminary to the Bill before the Imperial Legislative Council imposing liability to military service. I have not yet received the text of the Bill, but the Government of India state it does not empower heads of Departments to grant exemptions.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    DATES.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering the value of dates as an article of food, he will initiate steps to institute cleaner and more sanitary methods of packing this food for export from Mesopotamia as soon as the war conditions permit of such action being taken, so as to encourage a larger import of the fruit into the United Kingdom?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (WAGES).
    Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what steps will be taken to give effect to the Government proposals with regard to the wages of agricultural labourers; from what date is it intended that the change shall begin; and whether legislation will be necessary?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): A Bill will be introduced as soon as possible, and the date on which it is proposed that the change shall take place will be prescribed in it.

    GRASS LAND (CULTIVATION).
    Sir WALTER ESSEXasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is issuing, and, if so, by what means, instructions for cropping of land hitherto under grass?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The war agricultural committees have been asked to promote the breaking up of grass land, wherever this course would be to the national interest and there is sufficient labour and machinery available for the purpose. Compulsory powers have been conferred on the committees enabling them, if they think fit, to enter on land and cultivate it themselves. I am sending a copy of the Board's instructions on the subject, and of the Cultivation of Lands Order, 1917, to my hon. Friend.
    Sir W. ESSEX: My question has not been fully answered: does the Board give instructions as to the type of crop that can be safely grown upon the land which has been for years devoted to grass?
    Sir R. WINFREY: Oh, yes; we have given instructions on that point to the war agricultural committees.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: What steps will the farmer have to take if he desires to break up land that is in pasture and which he is prohibited from breaking up by the terms of his lease?
    Sir R. WINFREY: He has to get into communication with the war agricultural committee; they can give him power. If he gets their consent he can do it.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will the landlord get any compensation?
    Sir R.WINFREY: Oh, yes; they may do.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say why, if compulsory powers are given to this country to break up land, the same compulsory powers are not given to Ireland?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I cannot possibly answer that.

    NATIONAL FOOD RATIONS SYSTEM.
    Sir W. ESSEXasked the Prime Minister whether, to prepare against any

    1999
    possible contingency of temporary shortage in any food supplies, he has taken any tentative measures or advice as to the laying down of a national food rations system?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD CONTROL (Captain Bathurst): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The Food Controller several weeks ago appointed a Committee to consider this subject and to collect all available information. A scheme for compulsory rationing has been proposed which can be put into operation if the necessity arises.

    FISH CONSIGNMENTS.
    Mr. EUGENE WASONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is about to issue a new Order for the railways that all consignments of goods be carriage paid by the consignor; whether he is aware that fishermen land their fish at many different ports, often during the night, and that if they have to stay for a long time to get their fish consigned and pay carriage much valuable time will be lost for fishing and much valuable food lost to the community; and whether, the fishermen being short handed at present, he will exempt them from any such Order?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Roberts): The Railway Executive Committee have announced that from the beginning of April the charges on passenger train traffic must be prepaid. The object of the proposal is to save clerical labour on the railways and I fear that an exemption cannot be made in favour of fish traffic. The requirement relates only to traffic by passenger train.
    Mr. WASON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the only way in which to get fresh fish from Scotland here so that it can be used by people in London and other large towns is by sending it by passenger train, and how is it possible for these men to get their fish here if they have to wait for hours and hours in order to pay rates in advance?
    Mr. ROBERTS: My information is that it does not involve the delay apprehended by the right hon. Gentleman, but I will look into his representations.
    Mr. WASON: Shall I give the hon. Gentleman full particulars or will he receive a deputation on the subject?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I should certainly be glad to receive particulars or a deputation.

    POTABLE SPIRITS.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade what amount of cereals or other foodstuffs is still being consumed monthly in the United Kingdom in distilling potable, spirits?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It would not be in the public interest to disclose information which would indicate how much of the output of distilleries in the United Kingdom is for potable and how much for other purposes.

    POTATO SHORTAGE.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the. Ministry of Food whether he has any official information showing that a number of potato growers are refusing to send the usual supply to the various markets because they will get an extra £1 per ton for them in April; and if he can see his way clear to at once send a telegram to the large potato growers in the different parts of the country to insist upon the usual supply of potatoes being sent to the markets so that the potato merchants will have them, by Saturday?
    Captain BATHURST: The additional allowance of £1 per ton on the maximum price of potatoes was intended to give the holders of stocks an incentive to keep a sufficient supply till later in the year. This was necessary in view of the general shortage of the potato crop. The Food Controller has the situation with regard to potatoes under close observation, and if he is satisfied that supplies are being unreasonably held off the market, he will be prepared to take action.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Has the Food Controller recently sent an inspector to the Liverpool area to investigate the charge that the farmers are deliberately holding back potatoes, and if he has received a report from the inspector will he state what is the nature of that report?
    Captain BATHURST: I believe that an inspector has been sent to that area, but, so far as I am aware, the report has not yet been received.
    Mr. RENDALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether his Department will, issue an Order preventing holders and sellers from refusing to supply potatoes unless other articles are purchased?
    Captain BATHURST: That point is raised by another question.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that Mr. Smith, one of the chief greengrocers in the High Street, East Ham, and several others in the same neighbourhood refused to sell potatoes on Saturday unless the purchasers bought a certain amount of other vegetables; whether he is aware that this seems to be the common practice among greengrocers; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain greengrocers are refusing to sell potatoes unless other articles are purchased at the same time: whether he has sanctioned the practice; and, if not, what action he proposes to take in the interests of poor consumers?
    Captain BATHURST: Article 8 of the Potatoes 1916 Main Crop (Prices) Order No. 2, which came into force on Saturday last, provides that no person shall, in connection with the sale or proposed sale of potatoes, enter or offer to enter into any fictitious or artificial transaction, or impose or attempt to impose any condition relating to any other article, or make or demand any unreasonable charge. Action such as that described in the question is therefore illegal. The case referred to by the hon. Member was inquired into yesterday, and has been the subject of further inquiries to-day. I understand that the allegations in the question are denied by the dealers concerned. I shall be glad of any further information on this matter which the hon. Member can furnish.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Will the same order be applied to sugar?
    Captain BATHURST: Special difficulties apply to the case of sugar, as I have already indicated to the House.
    Mr. KEATING: Will the hon. Member consider the suggestion to strike an average price for the next few months, so that it will not be worth the while of the traders to charge a higher price than the average price so struck?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that on 22nd
    2002
    February a shipment of 200 tons of potatoes from Ireland arrived in Glasgow; whether he will state if the embargo on the export of potatoes from Ireland still exists; if so, under what conditions this shipment was permitted; and whether facilities will be given for further shipments?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The Ministry of Food have asked me to reply to this question. The Department of Agriculture are aware that 180 tons of potatoes unsuitable for seed purposes were consigned under licence to Glasgow recently from Ireland. The embargo on the export of potatoes from Ireland except under licence is still in force. I am using all possible means to accelerate a decision as to whether and when enlarged facilities for export can properly be given.
    Mr. SCOTT: Under what circumstances are licences being granted, and to whom?
    Mr. DUKE: In answer to questions from below the Gangway I promised to prepare lists of persons to whom licences have been given, and I can send the hon. Member a copy, but I must tell him that they are not licences to those persons to export what potatoes they think fit, but they are licences limited to a specific panel of potatoes for export, and for other purposes a separate licence must be obtained.
    Mr. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is likely that export of potatoes will be allowed to be exported from Ireland to this country in a little larger quantity?
    Mr. DUKE: I am using every possible means to ascertain whether a larger export can properly be allowed.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the injustices involved in the present method of sugar distribution; whether he is aware that the stipulation that other articles must be purchased along with sugar has the effect of diverting trade generally from the grocery or provision shops which do not stock sugar to those that do, thereby setting up an unfair discrimination between traders; that the imposition of a monetary test before sugar can be purchased acts unfairly between rich and poor and even between one working-class family and another; that in order

    2003
    to buy sugar a number of families are driven to buy commodities they would otherwise do without and are thus prevented from exercising general economy; that certain shopkeepers are using the present arrangement to push their goods generally and are even dictating what other articles the customers must purchase; and that certain people go round from shop to shop, making purchases in each shop, and so obtaining extra supplies of sugar, whilst others find it impossible to get sugar at all; and what steps he proposes to take to abolish these hardships and to set up a system of equitable distribution?
    Captain BATHURST: It has not yet been possible to establish a system which will entirely prevent the difficulties to which the hon. Member refers, but considerable progress has been made in the direction of adjusting the irregular distribution of sugar. As regards the imposition of conditions by shopkeepers on the sale of sugar, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers I have previously given to the hon. Member on the 15th February, and to the hon. Member for West Ham on the same day.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the imposition of a monetary test, sometimes as high as 8s., is leading people to buy all sorts of things they do not want at all, and so far from promoting economy it is encouraging extravagance?
    Captain BATHURST: As I have already explained to the House, the whole of the sugar question is going to be investigated by the Food Controller immediately he returns to his duties, and in the meantime to impose a condition involving the outlay of 8s. or 12s. will be severely noticed by the Food Controller?
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the policy of the Department with regard to the establishment of rations a policy of "Wait and see," that is waiting until the emergency arises before taking action?
    Captain BATHURST: No, Sir. I can truly say that that expression in no way applies to the alert Department which I have the honour to represent.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will they do it now?
    Mr. A. RICHARDSON: Can the hon. Member state if the Sugar Commission
    2004
    releases sufficient sugar to the trade to enable every man, woman and child to have ¾ lb. of sugar per week?
    Mr. HOGGE: Why cannot my hon. and gallant Friend investigate it while Lord Devonport is ill?
    Captain BATHURST: Yes, undoubtedly there is enough sugar in the hands of the Sugar Commission at present to allow for that quota per head, but owing to the difficulties of distribution, unfortunately, a great many persons are no: obtaining their quota.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Have the children to go without sugar until Lord Devonport recovers?
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the non. Member aware that some of the co-operative societies, who have every member registered, and therefore do deal out fairly their quantity of sugar, are only allowing ½ lb. per head for each family, that being the quantity the societies are receiving?
    Captain BATHURST: In consequence of representations made by the Co-operative Wholesale Society, twenty of the leading centres of population in the country have been provided with special allowances of sugar, of which the co-operative stores have obtained a very large proportion.
    Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUX: Would it not be very easy to solve this question by the men of the country leaving off sugar in their tea, which is quite unnecessary, and then there would be plenty for the women and children?
    Captain BATHURST: If those who can well afford to buy substitutes are prepared to adopt that suggestion it would show a patriotic spirit on their part.
    Mr. G. FABER: Will the hon. Member promise that as soon as the stock fails to supply ¾ lb. for each person he will come at once to this House and announce a smaller amount?
    Captain BATHURST: The matter is in the hands of the Food Controller and not in mine. I am not going to make any rash promises.
    Sir JOHN AINSWORTHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can see his way to arrange that a reasonable quantity of sugar can be sold to a customer without rendering him liable to the purchase of other articles at the same time?
    Captain BATHURST: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield on this subject on 15th February.
    Sir J. AINSWORTH: Supposing Lord Devonport is unable to return immediately to business, will the hon. Gentleman inform the House how soon he can give an answer on the point as to the liability of the public to pay for other articles if they cannot get sugar?
    Captain BATHURST: For good and sufficient reasons this practice was to a certain extent approved and authorised by the last Government, and it is not proposed to abandon it altogether without being quite sure something more effective takes its place.
    Mr. G. FABER: What are the good and sufficient reasons?
    Sir J. AINSWORTH: Would my hon. Friend say categorically how soon he expects to give an answer to the question?
    Captain BATHURST: I have already given a good many answers on this question. I doubt whether I shall be able to give one which will satisfy my hon. Friend, at any rate, until next week.
    Sir J. AINSWORTH: Will the hon. Gentleman say on what day the office he represents will give an answer?
    Captain BATHURST: No, Sir, I cannot.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the supply of sugar to Dublin city is inadequate and that its distribution is not equally administered; whether he will arrange that the supply shall be increased and every trader receive his due portion; and whether an Irish Sugar Commission will be appointed?
    Captain BATHURST: Two officers of the Ministry of Food are at present in Ireland investigating the present conditions of sugar supply and distribution. Their inquiries will shortly be completed, but until their Report has been received I am not in a position to add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member for county Meath on 12th February.
    Mr. FIELD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Sugar Commission for Ireland will be established?
    Captain BATHURST: All I can say is that the question of appointing an Irish
    2006
    sub-committee to deal with the distribution in Ireland is at present under the consideration of the Food Controller.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: Is it not a fact that there are three or four merchants in Dublin who are getting an unusual quantity of the sugar imported, and Jonathan Hogg is one of them?
    Captain BATHURST: If the hon. Member will bring any specific case to my notice I will see if one of the inspectors in Ireland can investigate it.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: I informed the secretary to the Sugar Commission yesterday of the case.
    Mr. HUGH LAW: Will the inquiry apply to the whole of Ireland?
    Captain BATHURST: That is so.

    YOUNG LAMBS (SLAUGHTER).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if the Food Controller has received a communication, dated 7th February last, from Mr. H. B. Ratcliffe, of Bradford, recommending that the slaughter of young lambs born this year should not be allowed until, say, the end of July next, in order to increase the meat supply; and, having regard to the urgency of the matter, has he answered the communication, and, if so, to what effect?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The communication referred to has been transferred from the Ministry of Food to the Board of Agriculture, and a reply will be sent to it. The subject has been carefully considered, and as lamb is, in the present scarcity of food for live stock, one of the most economical forms of meat production, it is not proposed to restrict the slaughter of lambs as suggested.

  POLITICAL TRIALS (INDIA).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in the recent political trials in India, the special tribunal was exclusively British; whether the Indian pleader had any effective jurisdiction; whether his concurrence was essential, and was obtained, in each decision; whether his status was that of a judge or of a Government official; whether the trials were open or secret; and whether the accused persons were allowed the assistance of counsel of their own choosing?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Two of three members were British; the Indian member, who was not an official, had the status of a judge equal to that of the other two; his jurisdiction was effective, and he concurred in the judgments. The trials were open, and the accused were defended by counsel of their own choosing.

  NAVAL HOSPITAL SHIPS.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will say how many merchant ships have been converted to fixed naval hospital ships, and are still acting as such in these islands and also abroad; and whether he can state the objection to erecting huts on shore so as to release tonnage?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): None of the merchant ships taken up as naval hospital ships are being used as fixed hospital ships. The whole question of the possibility of releasing naval hospital ships has been most carefully considered by the Board of Admiralty in close conjunction with the Commander-in-Chief, Grand Fleet, and it has been decided that the number now employed cannot be reduced or superseded by huts on shore without materially interfering with the efficiency of the Fleet and the proper care of the sick and wounded officers and men.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is not my right hon. Friend relying on a verbal trick of words in saying that none of these ships are fixed ships, and is it not the case that some have remained in position for from two to two and a half years?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I am not relying upon a verbal trick. I am advised, as I say, that the matter has been carefully gone into, and I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend would be the last to desire to disregard naval opinion in a matter of this sort.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Why cannot these men be looked after just as well on shore as on a ship, as is the case with soldiers?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Well, I have given the view of the naval authorities on the matter.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty (1), in view of the fact that the Admiralty have stated that they do not consider any hardship is involved in the payment to the wife and children of a sailor in the lower ratings a separation allowance which, including maximum allotment from pay, may be 6s. a week less than that of a private soldier's wife and family, whether the Admiralty has made, any representations to the Treasury that the scale of Army separation allowances is too high; whether it has resisted, as extravagant and wasteful, proposals to raise the naval separation allowances so as to secure that in no case shall a sailor's wife and family receive a smaller separation allowance, including allotment, than a private soldier's wife and family; and (2) whether the Admiralty has invited the Statutory Committee to make a supplementary grant in those cases where the total separation allowance received by a sailor's wife and family, including the maximum allotment from the sailor's pay, is less than the separation allowance received by a private soldier's wife and family; whether any answer has been received from the Statutory Committee: and whether the Statutory Committee refuses to supplement the hat rate of separation allowance paid by the Admiralty to the wives and families of its lower ratings, so as to raise these allowances, including allotment, to the level of the allowances in the case of a private soldier?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As I have indicated in previous replies, no scheme which provides for the payment of flat rates will secure absolute uniformity in treatment, but to attempt to meet individual cases by a general increase in the flat rates would not, in my opinion, be justified. I am in communication with the Treasury and the Statutory Committee, through the Pensions Ministry, and hope to be in a position to make a statement on the subject at an early date.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will state the objections of the Army Council to relieve; local rates from funds placed at their disposal for Army purposes, in consequence of which families of soldiers in rate-aided institutions are

  2009
  pauperised when maintained in Poor Law institutions while Army separation allowances are continued when such families are received into philanthropic or charitable institutions; and whether he is aware that the soldier husband or father is himself thereby legally held to be in forma pauperis by the relief afforded to his dependants in rate-aided institutions?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The objection to the relief of local rates out of the Exchequer, otherwise than by specific provision of Parliament, is a general principle not confined to Army Funds. I am not aware that any substantial disability is thereby imposed upon the soldier, but I will look further into that aspect of the matter.
  Mr. SCOTT: Is there a greater objection to the relief of institutions which are subsidised from the rates than to the relief of philanthropic and charitable institutions outside?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, I think so.

  ROYAL NAVAL DIVISION (FRANCE).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there are any naval men serving in the Royal Naval Division in France who receive less pay than an A.B.?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: So far as is known no naval men serving in the Royal Naval Division in France receive less pay than an able seaman. If, however, my hon. Friend is aware of any specific instance to the contrary, and will furnish me with particulars, I will inquire further into the matter.
  Mr. SCOTT: Should there be any at 1s. 3d. per day?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, that is the pay of an ordinary seaman.

  ARRESTS IN IRELAND.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has brought, or will bring, under the notice of the United States Government the fact that Dr. Patrick M'Cartan, an American citizen, has been, with others,
  2010
  deported from Ireland and is now interned at Oxford, without trial, and on no charge but an alleged suspicion of having acted, acting, or being about to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety, and whether the American Government requires a charge to be formulated and tried in a civil Court in this case?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): I have no knowledge of the case to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire about it?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think it is the business of the Foreign Office to interfere in internal matters.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General for Ireland under what Statute fifty policemen, fully armed with rifles, bayonets, and revolvers, entered Ballinagh on the 12th instant, and with the assistance of the local police arrested the four youths, Charles Fitzpatrick, John Kinkart, Roland Finnigan, and Thomas Fitzpatrick, for having a week earlier celebrated the Nationalist electoral victory in North Roscommon, brought them handcuffed in pairs and without food to Belfast, and handed them over to the military authorities who discharged them on the 15th instant; and under what Statute the police, after that discharge, again arrested them for the same alleged offence and brought them before two magistrates in Belfast who, after the police had failed to produce any evidence of sedition and had sworn that the youths had been sober and orderly and had gone home early on the night in question, imposed a fine of £10 upon each; for what supposed offence was this fine imposed; what evidence was produced that this offence had been committed; if any but police evidence existed why it was not produced; whether the defendants have refused to pay the fines for an offence not proved; what imprisonment they are now enduring in default; and whether the Lord Chancellor has considered the conduct of the magistrates in this case?
  Mr. DUKE: The men referred to were arrested in Ballinagh on the morning of the 12th instant and taken by train to Belfast, but not without food. They were tried before two justices on charges under the Defence of the Realm Acts of, inter alia, having attempted to cause

  2011
  sedition or disaffection by singing disloyal songs and making use of disloyal expressions. There was no denial of this charge, and a fine of £10, or in default, three months' imprisonment was inflicted. The defendants refused to pay the fine, but not on the plea that no offence was committed, and they are undergoing the term of imprisonment.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the county council and the district council of Cavan have condemned these arrests on the ground that they are in conflict with the professed Government policy of increased food production?
  Mr. DUKE: I am not aware of it.
  Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House a sample of a disloyal song?
  Mr. DUKE: I fear any effort of that kind would bring me into conflict with the Chair.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether, since the 19th December, when he refused to release the ten Irish youths under nineteen, now in penal servitude by order of a secret court-martial, he has verified the statement made on the 11th May by the then Prime Minister (OFFICIAL REPORT, page 956) that, as regards the rank and file, many of them very young men, even lads….what in their case is a merely venial and pardonable error; and whether, in the spirit of that view, he will now release those youths?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I have read the passage to which the hon. Member refers. The late Prime Minister in the sentence partly quoted in the question referred only to those members of the rank and file who had been duped or misled into the rebellion. I have no reason to believe that the prisoners to whom the hon. Member refers come within that category.
  Mr. GINNELL: Mr. Speaker, are not these members of the rank and file?
  Sir G. CAVE: I am not able to say; they were condemned by court-martial.
  Mr. GINNELL: Secret court-martial.

  EAST AFRICAN CAMPAIGN (WHITE TROOPS).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the anxiety of the relatives of the white troops engaged in the East African campaign in respect to the health of such troops, the transport of materials, and the rationing; and whether, having regard to the statement of General Smuts that white troops were not suitable for fighting in East Africa, he can give the House an assurance that in all particulars these troops are well conditioned in every respect, so as to assure their efforts being effective to bring this campaign to a successful conclusion?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The composition of the East African Expeditionary Force has been varied from time to time according to the climatic and other conditions under which it was operating. It was long since recognised that in the event of the German forces retiring into the malarious southeastern portions of their colony it would be desirable to reduce the number of white troops employed to a minimum. Steps were accordingly taken to provide coloured units to replace white. At the present moment the bulk of the white troops have been withdrawn, or are in process of being withdrawn, whilst arrangements have been made to give other white units a period of rest and recuperation in a healthy climate. In regard to certain reports of the hardships undergone by the troops in East Africa, which have gained currency, the following extract from a telegram from General Smuts may be of interest:
  "The complaints are exaggerated perversions of the admitted fact that the hardships have been unusually great in this campaign."
  The health and rationing of the troops, the provision of adequate transport, mechanical and other, is constantly engaging attention.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    UNDER-AGE DISCHARGES.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will say on what statutory authority have the instructions now in force been issued that all discharges under age are suspended;

    2013
    and whether Private M. Connor, No. 28720, under sixteen years of age, and now in Mullingar Barracks, will be immediately sent home to his parents?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Connor has been discharged as a special case. In regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 19th February to the hon. Member for West Clare.

    GLASGOW MEETING.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has now received a report regarding the police raid upon a trade union organised meeting for shop assistants in Glasgow on 9th February; whether he has investigated the allegations that, though directly inspired by the military authorities, the raid was actually instigated by certain employers in the wholesale drapery trade for the purpose of breaking up the meeting and intimidating their employés against joining the union; will he state the justification for the raid, seeing that these wholesale firms have to provide to the military authorities a list of all men of military age in their employment; will he state whether the raid resulted in the arrest of any military absentee; and what steps are to be taken to prevent the spread of such methods?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: One of the difficulties of the military authorities is to maintain the accuracy of the military register, and to secure this object systematic examination of registration cards and military papers is undertaken periodically. After one series of these investigations had taken place and become known through the Press, it was the experience of the War Office that a large number of persons reported corrections to the military authorities throughout the country. The provision of lists of employed by employers is only one means of keeping the military registers in order, and by itself is of no real value without accurate registration. There was no raid on the meeting in Glasgow. After the business of the meeting was over, the purpose of the visit was explained to the officials of the meeting, and the examination proceeded without disturbance. I cannot find that there is any foundation for my hon. Friend's suggestion that the visit was instigated by the wholesale drapery trade employers. There was no intention of arresting anyone at the meeting.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter to-morrow on, the Army Estimates.

    LABOUR BATTALION.
    Mr. WARDLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private Michael Lazarus, Labour Battalion, Queen's, who is alleged to have been taken into the Army notwithstanding that he has suffered from fits for two years and from paralysis of the left hand, and who since his enlistment has been discharged from three hospitals and is now in a fourth; and what he proposes to do in the matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries are-being made, and my hon. Friend will be informed of the result.

    BANK EMPLOYES.
    Mr. WARDLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there is any intention on the part of the military authorities to press for the release for the Army of any more of the remaining eligible men employed in the various banks; whether he is aware that the maximum number obtainable would not exceed 1,000 and that the nucleus of experienced staff left is already greatly overtaxed in carrying out the work; and whether, before any attempt is made further to reduce the remainder, the Treasury and the chief banking authorities will be consulted as to the advisability or otherwise of this course being adopted?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No unusual pressure is, so far as I know, being exerted against banks to release men for the Army. Arrangements have from time to time been made with a representative bankers'" advisory committee as to the proportion, of men to be so released. The situation is naturally not the same to-day as it was six months ago, and more men are needed for the Army from all industries. Should' the Clearing House banks consider that they cannot release the men whom it is considered should now or in the near-future be made available for the Army, the question will no doubt be decided by the tribunals.
    Mr. WARDLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was aware of any intention on the part of the military authorities to demand the release for the Army of further members of the already

    2015
    depleted staffs of the various banks; whether he was aware that the maximum number obtainable would not exceed 1,000; and whether, in view of the fact that any reduction of the remaining overtaxed and experienced staffs will seriously hamper the banks in carrying out their duties, he will make representations to the military authorities on the matter?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I will give careful consideration to any representations that may be made to me by the banks on this subject.

    URGENT LEAVE.
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Gunner G. H. Cloke, No. 105,707, E. Company, 1/lst Lowland Battery, Royal Garrison Artillery, was advised from home on 1st February that his wife was dying, but was unable to obtain leave to come home, that his wife died on 6th February after confinement, but that leave has still been refused to Cloke; and whether, seeing that in such circumstances it is usual wherever possible to grant leave and that arrangements for the care of his child and home require Cloke's presence, he will take steps to procure leave for this man to visit his home for the purpose mentioned?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Representations were made to the authorities in this case, as is done in all cases of urgency, with a view to their considering the question of leave. I have no doubt that this case is receiving every consideration, but the grant of leave rests with the Commander-in-Chief.
    Mr. McNEILL: Can my hon. Friend give any more regular assurance than that special circumstances will be considered favourably?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In cases of special urgency we have communicated with the Commander-in-Chief in France, and I believe that this has been done in this case. I feel sure that he will give the case every consideration.

  MILITARY MEDALS.
  Colonel M'CALMONTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of warrant and non-commissioned officers and men have
  2016
  served continuously in the fighting line for over two and a half years without having been fortunate enough to have been brought to notice for some act of gallantry for which the military medal can be awarded; and whether steps will be taken with a view to a grant of military medals to meet such cases of this kind as may be recommended by commanding officers?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Decorations are granted on the recommendation of a soldier's superior officer or for some definite act of bravery or exceptionally good service. No reports have been received from Commanders-in-Chief in the field that any necessity exists for extending or modifying existing principles. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that there are no restrictions on the number of military medals which may be awarded.

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Under-Secrtary of State for War, whether the Army Medical Department has now seen the statement by the sister of the late Earl Kitchener, Mrs. Parker, with reference to the case of W. H. Townley, a soldier in the West Kent Regiment: and whether he can state the present occupation of Townley?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; the Department has not seen the statement referred to, and knows nothing about the ease or about Townley's present occupation. If the hon. Member will furnish the necessary particulars I will make inquiries.

  ROYAL FLYING CORPS (PHOTOGRAPHS).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men attached to the Royal Flying Corps have been allowed to engage in photographing public functions, such as the recent Royal visit to the City, in opposition to the professional Press photographers; whether the act of contributing to the Press is a violation of the regulations; whether the practice referred to had the sanction of the War Office; and whether he will take steps to prevent this competition with men who are dependent upon the work for their livelihood?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Certain photographs of the recent Royal visit were taken by the Royal Flying Corps for official purposes. None of these photographs were sent to the Press, and the last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

  8TH AND 9TH MUNSTERS (WEARING OF BADGES).
  Mr. O'LEARYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether an order has been issued prohibiting officers and men who have returned from the Expeditionary Force from wearing while under the Irish command in Ireland the distinguishing badges they wore at the front; whether the officers and men in the 8th and 9th Munsters have under this order been told to remove the shamrock worn on each shoulder; will he say what is the object of this order; and will he see that it is cancelled?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no information as to the badge, which my hon. Friend informs me is worn by such troops, nor of any order prohibiting such a badge in Ireland; but I will make inquiries and inform my hon. Friend of the result.

  PRISONERS OF WAR (EXCHANGE).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the reasons why the exchange of British and German civilian prisoners is opposed by the War Office; and whether very few of the German prisoners would now be fit for military service?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): Many of the German civilian prisoners in this country are Reservists and quite fit for military service; while nearly all of them would be available for enrolment under the general levy for national service lately brought into force in Germany. On the general question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities. I would, however, repeat that the only proposal for a wholesale exchange which the Germans are willing to entertain is one that against our 4,000 at most would entitle them to some 26,000 in this country alone, and 9,000 to 10,000 in the Dominions
  2018
  and Colonies. In other words, they would stand to gain nearly nine men to our one, namely, over 35,000 to probably less than 4,000.
  Mr. BUXTON: Can my hon. Friend give any approximate estimate of the number who would be fit for service in the field?
  Mr. HOPE: No; on the spur of the moment I cannot. No doubt the figures could be got, but not without some considerable trouble. But all of them, or nearly all, are in a position to be made use of by the German authorities if they were returned.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether there would not be a corresponding, and even a much greater, benefit to this country by getting rid of these. 35,000 Germans altogether?
  Mr. HOPE: That is not the opinion of the responsible military authorities.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: If that be so, would it not be advisable to get rid of all German prisoners of war?
  Sir J. D. REES: Is it not the case that many interned German civilians are extremely capable men who have now become possessed of information which it is very undesirable that they should be in a position to pass on?
  Mr. HOPE: That is another consideration which the military authorities have in mind.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Would it be possible to carry on the arrangement by the pooling of Allied nationals for the purposes of exchange?
  Mr. HOPE: That is one of many alternatives that have been proposed at different times and which have not been—I do not say that one in particular—but there are several alternatives which have been proposed and have not been finally rejected.

  MANIPULATIVE SURGEONS.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in reference to the fact that manipulative treatment is in full swing in the Army under well-known authorities on the subject, he will give the House the names of such authorities, and state the

  2019
  source of their qualification in manipulative treatment; whether he is aware that in the American school of manipulative treatment, which is known as osteopathy, the course of study and diligent practice considered absolutely essential extends over a period of four years before the qualifying examination can be entered for; and whether, now that manipulative treatment is being freely resorted to in the Army, he will recommend a substantial increase in the number of manipulators available by the employment of others who have been specially trained and have passed qualifying examinations on the subject, and who have offered their services without fees for the cure of wounded soldiers?
  Sir G. GREENWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state if the War Office received an offer for services of about 100 Canadian and American experts in manipulative treatment for the help of the wounded; if so, whether the War Office replied that they could not accept this offer; whether he is aware that the gentlemen whose services were offered hold the highest American qualifications in manipulative surgery, known in America as osteopathy; whether the War Office has more of such assistance than it requires; and, if not, whether he can state on what ground the offer was refused?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Surgeons who have paid special attention to orthopædic surgery are well acquainted with manipulative methods and have them in constant use. Offers, I believe, have been received from time to time, from America and elsewhere, from osteopaths, faith healers, Christian Scientists and others, but they were refused on grounds which I have now frequently stated to the House.
  Sir G. GREENWOOD: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the services of about a hundred Canadian and American experts in manipulative treatment were offered? I did not quite catch his answer.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: No. I will read the last part of my answer again: "Offers, I believe, have been received from time to time, from America and elsewhere, from osteopaths, faith healers, Christian Scientists, and others, but they were refused on grounds which I have now frequently stated to the House."
  Mr. PRINGLE: Does the hon. Gentleman class Barker with faith healers and Christian Scientists? Are they in that state of ignorance still?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is he aware that these gentlemen own the highest American qualifications?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: All I know is that we are precluded by law from employing any man as an officer in the Royal Army Medical Corps who is not a registered medical practitioner.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that they have never asked to be employed as recognised doctors or surgeons, but that they only ask to be allowed to go in and assist the surgeons in the hospitals to cure the wounded?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member must remember that we have a responsibility to the wounded, and that we must have skilled men in accordance with the recognised test, and there is no place so averse to allowing the employment of unskilled and unqualified surgeons as the House of Commons.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: They are qualified.
  Mr. PRINGLE: What is good enough for a Minister is surely good enough for a soldier.
  Sir G. GREENWOOD: Why did—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We had better resume the Debate to-morrow.

  PROMOTION OF OFFICERS.
  Mr. TICKLERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, with regard to an officer who has been attached to another corps and who has obtained promotion to the rank of captain and been awarded the Military Cross and a bar to the same, whether, on being wounded and returned to the establishment of his own regiment, he must revert to the rank of second-lieutenant while officers junior to him in his regiment have received promotion?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: If an officer has been promoted, he does not revert to lower rank; but if he has been granted acting rank, which is given for the performance of the duties of a specific appointment, then he would relinquish his acting rank on vacating his appointment.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it the case that by giving distinguished services and by being wounded this officer, while attached to another corps, has lost all chance of promotion in his original regiment?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: No, the hon. Member is quite wrong in that assumption. The point is that if a man is of acting rank he is bound to revert to his former rank.
  Mr. SCOTT: Is it the case that, while he is of acting rank, officers junior to him, who have never seen service, have been promoted over his head?

  LIEUTENANT BARRETT (COMPENSATION).
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) in view of pecuniary compensation being considered inappropriate to the case of Lieut. Barrett, if he will say what form of compensation it is proposed to make to this officer for the wrongs he has suffered; and (2) whether, in considering the propriety of making pecuniary compensation to Lieut. Barrett, account has been taken of the fact that, although, the commanding officer of Barrett's battalion was removed from his command and the Quartermaster-General of the Army was severely reprimanded by the Government for their conduct in relation to Barrett, the former of these two officers has since been given a staff appointment and the latter retains his position in the Army Council; whether these circumstances, in conjunction with the refusal of compensation to the junior officer whom they wronged, are an indication of reluctance on the part of the Army Council to accept the report of the court of inquiry; and whether, in view of the recent precedent supplied by the Archer-Shee case, where a sum of £4,000 was awarded as compensation to an officer for a wrongful accusation having been made against him, the question of pecuniary compensation to Lieut. Barrett will be reconsidered?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The late commanding officer of Lieut. Barrett's battalion is at present medically unfit, and ho is to be sent to France on recovery. He has not been given a staff appoint-
  2022
  ment. I have already explained to the House the Quartermaster-General's position, and I will remind hon. Members that the court expressly said that no action of Sir J. Cowans's had any bearing on the decisions of which 2nd Lieut. Barrett had to complain. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said on the 22nd that pecuniary compensation does not appear to be appropriate in Mr. Barrett's case. I would point out that Mr. Barrett's character has been amply vindicated in circumstances of the fullest publicity, and he has before him the prospect of a long and useful military career. Mr. Archer-Shee's case does not appear to me to be a precedent, as I understand he suffered loss by having to abandon the profession for which he had been prepared and was put to the expense of fitting himself for another. In justice to Lieut. Barrett, I think that I should state that he himself has not made any application of any kind for any compensation of this sort.
  Mr. McNEILL: Does my hon. Friend not know perfectly well that as a result of the transactions which were inquired into, Lieut. Barrett has been rendered totally unfit for military service for the rest of his life?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware of that fact, and I do not think the hon. Member is right in stating that. All that I know is that Lieut. Barrett is still an officer and is still being paid by us.
  Mr. McNEILL: I give notice that I will raise the question on the Debate on the Army Estimates.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: May I ask if the report presented to the House on the Lieut. Barrett affair was bowdlerised or accurate?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: All that we promised was that the terms of the findings were to be published, and we did publish the findings as they were presented to us.
  Mr. G. FABER: Inasmuch as Lieut. Barrett has not asked for any pecuniary compensation, may I ask why Members of this House should take upon themselves to ask it for him?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say that at no time has a claim for compensation been put in on behalf of Lieut. Barrett?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I understand that at no time has a claim of any sort been made by Lieut. Barrett, or by anybody on his behalf.

  CIVILIAN CLERKS (ARMY COUNCIL).
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether on the 14th January, 1915, Army Council Instructions were issued increasing the pay of civilian clerks in Record Offices from 30s. to 33s. for a six-day week of ten hours per day, subject to certain qualifications; whether he is aware that no additional pay in accordance with the Instructions was given to the civilian clerks in the Royal Garrison Artillery Record Office in Dover until April, 1916, and that, although an application has been made for fifteen months' arrears due under the Instructions mentioned, no payment of these arrears has yet been made; if he will say why the Instructions were not complied with in the case mentioned for fifteen months; and if he will give directions for the arrears due to be paid without further delay?
  Mr. FORSTER: I will make inquiry.

  BEE DISEASE.
  Sir W. ESSEXasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board is still pursuing its inquiries into the Isle of Wight bee disease, and with what results; and when the Report of the Board's protozoologists on Microsporidiosis will be laid before the House?
  Sir R. WINFREY: The Board's expert adviser on protozoology is now in South Africa, and her experiment on Isle of Wight disease is at an end. She left at short notice, and was not able to complete her Report before leaving, but she has promised to send it as soon as possible.

  CROWN LEASES.
  Sir W. ESSEXasked the First Comsioner of Works the date or dates upon which the leases of the properties lying between Trafalgar Square and Charing Cross station fall in to the Crown?
  Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury): The Crown property referred to will fall out of lease at various dates between 1927 and 1982.

  SHERIFFS (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. WATTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the small number of cases of appeal which take place in Scotland from sheriffs substitute to sheriffs principal in all sheriffdoms outside the populous areas of Glasgow and Edinburgh and of the high salaries which are paid to these sheriffs principal; and, if so, will he take the opportunity of the War to introduce legislation abolishing these sheriff principalships outside the populous areas in view of the facts that in some instances only two cases annually are being appealed to the principals?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. My hon. and learned Friend appears to be under a misapprehension as to the nature and extent of the duties devolving upon sheriffs in Scotland, which are by no means confined to the function of hearing appeals from their substitutes. In addition, the sheriffs act as judges of first instance in both civil and criminal cases. They are responsible for law and order in their sheriffdom, and they also perform a variety of important administrative duties, including, at the present time, the duty of presiding over the Appeal Tribunals under the Military Service Acts, in which capacity they have given, and are giving, most valuable service. I am not prepared to introduce legislation on the lines suggested.
  Mr. WATT: Are not the sheriffs paid for these duties in connection with the tribunals themselves, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the country gets value for its money in view of the large sums paid to these sheriffs?
  Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and to the second part in the affirmative.

  BANK HOLIDAYS.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Prime Minister if it is proposed to cancel the Bank Holidays at Easter; and, if so, will he publish the Order as early as possible,

  2025
  so that traders, shopkeepers, and others affected by the same may make their arrangements in good time?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The matter is now now under consideration, and it is hoped to make an early announcement on the subject.

  FRANCE AND BELGIUM (INVASION BY GERMAN ARMIES).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister if he had received a resolution from the Lord Mayor of London, which was passed on Thursday, 15th February, declaring that the invasion of Belgium and France by the German armies threatens the very existence of independent nationalities and strikes a blow at all faith in treaties, a victory for German imperialism would be the defeat and the destruction of democracy and liberty in Europe, and agrees that the fight should continue until victory is achieved; and whether he proposes to make any statement on the subject?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister has received the resolution referred to. The resolution so exactly represents the views and the intentions which have already been expressed on behalf both of the Government and the people of this country that no further statement seems necessary.

  PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES (FRENCH SYSTEM).
  Mr. BUXTONasked the Prime Minister (1) whether any progress has been made in regard to the proposed inquiry into the question of establishing Parliamentary Committees on the general lines of the French system; whether the question will be referred, as he declared to be probable, to Parliament itself for decision; and (2) whether he will publish the Report or other material upon which it has been decided that the system of Parliamentary Committees prevailing in France is unsuitable to this country; and whether the Government is considering any other plan which would accomplish the desired results?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to what I stated in reply to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield on 15th February. The Report
  2026
  to which I referred was a confidential one, and it would not be advisable to publish it.
  Mr. JOWETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister expressed the opinoin in this House that France has been saved by her Committee system?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister was favourably disposed towards a proposal of this kind; but on examination of it, and seeing exactly what it meant to Ministers, he and the Government came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to adopt it.
  Mr. KEATING: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered what it means to the country, as well as to Ministers?
  Sir C. HENRY: Was the decision arrived at by the Cabinet because the system would be an inconvenience to Ministers?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, not at all. It was due to an examination of the whole working of the system.

  IRISH REBELLION.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the present condition of a young man named Tierney, transferred before he was fit for removal from Dublin Castle hospital to Frongoch camp; there punished with others for refusing to betray his comrades; driven insane by cruelty which he was physically unable to bear, and removed to an asylum without notice to his wife; and what facilities are now afforded to friends for visiting him and promoting his recovery?
  Sir G. CAVE: The orders given by the military authorities for Tierney's removal to Frongoch directed that he should be transferred, when medically fit to travel, and there is no reason to suppose that he was not fit when he was removed. He was one of several hundreds of prisoners placed in a separate camp for refusing to answer to their names, but he was not otherwise punished. The statement that his insanity was due to his treatment has been the subject of careful inquiry and is believed to be absolutely unfounded, and it appears from his wife's statement that he had had

  2027
  previous attacks of mental trouble. It is also totally untrue that he was sent to the asylum without notice to his friends. His wife visited him in the camp hospital on two successive days before his removal. Tierney is no longer a prisoner, but an ordinary private patient in the Denbigh Asylum, and his friends can visit him in accordance with the ordinary rules of the asylum. I regret to say that his mental condition has not improved.

  SHOPS EARLY CLOSING ORDER.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary when the present Order as regards early closing of shops in London expires; if it is proposed to renew the Order; and, if so, for what period?
  Sir G. CAVE: The present Order will expire on the 30th April. On the question of its renewal, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the right hon. Member for West Islington on Monday.
  Mr. GILBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, before he renews the Order, the desirability of getting an expression of opinion from this House?
  Sir G. CAVE: I do not think I could undertake to do that. I am considering all representations.

  RESTRICTED IMPORTS (TYRES).
  Mr. KEATINGasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that shipping space to the extent of nearly 2,000,000 cubic feet was taken up by the importation in 1916 of tyres from other countries, representing about 50,000 tons; that British manufacturers are able to meet the demands for tyres for all purposes connected with the War; and will he consider the advisability of saving this tonnage?
  Mr. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. This matter was most carefully considered by the Committee on Import Restrictions, but in view of international considerations in regard to the importation and exportation of rubber and manufactures of rubber the Committee advised that it was undesirable to impose the suggested prohibition.

  CHARITABLE FUNDS (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the number of charity funds existing in Scotland, and presumably throughout the United Kingdom, that were subscribed by the public on the occurrence of disasters such as the "Daphne" disaster, the Udstone Colliery, and others; is he aware that the beneficiaries under these funds have long since died out or fallen out of benefit otherwise, and that the funds exist now only for the advantage of professional men who audit them annually; and, in view of the present wartime, will he consider the advisability of taking legislative steps to obtain for the State these unused charitable funds?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no precise information as to the existence of the charity funds described by the hon. Member. But I am having further inquiries made.

  TRUST LAND (IRELAND).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can undertake that rural district councils in Ireland becoming owners of land in trust for small holders, whether under the Land Act of 1903 or under the present schemes, and whether for tillage or pasturage, shall be exempt from Income Tax on such lands, seeing that they freely discharge the duties of the trust and derive no benefit from the lands; and whether he will see that the demand made on the Delvin District Council for £14 8s. 9d. Income Tax on land so held is not enforced?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am having careful inquiry made into the matter referred to, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

  NATIONAL SERVICE.

    LABOUR COMPANIES.
    Mr. GLANVILLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that men passed C 1 and higher categories and afterwards found unfit and placed in lower categories are retained in labour companies, with the result that some 500 men, mostly capable workmen in various trades, are stationed at Charlton, Kent, and

    2029
    given no opportunity of doing useful work for which they are anxious; and whether he will see that some system will be instituted by which the energies of these men and others in similar camps throughout the country shall be applied to some useful national service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There is no information in the War Office as to the men referred to in the question. Full instructions, however, have been issued from time to time to ensure that all C2 men and those of C3 who are retained in the Army are utilised to the full. In this case I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are large numbers of men skilled in trades who are now employed for long periods of time in military working parties on mere labouring work?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me some information.
    Mr. GLANVILLE: If I furnish the information, will further action be taken?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Certainly.
    Mr. GLANVILLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that 2,000 men are stationed at 51, Calthorpe Street, W.C., that many hundreds of them have been there for some months, that having been taken into the Army under mistaken medical reports afterwards altered to C3 they do not serve any useful purpose, having nothing to occupy their time, and are kept in a state of unwilling idleness; if he is aware that the employers of these men, being Government munition works in some cases, are anxious to have them back; will he take steps to have reversed the decision which retains those men who have been applied for; and will he instruct that any C3 men kept idle over two months for eventualities shall be released until wanted?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this. Inquiries are being made, and my hon. Friend will be informed of the result.
    Mr. GLANVILLE: Can I be informed of the result?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: When I get the result of the inquiry.

  MORTGAGE AND DEBENTURE COMPANY, LIMITED.
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether protests have been lodged at the Treasury against the action of the Mortgage and Debenture Company, Limited; whether this company represented to its creditors that they would be acting patriotically and in conformity with the ascertained wishes of the Treasury in accepting 16s. in the £ for their debenture claims; whether this company's published accounts show that it is in a prosperous condition and perfectly well able to meet its debts in full; whether the Treasury is aware that certain debenture holders accepted the offer because they were led to believe that the Government wished them to do so; and whether the circular in question is to be dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act or otherwise as an attempt to earn a profit of £200,000 at the expense of British citizens anxious to support the Treasury at this time?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am informed by the company that the offer has now been withdrawn.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

    POLICE AT MEETINGS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Home Secretary whether he will explain the scope of the recent Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act permitting the competent military or naval authority or superior officer of police to authorise in writing a police constable or other person to attend any meeting or assembly at which, in the opinion of the authority, some offence against the Regulations might be committed; whether this Regulation extends to meetings in a private house or to trade union meetings in their branch rooms; whether it is to be left to the police constable to decide as to whether some breach of the Regulations has been committed; and whether the police constable can stop or disband such meeting?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Regulation relates only to meetings of such a character that offences against the Regulations made for securing the public safety and the defence of the realm may be committed thereat. It does not, therefore, contemplate interference with trade unions or other lawful organisations. No power to stop or disband a meeting is created by the Regulation.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (DOCKYARD DIVISIONS).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that Metropolitan constables who are transferred to dockyard divisions for the benefit of the service have to pay the increased railway fares when visiting their homes; and whether arrangements can be made for them to travel at a reduced rate when on leave?
  Sir G. CAVE: As many of the Metropolitan Police came from homes in the country, constables transferred to Dockyards are not necessarily further from their parents or other relatives than those serving in London. In the case of married men, their wives and families accompany them, and the dockyard town becomes their home. Police officers visiting relatives at a distance surfer like other people from the increased cost of travelling.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter, as the cost of living has increased by over 80 per cent., these men are paid miserable wages, and railway fares have been greatly increased?
  Sir G. CAVE: The whole question has been carefully considered.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to be in the position of the average married policeman, whose pay is 37s. 6d. a week? Would he like to live on that?

  ALIEN ENEMY (JOSEPH SZEBENYI).
  Mr. A. F. WHYTEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the presence in London of an alien enemy, Joseph Szebenyi by name, who is alleged to be the author of certain articles in the "Morning Post" newspaper, purporting to describe parliamentary debates in the Budapest Parliament; whether he is aware that allegations have been made against the bona fides of these articles, which are calculated to mislead British readers; and whether he has ever or will now consider the advisability of interning Mr. Szebenyi?
  Sir G. CAVE: I am aware of these allegations. Mr. Szebenyi made an application for exemption from internment in the summer of 1915, and was exempted on the
  2032
  recommendation of the Advisory Committee. I am making inquiries, and propose to review the decision in his case.

  COAL MINES (STATE CONTROL).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make any statement as to the financial and other arrangements, which have been completed in connection with the transfer of the coal mines in the United Kingdom to the State and their control by the Controller of Mines, and as to the position and rate of pay of the-miners under the new scheme?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the question asked by the hon. Member on the 19th February.
  Mr. MILLAR: Can the hon. Gentleman state when he expects he will be able to make a statement in the House upon a matter of such great public importance?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I am quite unable to state a date, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Controller is hard at work on the subject, and I am anxious to make a statement as soon as practicable.

  CONVEYANCE OF GOODS TO IRELAND.
  Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many English conveying companies refuse to take delivery of goods for Ireland; and whether he will endeavour to have this complaint remedied?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I am afraid that in present circumstances some difficulties in connection with the conveyance of goods to Ireland are inevitable. If, however, I am furnished with particulars of any specific complaint, I will look into the matter.
  Mr. FIELD: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the constant complaints respecting this delay, which has been going on for months, and nothing has been done by the Department to try to remedy it?
  Mr. ROBERTS: We are receiving many complaints from all parts of the country, and we find that under existing circumstances some delay is unavoidable. On the other hand, we do all we can to remedy the matter.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any cases where a manufacturer in this country has experienced the elapse of two months before goods sent off have been received in Ireland?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I can assure the hon. Gentleman we receive as many complaints from this country as we do from Ireland.

  MUNITIONS.

    CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS.
    Major Sir EDWARD COATESasked the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Bewdley Division) whether, in cases of controlled establishments where the managing director or manager has during, or before, the standard period by contract or agreement secured a remuneration based upon the profits, such secured remuneration is chargeable against the profits for the period of assessment; and whether, seeing that such remuneration arising out of increased profits for the period of assessment reduces the profits of the controlled establishment, as apart from Exchequer profit, below those of the standard period, he will provide a remedy for this state of affairs?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The answer to the first part of the question is that such remuneration, calculated with reference to the divisible amount of profits allowed to be retained by the controlled owner under Part II. of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, and the Rules thereunder, would, speaking generally be chargeable against the profits of the period of assessment. I am not quite clear what contingencies the hon. Member has in mind in the second part of the question, but I should be happy to consider any illustrative case which he would put before me.
    Mr. JOYNSON HICKS: Is the hon. Member aware that this whole question is sub judice, and his law is not quite right?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I should not like to question the hon. Member on a point of law.

  ALIEN ENEMIES.
  Sir H. CRAIKasked the Secretary for Scotland how many alien enemies there are uninterned in Scotland; how
  2034
  many of that number are in the Glasgow district; and how many are in prohibited areas?
  Mr. MUNRO: Excluding British-born wives, there are, approximately, in Scotland, 770 uninterned enemy aliens, of whom 450 are men and 320 women; 300 men and 150 women are in the Glasgow district. Of the remainder, 84 men and 105 women are in other prohibited areas.
  Mr. W. YOUNG: How many of these are friendly?
  Mr. MUNRO: I would like to say that the total number which I have given includes friendly aliens, and in addition to, that, a very large proportion of those included in the figures are persons who have resided in the country over forty years.
  Sir H. CRAIKasked the Secretary for Scotland how many alien enemies previously residing in Scotland have been interned, and how many from the Glasgow district?
  Mr. MUNRO: The numbers are approximately 400 from Glasgow and 700 from the rest of Scotland.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary for Scotland who are the Advisory Committee in regard to alien enemies in Scotland; whether it is proposed to strengthen it; how many cases they have considered; how many they have left uninterned; and how many have been released from internment?
  Mr. MUNRO: The Scottish Advisory Committee consists of Lord Dewar (Chairman) and my hon. Friends the Member for South Lanarkshire and the Member for Govan, the latter of whom has recently taken the place of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs. The Committee has examined over 1,800 cases, and, in addition, it has recently revised all cases in prohibited areas. The men of all ages exempted from internment or repatriation number about 400, and 68 have been released, some of whom are now in England. I see no reason to alter the composition of the Committee.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a report to the House as to the work of this Committee such as we have had in regard to England?
  Mr. MUNRO: Yes, I will consider that suggestion.
  Mr. WATT: Are we to understand that only 400 were interned out of the 1,800 cases examined?
  Mr. MUNRO: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given.

  NATURALISED BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary for Scotland how many naturalised persons of enemy origin have been interned during the War in Scotland, and how many in the Glasgow district?
  Mr. MUNRO: Three naturalised persons of enemy origin have been interned, including one from the Glasgow district, who was subsequently released on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee.

  NEUTRAL SHIPPING.
  Mr. W. YOUNG(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the case that neutral lines of steamers which have been in the habit of trading regularly from ports in Scandinavia and Holland to this country have stopped running; whether British owners are at liberty to put on boats to take the place of these neutral lines; and whether If they do they will be supported by His Majesty's Government both now and after the War?
  Mr. ROBERTS: It is the case that some neutral lines have stopped running, and if the stoppage continues it will be necessary to consider what is the best action to take in the interests of this country.

  Greenock Harbour Trust.
  Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been asked to appoint a new chairman for the Greenock Harbour Trust; and, if so, will he say when the appointment is to be made?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The Board of Trade have been asked to appoint an impartial person to be chairman of the Greenock Harbour Trustees for the ensuing three years. Negotiations are taking place re-
  2036
  garding the matter, and the Board hope to be in a position to make the appointment at an early date.
  Mr. WATT: Will the hon. Gentleman take care that this post does not become another perquisite of the omnivorous Scottish bar?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Any representation the hon. Member may make to me will have consideration. I am aware of the Scottish character.

  Burtonport Railway (Ireland).
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a demand from the Donegal County Council, in pursuance of its statutory powers under the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Confirmation Act, 1898 (Section 24 of Order in Council), for an inquiry into the working of the Burtonport Railway, and a memorial signed by a number of ratepayers to the same effect; whether he is prepared to grant such inquiry; and, if so, when it will take place, and by whom will it be held?
  Mr. ROBERTS: The communications referred to by the hon. Gentleman have been received, and the representations made will be carefully considered. The points raised are at present before the Irish Railway Executive Committee, and until I have received their report thereon I shall not be in a position to consider whether any action can be taken.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,
  Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to enable Ecclesiastical Services in certain cases to be omitted on account of the War." [Ecclesiastical Services (Ommission on account of War) Bill [Lords.]

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).
  Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to the Standing Committee A: Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUX: As a matter of personal explanation, may I crave the indulgence of the House for a few minutes. On Monday evening, after our Debate in the afternoon, I had a conversation with the right hon. and gallant Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill), whom I am glad to see in his place, and he told me that he meant to answer me, but later on he said that he did not think it worth while, and he did not do so. This morning, on waking up and reading my papers, I received rather a shock to see the speech which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman delivered last night. Unintentionally, no doubt, he rather misrepresented me in what he said:
"The other point which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend was that connected with appointments of Admirals of the Fleet. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that a special change was made in the method of appointing Admirals of the Fleet at the instance of Prince Louis of Battenberg, in order that he might remain an Admiral of the Fleet. That was an odious charge against Prince Louis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1917, col. 1985.]
So it would have been if anybody had made it, but I did nothing of the sort. What I said was a totally different thing. I am quoting my speech from the OFFICIAL REPORT:
"Some few years ago there was a curious alteration made in the system of promotion of Admirals of the Fleet, which was never thoroughly explained by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. Of course, he knew nothing about it. There was only one reason why the regulations relating to Admirals of the Fleet were altered—that was, that under the existing regulations then in print it was quite impossible for Admiral Prince Louis of Battenberg—I regret to have to mention his name—to become an Admiral of the Fleet unless at least two of the men senior to him were disqualified."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1917, col. 1717.]
This is absolutely and entirely true. Under those regulations, it was impossible for Prince Louis of Battenberg to become an Admiral of the Fleet. I never said that he instigated the change. I do not know who worked the hon. and gallant Member's board. How could I know? I knew the result was that by the new Regulations two English admirals of unblemished reputation lost their opportunity of becoming Admirals of the Fleet.
Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is not this a matter for debate?
Sir H. MEUX: I think in saying what he did last night the right hon. Gentleman was hardly fair. Everyone knows that what I stated is quite true. These two people were turned out by this Regulation. I dare say people will notice that the right hon. Gentleman
2038
thought I ought not to consider that the Regulation should not have been framed. The other point is a very short one, and there again I think the right hon. Gentleman rather misled the House and the public by turning off my charge that Admiral Hood had been treated in a bad manner in being dismissed from his command. But I only found fault with the manner in which he was dismissed. In any class of life, whether it be a butler, a gardener, or anybody else, if a man is dismissed at twelve hours' notice without any reason of any sort or kind being given, that man is disgraced in the eyes of his friends and of those round about him. That happened to Admiral Hood, and I think everybody will agree that, although the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gave him an appointment three weeks or so later, that had nothing to do with it.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know whether I shall be permitted to say a word, but it shall be only a very few words, in answer to the statement of my hon. and gallant Friend. With regard to the removal of Admiral Hood from his command, and the manner in which it was done, circumstances of war necessitate when changes of command are decided upon they should be executed with the utmost rapidity. That is the universal rule in the Army. As for twenty-four hours' notice being a hardship, half an hour's notice is very often more than is given in important changes of command in all Armies serving at the front. The rule in this matter must be entirely and solely the military advantage of the Service and the carrying on successfully of the War. With regard to what my hon. and gallant Friend said in regard to Admirals of the Fleet, the only point of his statement that was offensive was the suggestion that Prince Louis of Battenberg, who was First Sea Lord, was the prime mover in bringing about the change in the Regulations, not for the benefit of the Service or for the securing of a better system, but in order to obtain for himself this great honour. I read the speech most carefully, and I listened with the utmost attention to it, and the impression formed on my mind, and I think on the minds of any hon. Members who were present, was that it was an attack upon Prince Louis. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Then if it was not a charge against him, if it was not a suggestion that Prince Louis in any way tried to advance his own interests in the matter, I fail to see the relevance

2039
of the hon. Gentleman's attack, 'because the change, on its merits, is one which would commend itself to the House, and has commended itself not only to the Board of Admiralty of that time, but to succeeding Boards of Admiralty which have administered the Regulation thus framed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. McKENNA: Would the right hon. Gentleman say which Orders it is proposed to take to-day?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We propose to take them in the order on the Paper, with the exception of 5, 7, 8, and 9.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will my right hon. Friend in future see that the Government gives a clear indication of the business. Yesterday the Report stage of one Vote of the Navy was taken, without notice to the great majority of Members?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not quite follow the question of my hon. Friend. They were taken in the order on the Paper.
  Mr. PRINGLE: But a much less important Order was placed on the Whip, and in consequence the last opportunity of raising questions with regard to the pay of the Navy was smuggled through the House, without the knowledge of the great majority?

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS).
Mr. WING: I beg to move, "That the Members of this House request the Kitchen Committee to observe in the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors the same restrictions as are imposed upon the general public."
In moving this Motion I think the House is entitled to know how it comes to be on the Order Paper to-day. On the 10th April, 1915, I addressed a question to the late Prime Minister, asking him if the Government were prepared to suspend the sale of intoxicating liquors in the refreshment rooms and bars of the House of Commons, and thus bring the Palace of Westminster into accord with the other Royal Palaces of His Majesty the King. The then Prime Minister replied that it was a matter for the House of Commons to decide. Afterwards facilities were granted me for a discussion on the question, and on the 20th April I moved a Resolution in these terms:
"This House is of opinion that during the War no alcoholic liquors should be sold in the refreshment rooms, or at the bars attached to the House of Commons, and request the Kitchen Committee to arrange accordingly."
2058
During the course of that Debate the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a statement to the effect that if my Resolution had been one to impose the same restrictions on Members of this House as are imposed on persons outside, it would have had his support. That statement sealed the doom of my Resolution, and it was afterwards respectfully interred on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. I must say, in passing, I deeply regret that the House missed a great opportunity, and there I leave it.
Later on I addressed questions to the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee (Colonel Lockwood), who made various replies, some of them in his usual facetious manner, which seemed to please the House, and by and by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was good enough to give me a reasoned answer, which was again that it was a question to be settled by the House of Commons. I then put down a question to the Leader of the House of Commons, asking if he were still of the same opinion as on the 10th April, 1915, regarding putting the same restrictions upon this House as were applied to outside establishments. I understood him to answer in the affirmative. I wish to thank him publicly to-day, because it is by his arrangement that I am able to move the-Resolution which now stands in my name.
4.0 P.M.
It is always a difficult matter to move a Resolution of this kind. It produces a kind of idea that we have Chadbands here again, or Pecksniffs. I realise that thoroughly, but still I am standing by my Resolution, although the position is this. If a man talks about abstinence, he is asked if he abstains himself, and if he replies that he does not, then they cry unto him, "Physician, heal thyself," Again, if they ask him if he drinks and he answers he does not, then he is told he is prejudiced, and consequently whatever position one occupies he is always apt to be ruled out in this way. Then the practical man comes along and says, "If the Resolution is passed, who will stay in this House after 9.30?" Or another hon. Member informs us that if he is restricted here, he would drink at his own house and under his own vine and fig tree. This is no longer a temperance question. It is a question of great national importance. The Food Controller has come into existence, and those who listened to the Prime Minister's

2059
great appeal on Friday last must realise that this War is about to be a struggle between the civilian populations, just as severe as that between the military and naval forces. In other words, it is now going to be a struggle for grains of corn. Viewed from that standpoint, the influence of this House ought to be on the side of preventing any further waste in what I am sure will be admitted to be luxuries. I am asking this House to pass this Resolution because the man outside has his own opinions on this point. When you say to the dock labourer, the munition worker, and others, "You must restrict your hours of drinking in the interests of efficiency," they turn round and say, "Everybody is to be restricted but the Members of the House of Commons!" They are not slack in saying that the position is absolutely rotten in that you should impose upon them a condition you refrain from adopting yourselves. Therefore, I ask the House, without any further remarks from me, to pass this Resolution. I do not want to say anything that is controversial. I would like the Resolution to be passed without a Division, so that we may, as a House, send to the nation a message that we are not going to ask the public to suffer any restrictions which we are unwilling to bear ourselves.
Mr. GEORGE FABER: I beg to second the Motion.
Time, indeed, brings strange revolutions. If I had been told in 1908–9, when I was associated with alcohol to the extent that I fought the Licensing Bill night and day for weeks and months, and also the Licensing Clauses of the Budget, not on the ground that I was a drinker or that I had any association with the trade, but on the ground of injustice, as I thought a great injustice was being perpetrated, and to the best of my humble ability I tried to put it right—if I had been told then that within seven or eight years I should get up and second a Resolution of this kind I should never have believed it to he within the bounds of probability. I will not say that in a moment, or in the twinkling of an eye, I have changed. In the course of these two and a half terrible years all sorts of things that we used to believe in have gone by the board, and we have to face the terrific, cruel necessities of this appalling War. The other
2060
day, when two leading temperance reformers got up and made a Motion involving a sacrifice on the part of brewers, I was sitting on this side of the House and I had not the opportunity of speaking. Perhaps I should have shocked old Friends if I had spoken. I said, "If it comes to a contest between beer and food, beer has got to go." I did not say that as a temperance fanatic; I said it as an ordinary citizen of this country. We have to make tremendous sacrifices, even vicarious sacrifices. There are a few trades in this country that have done well, but trade after trade has gone down and others are going down. You may say, "What has that got to do with the matter before the House?" It has a good deal to do with it. Are we not prepared to practise what a good many of us preach? What have we preached up and down the country except abstinence and self-sacrifice—I mean abstinence in the broad sense—the conscience of the people, the soul of the people, and all the time what has been going on in this House? Business as usual, drink as usual! How can we reconcile those two things? We cannot reconcile them with our consciences.
It is impossible that outside this House certain restrictions on drinking are put upon the public in general, and that we, the elect, the leaders, in a way, of the people, we who ought to hold up a great exemplar, are to go on drinking as usual. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!" and laughter.] All I can say is that it is not worthy of us. Every hon. Member whom I am addressing now knows that perfectly well—joking apart—the House of Commons can always lend itself, and wisely lend itself, to a joke, considering the terrific hours of monotony through which it has to pass; therefore I am not complaining in the least of anybody laughing. Strangely enough, it is not a matter for laughter. It is such a small thing in itself, yet there lies within it the kernel of a great principle. All over the country it is "Sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice!" and we go on with the bars of the House of Commons open as usual. It has become impossible, and you know it. How many of us were not horrified—I know I was—at the announcement in last Sunday's "Observer"—if it was true—that in certain sections of society dances were going on as usual, almost under pre-war conditions? I threw down my paper, and held up my

2061
hands and wrung them. I am afraid I said, "Good God, is it possible?" The time has come to rank ourselves in line with everybody else. Let us do in the House of Commons what the people are doing outside. What is the good of all these appeals made by the Food Controller if we are still to hold ourselves in a compartment apart—not a water-tight compartment—I need hardly complete the sentence by saying, in a drink-tight compartment. This is too serious a matter. We must not go to a Division. I say that as an old white-headed man who has become white since he entered this horrible place. I remember the late Prime Minister, when the Licensing Bill was under discussion, which I fought night and day for weeks, looking at mc chiefly among others and saying,
"I see thy hair getting white before my very eyes."
I have become white in this House. It is as a white-haired old man that I appeal to this House to set yourselves right, to set yourselves right with the country, to set yourselves right with the House of Commons and with yourselves. Do not go to a Division—that would be shameful—but pass the Resolution sub silentio.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: We ought to look at this matter from a common-sense point of view and not from any sentimental point of view. The Mover of the Motion is a well-known temperance reformer and has a right to his opinions. Two years ago he attempted to prevent anyone obtaining intoxicating liquor in this House. He failed then and now he wishes to prevent anyone obtaining intoxicating liquor after a certain hour in this House. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. G. Faber) says that we should conform to the Regulations outside. May I point out that in our own houses at any time during the day and night we have an opportunity of obtaining intoxicating liquor. This is not a public place, this is the Palace of Westminster, which has been for centuries differentiated from ordinary places.
Mr. KING: It is the only Palace with drink in it.
Sir F. BANBURY: Why not? I see no objection to taking a glass of beer or a glass of wine if I think it right. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to, he need not. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman, if he thinks it wrong to have a
2062
glass of wine, to take one, but that is no reason why I should not have a glass of wine if I desire it. As a matter of fact, it does not affect me in the least, because I rarely dine here. I should like to put this view before the House. We have no dinner hour at the present moment. Last year on one occasion—I forget which it was—I got no dinner till ten o'clock. I went into the Dining Room at 10 o'clock and got what was left. I had the honour of meeting the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, the present Lord Chancellor, and one or two other Members who had been unable to obtain any dinner until that time, owing to their having been occupied in the House, and we all dined together. I am not quite sure about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think he had a drink called ginger ale, and all the rest of us had something of an intoxicating nature. If this Order had been in force, and if we had sat here doing our duty until ten o'clock, unable to get any dinner—I do not remember that my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. G. Faber) ever sat through Debates in that way—
Mr. G. FABER: I have sat here for months and months. I was here during the whole of the Licensing Bill and the whole of the Budget.
Sir F. BANBURY: That is six years ago. I am talking about last year. If these Regulations had been in force we should have been unable to obtain anything except water with our dinner.
Mr. FABER: A very good thing, too.
An HON. MEMBER: Would that have killed you?
Sir F. BANBURY: That may be the opinion of my hon. Friend. I do not think he acted upon it himself.
Mr. FABER: Very nearly.
Sir F. BANBURY: Be that as it may, it seems absurd to say that if we come down here to do our duty, and if we are unable to dine until ten o'clock, we should not be able to get anything to drink with our dinner. The whole thing has been engineered with a view to promoting temperance.
Mr. FABER: I entirely deny that.
Sir F. BANBURY: It is the last way to promote temperance. It runs contrary to the old customs and habits of this House,

2063
without any object whatever, so far as I can see. What difference would it make? Because instead of having a glass of wine here, I could go home to dinner, and have a glass of wine in my own house. This House is not in the position of a club or of a public-house. Clubs were put in the same position as public-houses because it was held that if you legislated for the working men's clubs you must also legislate for the rich men's clubs. That may be all right, but this is a different thing altogether. To come forward with this sort of idea is perfectly absurd. I put this position—it does not affect me because my Constituents live near at hand, but there are Members whose constituents live many miles away—if they come up to see their Member, and spend five or six hours in the train, and perhaps do not arrive until eight or nine o'clock, they cannot get anything at a restaurant, and they ask their Member if he can get them a whisky and soda and a sandwich, and they are told "No." The whole thing is absolutely absurd. For two and a half years during the War we have gone on as we are now, and to alter it at the last moment is ridiculous. We are not going to save any food by this. It has nothing whatever to do with food.
Mr. FABER: It is an example.
Sir F. BANBURY: What are we to gain by it except a little advertisement for ourselves or a step towards temperance? I shall certainly oppose the Resolution.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I hope the very few words I shall address to the House will not tend to produce a discussion on the subject, for I think we all understand pretty well what are the issues, and can decide them without much delay. I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is entirely a question of common sense, but I do not think common sense was very conspicuous in his speech. It is not at all a question of teetotal fanaticism. As perhaps the House remembers, I opposed a previous Resolution, but I did it on grounds quite different from those which apply to this proposal. To my mind it is simply this: We have imposed certain restrictions on other people. That is what it comes to, because they could not be carried out without the consent of the House of Commons. That being so, the
2064
very least we can do is to say that we are willing to impose upon ourselves precisely the same restrictions. That is the whole issue, and that is common sense. I know it is no use appealing to my right hon. Friend not to go to a Division if he can get anyone to tell with him. I have always admired the consistency of my right hon. Friend. I have had the Debate to which reference has been made brought to me, and I have found that in it I said this:
"If this were a Motion to impose upon us in this House precisely the same restrictions which are imposed, upon other people, I would be heartily in support of it."
Then my right hon. Friend got up later and paid me a compliment which I greatly appreciate. He said:
"I do not know that there is very much to be said after the admirable speech of the Leader of the Opposition."
But he went further:
"I venture to say, if he will allow me, that I agree with every word he said."
I should like him now to show his agreement.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: I should like to-say a few words on the subject. They will not be in the least polemical, nor will they, I am perfectly certain, increase the length of the Debate. For fourteen years I have been Chairman of the Committee which is concerned in this Resolution, and during that time I never remember a case in which we have thought it necessary to-appeal for guidance to the House in any of our decisions. But I am bound to say I am glad we have been able to get an opinion from the House, as we shortly shall, before the new Committee is appointed. Perhaps I might be allowed to fall back on my classical friend. I thought I would quote him in the vulgar tongue, so that I might not be accused of trying to show off my classical knowledge. Lucretius writes—I am quoting from a crib—
"For 'twere of no avail should some depart and go away and some be added new and some be changed in order, if still all kept their nature of old heat."
I think that is very apposite, and refers to-the conduct of the new Committee which I hope will shortly be appointed. We are only the executive of the House, and we do our best, with the assistance of our first-rate manager, and our old friend Platt, to please everyone, and I am sure we succeed in pleasing nobody. But we are not born hotel managers, and we can only do our best to assist our fellow Members in the work that is given us. The Leader of the House said

2065
the whole question is before us, and there are two sides to it. One side says, "If you make the law you ought to carry it out," and the other side says, "The House of Commons is totally different from any other place, because men come and go at different times, at all hours of the day and night; and also it is neither a club nor a restaurant, nor anything like it." These are really the two points at issue. I take it for granted that when the House comes to a decision they will leave to the disposition of the new Committee the power to make certain regulations for the Press, because the Press are on a totally different footing from the House generally. Their work keeps them here for some time after the House has gone, and even the Controller, Lord D'Abernon, has made separate arrangements for the Press in the licensing laws which he has issued. However, that is a question which it will be for the new Committee to settle. May I give you another excerpt from the same delightful poet—still in English—
"Free food and drink are taken within our members, and since they can stop up certain parts, thus easily desire of water is glutted and of bread."
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Members of this House request the Kitchen Committee to observe in the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors the same restrictions as are imposed upon the general public.—[Mr. Wing.]

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This Bill is closely connected with the War, and is framed to meet certain practical difficulties which experience has shown have arisen during and from the War. It so far resembles ancient Gaul, or a contemporary dinner, that it can be divided into three parts. The first part, which is quite the dullest, and probably the best, has to do with certain kinds of contract. In March, 1915, relief was given by Statute in certain cases where the fulfilment of a contract was interfered with by the necessity of compliance with a requirement or a Regulation of the Admiralty or the Army Council under the Defence of the Realm Act. That relief
2066
was given by Section 1, Sub-section (2), of the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 2) Act of 1915, which provided that in such cases the necessity arising from compliance with the Regulations or requirements of the Department should afford a good defence to any action against the contractor in default. Experience has proved that that protection, valuable as it is within its limits and based as it is upon grounds which cannot be challenged, does not go far enough. It leaves untouched the legal position of many persons who before the War entered into contracts for the construction of buildings and for works of a similar kind and found after the War, and by reason of circumstances attributable to the War, although they were not able to point in their own case to a requirement or Regulation of the kind which I have mentioned, that it was impossible for them without serious hardship to perform their contracts within the stipulated time. There has been shown, of course, in many cases of the kind, an excellent spirit of voluntary accommodation, but there have also been, and there are, far too many hard cases, cases, that is to say, where the other parties to the contract either would not, or because of their special position—for example, the position of trustees or the position of local authorities—could not relax the stipulations of the contract. It is proposed, therefore—and this is the first Clause of the Bill—to empower the Court, in a proper case, to suspend or to annul the contract.
I should like to add one word as to the condition without which relief in such cases will not be granted, and also as to the nature of the relief itself. The necessary condition is that the Court is to be satisfied that the performance of the contract according to its terms is prevented or is rendered gravely onerous by difficulties due to the War, either as to material or as to labour. The applicant, that is, may show that by reason of the War his supply or delivery of material is prevented or restricted or delayed, or he may show' that the War has occasioned diversion or insufficiency in his supply of labour. In either event the Court, if it is satisfied, may suspend or annul the contract upon suitable conditions which will be within the discretion of the Court, regard being had to all the circumstances of the particular case, the position of the parties, and any offer which may have been

2067
made for a variation of the contract. The House will observe that the power of the Court is to suspend or to annul the existing contract. That, I need hardly say, is a very different thing from a power to make a new contract between the parties. That is the first matter in relation to which it is proposed in this Bill to deal with hardships which the War has created and experience has shown. There is a subsidiary matter closely related to it. I have already referred to the cases in which, by the legislation of two years ago, a man is provided with a good defence if his default is due to compliance on his part with a requirement or a Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act, but as the law now stands the requirements or Regulations which will avail him in such a case must issue either from the Admiralty or from the Army Council, and what is proposed, and, as I submit, reasonably and rightly proposed, is to place in this respect the requirements and Regulations of all Government Departments whatsoever upon the same footing, so that for the future the question will not be Where did the requirement come from, but Did the necessity of compliance with its terms interfere with the fulfilment of the contract. So much for the first topic.
The second is a different and minor matter. In December, 1915, an Act of Parliament was passed for the purpose, among other things, of restricting since the commencement of the War the increase of rents in the case of small dwelling houses. I refer to the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915. One of the provisions of that Act prohibits the demand of a premium, or other similar sum, in consideration of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy of any dwelling house to which the Act applies. Six months later, namely, in June, 1916, it was already found desirable to make an exception in the case of leases for a term of 21 years or upwards. In such cases it was accordingly provided by the Courts (Emergency Powers) (No. 2) Act, 1916, that application might be made to a County Court, and that the Court might authorise a premium. In other words, the later Act went a considerable way in the direction of taking these longer leases out of the provisions of the earlier Act. Experience has now shown that it is desirable to go somewhat further. The
2068
requirement of the sanction of the County Court is found in practice to interfere, and to interfere to no good purpose, with the bonâ fide sale of leases. It is proposed, therefore, in this Bill to take these longer leases wholly out of the earlier Act—a course which renders unnecessary, and so requires the repeal of, the corresponding provision of the later Act.
I pass from that question to the only remaining part of the Bill—a part which may be thought perhaps to come more nearly home to the businesses and bosoms of hon. Members. One of the quite minor incidents of the War, though by no means a common incident, has been that Members of this House have been required, for the purposes of the War, to dispose of some of their goods—timber, or hay or whatever the particular commodity may be—to a Government Department. Sometimes there has been compliance and sometimes not. Sometimes there has been requisition and sometimes not. Sometimes that which has begun in requisition has been continued after and without further requisition. Even in the cases where the transaction has ended as it began with requisition, there has sometimes been discussion about price, or about delivery and so forth. Nobody, I imagine, can be surprised that in the emergencies which have arisen in and from the War, such transactions have inevitably taken place. Nevertheless, in the circumstances it does not perhaps require a very ingenious or very captious mind to raise doubts or questions as to the application of the House of Commons (Disqualifications) Act, 1782, or the Act of 1801, which extended similar provisions to Ireland. In other words, it might conceivably be contended that the transactions I have indicated, or at any rate some of them, involved or implied a contract or an agreement made for and on account of the public service. What merit, if any, there would be in a contention of that kind, I need not at this moment consider; but the House will probably agree that it is prudent, as well as right and reasonable, in these matters which are clearly attributable to the imperious necessities of War, to set such doubts and questions at rest. That is what the fourth Clause of the Bill proposes to do. Hon. Members have no doubt observed that for a certain purpose a line is drawn at the day upon which the Bill was introduced. A contract or agreement entered into before that day is declared

2069
not to disqualify if it related to the supply of property to any Government Department for purposes connected with the War. With regard to matters subsequent to the introduction of the Bill, words of more restricted scope are deliberately employed.
Sir F. BANBURY: Why?
Sir GORDON HEWART: My right hon. friend asks why. For this reason, that once the Bill is introduced, attention is pointedly called to the matter and there is with submission therefore from that time no such reason as there was before for any person to continue to make the kind of contract to which the earlier part of the Clause refers. Disqualification after the introduction of the Bill is declared not to apply, not indeed to War contracts as a whole, but to agreements as to price or to agreements as to compensation, or to agreements as to some other term upon which the property in question is handed over or supplied. The House I am sure will appreciate, and I trust it will approve, that discrimination. Nothing, I need hardly say, is further from the object of this Bill, or from the intention of the Government, than to modify or to relax the salutary and wholesome provisions of the existing law. But the necessities and the emergencies of an unexampled War give rise to difficulties of their own, and the modest aim of this Bill in all its Clauses is to deal—and, as I hope, to deal fairly—with some of the difficulties of that kind.
Mr. PETO: I want to point out one or two particulars in which this Bill does not wholly meet the case which was put before the present Home Secretary when he was Solicitor-General by the Institute of Master Builders, the London Master Builders' Association, and other bodies of that kind. I was glad that the present Solicitor-General did not throw upon the building trade the onus of having asked for special legislation to relieve them of contractual obligations. That would have been an unfortunate impression to get about, and would have led even to opposition in this House to the passage of any Bill. It is the War which has caused the difficulties, and the necessary Government action is consequent upon the state of war, which has already interfered with the performance of contracts. Therefore, it is not a question of any section of people wanting or Asking for special legislation in their own
2070
interest. The Solicitor-General referred throughout his remarks to contracts entered into before the War, and in Clause 1 we have the date as the 4th day of August, 1914. That is the first point to which I desire to call attention. So far as the building trade is concerned, nothing particular happened on the 4th of August, 1914. The policy of the Government at that time was "Business as usual." It was anticipated that what we had to fear was scarcity of employment. We can hardly carry our minds back at the present moment, when all our difficulties arise from too much employment, and too much demand for the attenuated amount of labour which we have, to the time when it was seriously thought that lack of employment would be the great thing we had to fight against. At that time builders and everybody else were encouraged to go ahead and to enter into contracts. The date when the most important event took place in regard to building contracts was the 17th July, 1916, when the Restriction of Buildings Order was made at the instance of the Ministry of Munitions. There are certain contracts still in existence which were entered into before the War, but a very much larger number of contracts that were entered into after the War had been in progress for some months. That Order was subsequent to the date on which the master builders laid their case before the present Home Secretary, when he took the view that any legislation that was introduced should be confined to pre-war contracts, because nothing particular had happened to make it necessary to fix any other date. Almost immediately after that decision had been given, and that view had been put forward, the whole basis of the right hon. Gentleman's view was altered by the Restriction of Buildings Order. Therefore, I must call the Solicitor-General's attention to the fact that when we get into Committee I shall have to press him to alter the date, because the number of subsisting contracts at the present time, entered into before the 4th August, 1914, is very small, while there are a very much larger number of contracts entered into at a later date which have been directly interfered with by the action of the Government and by conditions of all sorts arising out of the War.
It may be said that Clause 2 is going to render the alteration of the date in Clause 1 unnecessary. I do not agree

2071
with that, because Clause 2 provides that Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Defence of the Realm Act (No. 2), 1915, shall be extended to cover Regulations made by any Department of State in the case of any action which is taken by a party to a contract. That Section provides that it is a good defence to any action or proceeding taken against a person in respect of non-fulfilment of a contract that it is due to interference. There is no limitation there to a contract entered into before the 4th August, 1914. Therefore, I cannot see why this arbitrary date—and it is an arbitrary date, so far as the building trade is concerned—should be fixed in Clause 1, whereas Clause 2 very properly deals with other contracts entered into at any date. I do not think that that can be held to obviate the necessity of fixing an appropriate date in Clause 1, because it specially presupposes litigation to compel the fulfilment of the contract. I hope that when the provisions of Clause 1 are enforced as an Act of Parliament litigation will be diminished, because the local authorities and the trustees will have their hands free, and they will not be forced to take the present position they occupy, and the general public will see that they have got to settle on reasonable terms, and that it will be very much cheaper to come to terms without appealing to the. Courts in the first instance.
I do not like the wording of Section 1. The Solicitor-General said the relief given by that Clause is limited to difficulties which arise with regard to the delivery of material or insufficiency of labour. That is presupposing that we in passing this legislation can foresee all the hardships that may arise in respect of building contracts out of the state of war, and that there cannot be any of them which are not connected with the insufficiency of labour or deficiency of material. I think that that ought to be altered in this respect, that it should be that relief is given in all circumstances caused by the present War, including the restriction of labour and the difficulties in the supply of material. I do not see why we should tell the Court in advance that they will not have to deal with any question that does not refer to those specific parts of a building, namely, the material of which it is composed and the labour to put it together. I may give the House a brief idea of the
2072
sort of difficulties that arise if we do not have this legislation, and, as I think, amended to a certain extent. It is usual in all building contracts to have retention money of from 10 to 25 per cent., which is held in suspense, and in the case of a contract for £100,000 there may be a sum of anything from £10,000 to £25,000 in the hands of the employer. I do not think that it would be fair not to give the Courts the power to vary a specific clause of a contract which is operating in a way that places a large sum of money belonging to one party in the hands of the other party, so that it is given to them for their use to be invested in War Loan or anything else for whatever time the War may go on, as well as the contemplated time which it would have taken to execute the contract.
Then there is the question of plant, which, in the case of Metropolitan Water Board contracts, and I believe in others also, is the property of the employer until the building is completed. We have the case of Dick, Kerr and Company versus the Metropolitan Water Board, which the Solicitor-General knows well, in which it was decided that they were to continue to leave all the plant on the site of a reservoir, no matter how long the War went on, no matter if it were to reach such a state as to be worthless at the end of the War. There was no power whatever to remove it. In one ease the Ministry of Munitions actually requisitioned a large quantity, amounting to £5,000, of contractor's plant and paid for it, very properly, but the contractor did not get a penny. The employer took the £5,000. He holds it under the clause of the contract which empowers him to have the use of the whole of the plant and makes it his property until the contract is completed. There is another class of case which operates very harshly—that is, as to the protection of buildings. Very often the duty is imposed on the contractor to protect all works, no matter Low long the period. That is all right in the ordinary course, but not where we have a suspension of work for three years owing to the War. I have one case in which the contractors have spent over £3,000, quite uncontemplated by the contract, on the protection of buildings, and I think that they should be able to get relief from that specific Clause from the Court.
The learned Solicitor-General says that this Bill proposes only to suspend or annul contracts, and that that is a very different

2073
thing from varying a contract, or, as he puts it, making a new contract. I agree, but I do not think that to suspend or annul the contract meets the case at all. At present the War has suspended the contracts, but contractors do not want further suspension. They would be very glad to go on and complete the work. In certain circumstances it may be necessary to annul the contract, but there are a great many contracts which the contractor does not want annulled, and in which the equity of the case requires that the Court should have power to vary certain specific agreements which are, in consequence of the War, operating in a manner never contemplated by either party. I might give one instance. In nearly every contract the contractor has to keep the buildings and other works insured against fire. When he makes a tender he inquires the rate of insurance, how much it would cost, and adds it to the total of his tender, so that in effect it is the employer who pays. Then you get anti-aircraft policies, and the fire insurance policies are liable to be vitiated if the further policies are not taken out. So that you get 7s. or 8s. per cent, of the total value of the work in many cases imposed as an additional charge on the contractor as a result of the War. These are very good grounds not for annulling the contract, but for altering that particular provision.
I have many cases here with which I will not trouble the House, but I may give one extreme case where contractors, named J. and B. Thompson, entered into a contract for £100,000 with the Belfast Corporation, where the Treasury refused permission to go on with the work, and the contractors was not allowed to obtain further supplies of steel—which was a proper thing for the Government to do, in view of the War—and the Belfast Corporation hold that all those intereferences with the contract do not affect the contract, or the position of the contractors, in the slightest degree, and they inform the contractors that they will have to go on and complete, at contract price, the sewer outfall works as soon as the War is over and the restrictions are removed. That is what I think the Solicitor-General should have dealt with and did not. I want to know broadly what is the position with regard to all these contracts after the War? The Board of Trade arbitrators have in many cases fixed rates of wages in the building trade over the heads of the local arrangements which had already
2074
been entered into between the local branches of the trade union and the builders in the neighbourhood, always, of course, raising the wages and entirely altering the rates. That has taken place altogether owing to the War, which has caused an enormous increase in the cost of living that has necessitated the interference of the Board of Trade arbitrators in the matter.
There is another thing which is much more serious. The War will have caused an entirely new range of values in the prices of raw material. We cannot forecast how many years it will last. There may be a gradual reduction of prices of timber and other articles which stand at present at something like five or six times their pre-war value and are still rising. There may be a gradual diminution to a more or less reasonable level, but these contracts in present conditions, in the absence of any legislation, will have to go on and be finished as soon as the War is over. I do not think that that is a possible position, and that is why I beg especially to press for words being put in at the end of Clause 1, line 16, enabling the Court to vary or rescind any provisions of the contract. I believe that unless powers of the kind are given to the Court we really do not deal with the situation as it is. It may be said that if you put such words into your legislation it would practically be enabling the Court to make new contracts. I believe that that is so, but I think that is by far the best way of settling the matter. I have been told that if we do that we should throw such a burden on the Courts that they could not possibly undertake it, but I believe that if we put those conditions in operation the parties would realise that they had got to make reasonable terms between themselves. That is the cheapest and easiest way out of the difficulty. If they do not do so the Courts can appoint ad hoc Commissioners to deal with the special cases of all these contracts still in force at the end of the War. Therefore, I hope to receive the very sympathetic consideration of the learned Solicitor-General in favour of the Amendment, of which I have given him private notice, when we reach the Committee stage of the Bill.
Mr. BOOTH: I thank the Solicitor-General for his lucid explanation of this Bill. This was one of the rare occasions on which I think an ordinary layman could follow a legal statement intelli-

2075
gently. I commend the Government for bringing in this Bill. My only regret is that it does not go far enough. I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will give his mind to one or two of these grievances, which perhaps it would be out of order for me to name or discuss, that will be found to ensue from the hasty legislation in the early days of the War. There are still large inconveniences suffered by insurance companies through some of that legislation. I would like the Law Officers of the Crown to direct their attention to it, because I think that improvement can be effected without any harm resulting to the national interest. I hope, therefore, that the learned Solicitor-General will review this legislation so that we may have measures of relief similar to that which I believe this to be. I give this measure my hearty support.
Mr. KING: The speech to which we listened makes it quite clear that there are very important and useful provisions in this Bill. I do not intend to discuss the first three Clauses. I rise to offer some observations on the fourth Clause, which is extremely important, and, in view of the history of the position in this House, is a Clause that ought not to be passed without some consideration. That Clause refers to the Disqualification Acts of 1782 and 1801. These Acts sum up and keep in force still provisions which Parliament has for centuries gloriously guarded, that the independence and integrity of its Members must be above suspicion, and that any Government contract taken or received by any Member shall disqualify him from continuing to be a Member of this House. To go back to the first of these Acts, the Bill was brought in on the 22nd February, 1781, under the blessing of and with speeches by both Fox and Pitt, The Bill then introduced was called the Contractors Bill. It was introduced by Sir Philip Jennings Clarke, and I think it will be interesting to you personally to know that among those whose names are on the back of the Bill are Sir James Lowther and Mr. William Lowther and a number of other names, some of which are still familiar in this House. That Bill is the basis of the legislation which is still in force which prevents any Member of this House from having any interest whatever in any Government payment or contract directly, unless it is a payment which is notorious by being put up to public auction.
2076
5.0. P.M.
Only a short time ago, during the life of the present Parliament, we had this question raised in a very acute form in the case of Sir Stuart Samuel, who was then a Member of this House. He ceased for a time to be a Member, but was re-elected and only resigned his position as a Member a few days ago. The fact was that in 1912 Sir Stuart Samuel, Member for White-chapel, was a member of a firm which undertook large contracts for the purchase of silver for the Government, Sir Stuart Samuel himself had no knowledge whatever of the contract, and it is undertook that the firm, and certainly Sir Stuart Samuel himself, made either no profit at all or a very small profit. He was attacked by he common informer. He was also attacked by questions in this House, and it was evident that he was liable to very heavy penalties. The Government of the day introduced a Bill, the Sir Stuart Samuel Indemnity Bill, which was brought in on the 8th of May, 1913, and it was kept on the Order Paper for about three months. Various attempts were made to pass that Bill, but owing to the opposition of a very large number of Members, and owing to the fact that the Members of the party supporting the Government had really very lukewarm enthusiasm for the measure, it was never proceeded with. Moreover, we were told by the then Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith), on the 7th August, that communications had passed between himself and the Leader of the Opposition, and it was found impossible to carry the Bill through. It is worth while calling attention to that, because it makes it quite clear that Parliament itself, before the War, attached great, importance and manifested the greatest insistency against any Member having any portion of profit in any Government contract. The House is probably aware that Sir Stuart Samuel was proceeded against in the Law Courts, and was very heavily fined. It is understood, though I have no personal ground at all for saying so, that the case also cost Sir Stuart many thousands of pounds. That was the feeling and the position before the War. When the War broke out, as the Solicitor-General showed, a great number of persons, including Members of this House, had to give up various things they were doing for the purposes of the-Government. Quite rightly, they gave them up at once, and there ought certainly to be no difficulty or danger in doing so; but, during this time—I am taking a single

2077
case, the case of Sir Stuart Samuel—during this time, Sir Stuart Samuel was engaged on behalf of the Government in very large financial transactions, and when he resigned his seat, only a very few months ago, he publicly announced that he was obliged to resign his seat, his firm being engaged in so many contracts for the Government that he did not feel able to continue as a Member of this House or to undergo the risk of a further penalty, being uncertain of his position. That is the reason Sir Stuart Samuel resigned his position in the House. Possibly he was very anxious, for, once bitten, twice shy.
There were possibly many other Members of the House who might have been in the same position. I certainly know of one instance, that of an hon. Member of this House, a large merchant, whose stock was commandeered by the Government, and he steadily refused for months to go into the Division Lobby of this House. He was in constant attendance here, yet he felt that under all the circumstances it would be unwise on his part to risk the danger of attacks by the common informer and subject himself to the penalty of £500 a day for every day he voted. That was the position, a position which certainly wanted regularising, until a few weeks ago. I understand that on certain occasions the Law Officers of the Crown, before the present Solicitor-General came to his office, were consulted in connection with the payments for wool taken over by the Government, and the Law Officers gave a decision, which was actually communicated to the House in answer to one of the questions that were asked, to the effect that the payments made by the War Office for wool which the Department had taken over certainly did not subject any Member to any liability or disqualification. As the Solicitor-General has said, there is a good deal of difference between goods that are taken by requisition or commandeered and goods of the same class which, the next day, may not be actually and formally requisitioned, but may be handed over in continuation of some contract. Obviously there is here a case which wants to be put quite clearly. I understand that the effect of this Bill will be, in most cases that may arise, to make the law quite clear.
There are one or two other considerations which ought to be brought to the mind of the Solicitor-General and to the attention of the House. There is to my knowledge one case, at any rate, in the Law Courts arising out of the position as
2078
it is at the present time. There may be more cases, but there is certainly one; and I am quite certain, of course, that this legislation has not been introduced to stop a case already before the Courts. Of that I am quite sure, but I think the attention of the Solicitor-General ought to be given to the point. Will it stop cases already initiated? I do not say whether it ought or ought not, for that is a matter on which I am not competent to judge, but I think that fact ought to be borne in mind. There is another consideration, too, and it is that this Bill and some of its Clauses, in fact, the whole Bill has effect only for the period of the War. But in paragraph (a) of Clause 4, I find the words, "for purposes connected with the present War." Contracts may have been entered into, as this Clause says, before the 21st day of February in this year for purposes connected with the present War, but they might continue, for these purposes, many years after the War. They might be continuing contracts which would have effect long after the War had passed, and I think that contracts of that nature ought to be outside the provisions of this Clause. I shall possibly put down some Amendments which will raise these points in Committee, and I believe that they will receive the attention of the Solicitor-General.
There is another matter in connection with the same sort of point, arising under paragraph (b) of the Clause, "a contract or agreement entered into on or after the said date," and so on. That would be excluded form the operations of the Disqualifications Act; but here, again, I think it ought to be "contracts entered into before the end of the present War." They might be entered into after the War for purposes that had already preceded such contracts; for instance, a contract to pay a certain amount in respect of wool which had been provided beforehand. I think, possibly, some modification of that ought to be introduced into the provision. On the general question of these disqualifications and their being practically swept away for the purposes of this War, and for the period of this War, I am not against the course taken by the Government, but I think it ought to be carefully guarded and watched. I hope we shall have a full discussion on it in Committee and that the-Solicitor-General will consider these various points. I will only add this in conclusion, that the Government at the

2079
present time is of course in a position of extraordinary power, because practically there is no organised opposition against it, and that is the desire and feeling of the great majority of Members, and also of the country, at any rate in regard to their aims and objects. But there can be no doubt about it that the Government have a great number of Ministers already, and there might possibly be contracts attaching to themselves, not corruptly, but contracts which might gradually attach to themselves, and with a large number of Members of this House connected with the Government they would not be so free and so independent, or, at any rate, would not have that clear and independent position in the eyes of the public which they otherwise would have. I do hope that this Clause to which I have referred, if it passes, will not make the Government any more ready to enter into contracts recklessly, or to any large extent, with Members of this House. I hope I may have some kind of an answer.
Sir F. BANBURY: I want to ask the Solicitor-General one or two questions, in dealing with Clause 4, to which the hon. Member has just alluded. The Solicitor-General told us that the two paragraphs of this Clause were drafted in a different manner, and that the reason of that was that, after this Bill became law, the attention of Members would probably be drawn to the circumstance that they could not enter into a contract with the Government without undergoing certain penalties. That, I think, is what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. May I point out that the attention of Members was very forcibly drawn to the law as it stands in 1913, when Sir Stuart Samuel was proceeded against and had, I believe, to pay something like £50,000. A Bill was introduced into this House which raised considerable controversy, and was afterwards withdrawn. Therefore, it cannot be said that the attention of hon. Members is not fully alive to the penalties which they will suffer under the existing law if they enter into contracts with the Government. Paragraph (a) of Clause 4 is drafted with different words, and the Solicitor-General said it is much wider in its application than paragraph (b). Paragraph (a) is, first of all, retrospective, and that in my opinion is a bad principle. I do not like retrospective legislation. The Solicitor-General did not say why it was retrospective, but here must be some reason, and also some
2080
reason for its being drawn in a way different from paragraph (b). I myself do not object to paragraph (b), because the paragraph limits the alteration of the law to cases where property is requisitioned by the Government. It would be very hard on a Member of Parliament, if besides having his property requisitioned and taken over by the Government, he should be subjected to the risk of certain penalties. Paragraph (a) is totally different. It gives relief to any hon. Member who, prior to this date, had voluntarily entered into any contract with the Government—not requisitioned or taken over—voluntarily entered into a contract with the Government.
The hon. Member who has just spoken said ho did not believe that this was being done in order to avoid any case which might be before the Law Courts at present. I am afraid I am not, quite so confiding as the hon. Member. My nature is a little more suspicious, and I cannot help thinking that this has been done by a side wind to relieve—I do not know who it is—a certain person, or possibly persons, of liabilities which they have knowingly entered into and which they ought not to have entered into. There can be no doubt that there were very good reasons for passing these ancient laws. Nothing could be more dangerous than that a Government should have the opportunity of going to any Member and entering into a contract with him by which he was to make a large sum of money. That saps the independence both of the Government and of the Member. At the present time, when enormous contracts are being entered into without that due care and regard for economy which ought to distinguish the Members of the Government who make those contracts to pass a Sub-section like this, unless the explanation is much more satisfactory than that we have already had, would, I venture to say, be very injurious to the true interests of the nation. If it is necessary to pass a retrospective Clause at all, that Clause ought to be in the same terms as the Clause which is going to apply after the passing of this Act. There is no earthly reason why a man who has contravened the law before the passing of this Act should be exempted while he will not be exempted after the passing of the Act. If there is a case—and I cannot help thinking there can be no doubt there must be a case, or else this would not have been brought in—if there is a case of any hardship, then the proper way is to bring in a Bill of

2081
Indemnity. That was done in the case of Sir Stuart Samuel, but that Bill was not proceeded with. This is one of those small things which the House of Commons does not look into. There is hardly anybody in the House at present, and very few in it who have read the Bill or who are aware that it contains this very important Clause. I shall certainly move the omission of Paragraph (a) of Clause 4, in Committee. I trust we shall have some really proper explanation and full explanation of the reasons why this paragraph was put in.
Mr. WATT: I do not intend in any way to oppose the passing of the Second Reading of this measure. I simply rise to make an inquiry with reference to the fourth Clause. The importance of this measure lies in that Clause. For 150 years, as the Clause indicates, it has been impossible for a Member of Parliament to make a contract with the Government, and that, I venture to think, is a good principle. This particular fourth Clause is violating that principle and changing the rule which has held for so long as 150 years. We have had no full explanation from the Solicitor-General as to why this change has been made. I agree with the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that the House should look for a better explanation before it allows this measure to pass the Second Reading. I suggest that the Clause ought to be limited to the duration of the War. There is nothing in it which in any way indicates that at the end of the War we shall revert to the good principle which precludes Members from making contracts with the Government. That preclusion applied to Members of Parliament is one of the rights of the people. The right they have is that the man they send to Parliament shall not make use of his position to get contracts and shall not make money out of Government contracts. Why is no limitation of time put upon the overriding of that good principle? The Preamble of the measure says something about the duration of the War, but the Clause does not. Unless something of that sort is done I shall consider it my duty in Committee to move that the fourth Clause be in some way limited to the period while the War lasts.
Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to ask for some further explanation in regard to paragraph (a) of Clause 4. I think this is a matter of the most extreme importance for the House of Commons. The Bill is equivalent
2082
to an Act of Indemnity to relieve Members who have possibly incurred penalties and disqualification under the Act of 1782. Personally I think it is rather a strange thing that provision of so great importance should be found placed in an innocent looking measure described as "The Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill." I have some doubts as to whether such a title covers a provision so far-reaching as that. After all, this matter is not simply confined to the Courts. The penalties and disqualifications are not matters which only come before the Courts. Members who come under the Statutes are disqualified from sitting in this House, It is only when a common informer goes to the Courts and seeks to exact penalties from offending Members that the subject comes before the Courts at all. Clause 4 states: "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," and so on. I suggest that this is a provision which extends much further than anything that could be described as coming in Courts Emergency Legislation. I do not know whether it is convenient at this stage to ask you, Sir, whether this provison is in order in a Bill with such a title and whether I may now ask your ruling on the point?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has rather taken me by surprise in this matter and I should like a little time in which to consider it.
Mr. PRINGLE: I am sorry, but it was only after the Sitting of the House that this Clause was brought to my attention. I only put the point now so that I should not lose the right of having the matter decided at the proper time. To resume my argument. The hon Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) suggested that there are already Court proceedings affecting one, or it may be more, Members of this House owing to contracts or agreements entered into. If that be so, Clause 4 (a) undoubtedly has the effect of an Act of Indemnity. If that is so, I think it is a very large order to endeavour to pass an Act of Indemnity in a measure masquerading as a Courts Emergency Bill, and should the Clause be held to be in order I shall subsequently move the omission of the paragraph. I submit that we should be told the reasons exactly for such a paragraph. It is retrospective and therefore the Government must know of certain

2083
cases it is meant to cover. If there are cases which it is meant to cover the Government should disclose them to the House so that the House in giving indemnity should clearly know the Members to whom the indemnity is being given and the contracts or agreements in respect of which the indemnity is claimed. We are all familiar with the case of Sir Stuart Samuel and we know that it was a very doubtful point in connection with the contract into which his firm entered with the India Office. It was so doubtful that the matter involved a very large amount of research by a highly learned and competent Committee of this House, and after much investigation that Committee had a great deal of doubt as to the exact position of Sir Stuart Samuel. Nevertheless, although it was a matter of great doubt, this House refused to pass a Bill of Indemnity to Sir Stuart Samuel. It was not suggested that he had made any personal profit out of the transaction, and there was no suggestion that there was any corruption either on the part of the India Office or on the part of Sir Stuart Samuel, or that he had obtained any illicit gain. In spite of all those things and of the acknowledged innocent character of the transaction, the House on that occasion refused indemnity. Here, by this particular Clause, we are being asked to give an indemnity to Members unknown in respect of transactions as to which we have not the slightest information. It seems to me that this is a thing which the House of Commons cannot grant without full information and without having its eyes open. I do not know, Sir, whether it would now be convenient for you to give a ruling on the point of Order, but if it is, I think it would be very desirable to have your ruling.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think Clause 4 is covered by the title of the Bill. The title of the Bill is not Courts (Emergency Powers). That is only the short title. The Bill is a Bill to "Amend the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1914 to 1915, and the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, and to grant relief in connection with the present War from liabilities and disqualifications arising out of certain contracts." This would be a case of disqualification owing to liabilities arising out of contracts, and the Clause, therefore, I think is covered by the title.
Sir G. HEWART: By leave of the House I desire to say a word or two with reference to matters raised during the Debate. I should like to say at once that this Bill does not profess to deal with any difficulty that does not arise out of the present War. But, on the other hand, it by no means professes to deal with all the difficulties that do arise out of the present War. The hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Peto) mentioned the fact that he has already communicated to me certain Amendments which he proposes to move on the Committee stage. I do not think that it would be convenient to anticipate a discussion of those Amendments, and I shall certainly not say at this stage anything which might prejudice hereafter the consideration which will be given to them. But there does appear to me to be a clear difference between the case of a building contractor who entered into a contract before the War broke out, and afterwards found himself in difficulties by reason of circumstances connected with the War and, on the other hand, the case of a contractor who is in difficulties in relation to a contract which with his eves open he entered into after the War had broken out. However that may be, it will be time enough perhaps to consider in detail the proposals of the hon. Member when the Committee stage is reached.
With regard to the observation that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), no doubt there are other grievances which are well worthy of consideration. But I hope that this Bill is not going to be criticised on the ground that while it contains some things there are other things which it omits. As to what was said by the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. (Pringle) upon Clause 4 of the Bill, I cannot help thinking that there has been some little misunderstanding. Nobody, I hope it is unnecessary to say, need suppose that there is any mysterious attempt here to undermine what has been called the integrity and independence of Members of this House. But it was asked, "Is this Clause intended to be retrospective?" Of course it is. The very object of the first part of Clause 4 is to relate back to acts that have been done which may be of such a kind as to give rise to doubt. Now I am not

2085
saying for a moment that anything that has been done would give rise to an action that would succeed under one of these Acts of Parliament. That is not the point. The point is that in a time of emergency Members of this House, sometimes upon requisition, and sometimes, as I understand, not upon requisition, may have taken a course which might expose them, and as I submit, needlessly expose them, to the anxieties of litigation. The object of this Clause is, first of all, to draw a distinction between what took place before the Bill was introduced and what may take place afterwards. It was said by the right hon. Baronet that there was no reason why a discrimination should be made. I trust that upon reflection—
Sir. F. BANBURY: I said I saw no reason.
Sir G. HEWART: I trust that upon reflection the right hon. Baronet will see that there is a distinction. May I endeavour to make it plain? Let me take, first of all, the case of a requisition. In the first place, there might be a doubt whether the requirement of the Government Department amounted in law to a requisition. Even where there was an undoubted requisition there might be left over some question as to price, for example, or as to date of delivery, and when agreement was arrived at as to prices or delivery it might be contended that even that limited agreement was within the Act of 1782, because it had to do with a contract on account of the public service. On the other hand, there might be another class of case—a case of something which could not properly be called a requisition at all, a demand which might be made by a Government Department in such circumstances as that a Member of this House felt himself bound to comply with it, and unless a Clause of this kind were enacted he might be exposed, I do not say to a successful action, but to the risk of an action. Therefore the general policy of this Clause is that where acts have been done of that kind, perfectly innocently, arising out of the necessities and emergencies of the War, acts containing some element of agreement upon which an ingenious person might frame an action, such acts are excused.
The difference which is suggested between acts antecedent to the introduction of the Bill and acts subsequent to the introduction of the Bill is this, that
2086
from the moment this Bill is introduced it is made perfectly plain that the only thing which will henceforth be excused is some agreement in detail as to price, compensation, or some other particular term of the transaction, the transaction itself arising upon requisition. It was said, "Will the effect of this Clause be to defeat cases which already may have been commenced in the Courts of Law?" I do not know what cases are referred to. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) told me last night of a case of which I myself had not previously heard, and I do not think that it is desirable to mention the name of the case. I am not prepared to say at the moment whether that case, of the circumstances of which I am not fully aware, would or would not come within the ambit of this Clause. But I do say this about the Clause, that it is undoubtedly intended to cure defects, if defects there be, in antecedent transactions of a certain kind. Whether the particular case which the hon. Member has in mind comes within the words of the Clause is a question upon which at this moment I am not prepared to express an opinion. But if the policy of the Clause is right, if the Clause itself is one which ought to be passed, then I submit that it matters not that some action has been started which this Clause would defeat.
Mr. KING: May I ask the Solicitor-General this question? Cannot he see that there is a great difference between a contract which follows on a requisition, for instance, and a contract of a totally different character, say a contract to do certain services which the hon. Member offers to do, and which come not from any exclusive Government demand or appeal, but from some free contract?
Sir G. HEWART: I do, indeed, see that there is a considerable difference, but Hi at is not the kind of difference which I, at any rate, have in mind. What I also see—and I hope that the hon. Member will see it also—is that the question whether a particular requirement amounted to a requisition in the technical sense of the term might easily prove a vexatious and difficult question, and the object of this Clause, while it is not to excuse something which ought not to have been done, is to lay at rest doubts or questions which might arise, however they might be resolved. Comparing Sub-clause (a) with Sub-clause (b), one might say that, whereas in the first case the

2087
whole agreement is excused, in the second case it is only the detailed agreement as to some particular element which is excused, and that only in cases where requisition is proved. I do not know that at this stage it is convenient that I should pursue the matter further, but the hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate may take it from me that there has been no intention here deliberately to relieve any person or persons from the consequences of liability into which they have knowingly fallen. That is not the object of the Clause. I am not-aware myself, subject to the case which the hon. Member for North Somerset brought to my notice last night, and to one other case which has been raised, of any particular cases. The object is rather to lay at rest doubts and questions which have arisen or which may hereafter arise.
Mr. PETO: May I ask one question with regard to the general matter that I raised—namely, when this Bill passes into an Act, assuming that it passes in its present form, what will be the position in regard to all the contracts which have been suspended owing to the War, and which would fall to be completed after the War?
Sir G. HEWART: I am not sure that I quite follow the question. I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring, when he speaks of suspended contracts, to contracts which have been supended by a Court within the meaning of Clause I of this Bill, or whether he is referring to contracts which are suspended through the operation of some War Clause or otherwise.
Mr. PETO: I will put it, broadly, owing to circumstances arising out of the War, as in many cases they have been interpreted, by orders of Government Departments restricting building operations and the like.
Mr. SPEAKER: They are not included in this Bill at all.
Mr. DILLON: We shall have a full opportunity, I assume, on the Committee stage to go into the question of the effect of Clause 4, and it is not therefore necessary to speak now at any length. I listened attentively to the Solicitor-General's explanation, and I must say that it did not carry conviction to my mind. He said it was not the purpose
2088
of the Clause at all to relieve all kinds of contracts or agreements which might have been entered into before the date of the introduction of this Bill, between Members of this House and the Government, against the law. That might not be the purpose, but is not that the effect? To ask the House of Commons to pass in the dark a general scheme of indemnity which may cover, for all we know, a hundred or two hundred cases without the slightest hint as to what is the nature of the transactions or the number of them, is asking for a great deal. Some transactions must have come to the notice of the Government or they would never have introduced a sweeping Act of Indemnity like this. I do not think it is a wise thing to do until the Government is in a position to give the House of Commons a more general idea of the scope of this measure. This War has brought forth a great many very strange things.
I do not at the present time want to allude to certain things that may be in the mind of every Member of the House, but there have been cases in which men, while making outward professions of keen patriotism—or, at least, the most noisy—have seemed to consider that attitude consistent with entering into transactions with the Government, which were extremely profitable to them—far too profitable—and which when they subsequently came into the light were condemned by public opinion. Are we to be asked to give a general blank cheque to cover all transactions, or any transactions of this kind? I assume the Government does not introduce a Clause of this character unless they have been made aware of some transactions to which the Clause applies. Is it, therefore, a fair and reasonable thing to ask the House of Commons to throw a cloak over something of winch they have not the faintest idea, or to pass an Act of Indemnity without knowing what exactly it is they are passing? This is a proposal entirely without precedent. I never heard or never dreamt that an Indemnity Act of this character would be asked for from this House. Whatever may be the purpose of the Government, it is a very sweeping Act of Indemnity. I never heard of any Government proposing an Indemnity Act without at least giving a general idea and explanation—I do not wish minute particulars of every case—of the nature and number of the cases and of such transactions as it is intended that

2089
this Clause should apply to. I do not suppose anybody has the slightest idea of dividing against the Second Reading, but it would be well in the general interest when we get into Committee that we should be given some further explanation—I think it is only fair to ask for that—than given to-day as to the need for this indemnity Clause. What is the idea present in the mind of the Solicitor-General as to the extent, number, and character of the transactions?
Sir G. RADFORD: I desire to say a few words on the Second Reading, particularly in regard to Clause 4. The marginal note of Clause 4 reads: "Relief from disqualification for Membership of House of Commons in certain cases." It appears from that, that there are certain cases in which it is desired to obtain relief. My right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General has in general terms explained what is the nature of those cases and the kind of relief proposed to confer upon Members of this House. The Solicitor-General was extremely ingenious in the reply that he made in general terms to criticisms made in general terms. He went far to persuade me, and I dare say to persuade other Members of this House, that the Clause was satisfactory both in its intention and in its probable operation. I could not help remembering the legal maxim, "that fraud lurks in generalities." Although in this case I make no suggestion whatever of fraud on the part of the Government, yet I think it is quite true that we may expect, if fraud does not lurk in generalities, that at any rate surprises and inconveniences may lurk in generalities. We want something more than generalities. May I remind the Solicitor-General that this is not a House of lawyers, although I confess they are rather numerous here. What the House desires is a statement of facts which they may appreciate, and which will enable them to form a judgment on the question raised by this Clause. If the Solicitor-General could see his way to enumerate certain of these eases, to tell us what they are and what they amount to, this House of Commons would rapidly come to a conclusion as to whether or not they could support the Bill. I rather imagine that this not being a house of lawyers, the enumeration of the particulars of cases sought to be provided for would be very much more interesting generally to hon. Members than some statement of the law on the
2090
subject. A general statement, if I may respectfully say so, would be imperfectly understood, whereas a recital of particular cases with the enumeration of details would come home to every man, who would thus be able to form a conclusion as to whether or not he could see his way to support the Government. I am not suggesting that this Clause is wrong. It may be and very likely is right. But I should like to know, and I think other hon. Members would be glad to know, what is the exact nature of the cases in which it is necessary apparently to apply to this House for relief from disqualification. If the Solicitor-General sees his way to give us this information, either now or at a later stage of the Bill, I feel that the later stages of the Bill will be very much facilitated. The more frank the right, hon. Gentleman is in his statement to the House the easier and more rapid will be the progress of the Bill.
Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I quite agree with my hon. Friend opposite who has just sat down. I do not think the House ought to be asked to give this Bill a Second Reading without some sort of clear indication as to the sort of indemnity asked for, whom we are going to indemnify, and what for. To do what we are asked to do may be to find that we have indemnified something or somebody which the House does not know of now and which hon. Members, if they had known, never would have indemnified. The principle is wrong. When the Bill was introduced to relieve the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General from his liability under the old Acts the House was fully informed of the whole facts, and, quite rightly, the House, which is always quite generous in a matter of this sort, gave the indemnity. Let me suggest something. We know very well that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hornsey has given a very great deal of service in the matter of advertising for the War Loan. He, gave this service—all honour to him—quite gratuitously, but do all the advertisers who may come to this House give their services gratuitously? The more I think of it, the more I am convinced that the House ought never to have been asked to pass such a Bill without, either now or on the Committee stage, having an undertaking or general statement of the cases which are proposed to need indemnification. I presume I am right in supposing that it may be necessary or desirable to

2091
introduce in Committee a condition as to the word "service." I do not know whether that would be beyond the scope of the Bill, but I think the Bill ought certainly to cover some services that some hon. Members may have given, and for which they have received, either directly or indirectly, some emoluments. Personally I do not know any such cases, but there may be. I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to press upon the Government to allow the House to have some indication of what we are going to do here, and let us not find hereafter that we have done something to-day that if we had known we would not have done.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Beck.]

COMPANIES (FOREIGN INTERESTS) BILL.
Order for Second Beading read.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The Bill, as hon. Members will be aware, is of a comparatively simple character. The Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916, provides in Subsection (1) for the winding-up of businesses and companies which are carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit of or under the control of enemy subjects. An alternative method of procedure is provided by Section 4 of the Act, which enables the Board of Trade to make an Order vesting any property belonging to enemies, or enemy subjects, in the Public Trustee for the purpose of sale. Where the business is one which it is in the public interest should be maintained, the alternative course of vesting shares held by enemies in the Public Trustee in order that they may be sold to British subjects is frequently adopted. This is done to avoid prejudicing the business which is caused by its winding-up and sale in the winding-up. It has been the policy of the Board of Trade, in dealing with enemy businesses, to secure as far as possible that these businesses shall not come again under foreign control, but that they shall remain British in character. With this
2092
object, when enemy shares in companies, under enemy control are vested in the Public Trustee for the purpose of sale, the, Board of Trade have a regulation to the effect that the regulations contained in the articles of association shall be so altered as to restrict the amount of share capital or of the voting power, which can be held by the foreigner.
6.0. P.M.
Hon. Members are aware that the articles of association of a company can be altered by resolutions passed by the shareholders. In order to make permanent the provisions inserted in the articles of association with the object of insuring British control, it is desirable that the power of the company to alter these provisions by resolutions passed by the shareholders shall be fettered. The object of the Bill, therefore, is to prevent any alteration of any provision in the articles of association of a company which restricts or limits the amount of share capital or voting power which can be held by foreigners, unless such alteration has received the written consent of the Board of Trade. This is accomplished by Subsection (1) of Section 1 of the Bill. The Bill applies to all companies incorporated in this country, whether they have altered their articles of association in order to meet the requirements of the Board of Trade or not. Some few companies have probably altered their articles of association in this way without requirement from the Board of Trade, but there are probably no companies which before the War included any provision in their articles of association for the purpose of limiting the holding of capital by foreigners. Doubts may arise as to whether any particular provision may or may net have the effect of restricting the interest of foreigners in the company, and it is felt desirable that any company which desires to alter its articles in the ordinary way for the purposes of facilitating the conduct of its business shall have a ready and simple method of ascertaining whether or not that alteration requires the consent of the Board of Trade. Sub-section (2) of Section I accordingly provides for the Board of Trade giving a final and conclusive decision as to whether or not their consent is required to any alteration. I think those few observations explain the character und purpose of the Bill, and I trust that it may be accorded the approbation of the House.
Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I think it is rather unfortunate, perhaps, that a very large number of Members of the House happened to be upstairs at a very interesting and important meeting at which Mr. Neville Chamberlain was present, just at the moment when the hon. Member opposite was introducing this Bill, and I do not feel at the present moment in a position to offer any valuable criticism upon it. I had the misfortune not even to hear the opening remarks of the hon. Member, but I rather gathered—I hope I am right iii the assumption—that the main purpose of the Bill is to prevent companies who have, during the War, taker steps to purge themselves, if I may so express myself, of enemy influence, from reverting to that old position after the, War—that is to prevent a mock transfer or a mock alteration during the War. In other words, where a company has taken steps to satisfy what I may call the policy of the country during the War, this Bill is to make permanent that alteration. If that is the main purpose of the Bill, I for one certainly should give it a most cordial welcome, but, of course, as the hon. Member will understand, there are a large number of Members who, I think, are interested in this Bill, and they will, of course, have opportunities of discussing it when we get into Committee. I should like to have an assurance, if I may, from the hon. Member that that is the main intention, my only doubt being about the words in Subsection (1) "an alteration of that provision shall not be of any effect." I should have expected to find a less general phrase used there, and that the Bill would have prohibited alteration in a certain direction. But I do not quite see the necessity for prohibiting any alteration at ail. Why, for instance, should it be necessary for the consent of the Board of Trade to be obtained for an alteration which is really carrying out the policy of getting rid of enemy influence in a company? I should have expected to find a prohibition of any alteration of that provision in a certain direction. As it stands, it is a prohibition of any alteration without the consent of the Board of Trade. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will give consideration to that point if it should be raised by myself or anyone else in Committee, but that is the only criticism at the present stage I desire to make.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: There is a real danger in connection with legislation of this description where it affects foreigners, and when we remember that foreign Governments have also got their laws which relate to British companies or the interests of British people as shareholders in their companies. I do not know whether I make the point quite clear to the House, but it is this: In Italy and in Roumania, and I believe also in Serbia, though I am not quite certain about Serbia, there are laws which state that wherever a foreign country—and, of course, for that purpose Great Britain is; a foreign country—has placed any restriction whatever upon the shareholding of their country in companies carrying on business there, the same restrictions shall automatically apply to the companies carrying on business in their countries. Now we in this House passed an Act—the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908—which was, as it was stated when brought in, to make no alteration in the law, but to be merely a codification of the company law as it then stood. But it turned out, on close investigation, that there were one or two very important alterations in the law which were really embodied in the provisions of that Act, and one or two of them related to the position of foreign shareholders and foreign concerns having businesses in Great Britain. That legislation had effect on a number of concerns with English capital carrying on business in these foreign countries, because, after all, Great Britain is a commercial country, and has got interests in companies registered all over the world, and we have got to look, not merely at some conditions applicable to half a dozen companies probably in the United Kingdom that happen to have a few foreigners here as shareholders, but in pressing legislation of this description we have also got to think of the interests of all our traders and all our investors in all these concerns all over the world. What I do very respectfully ask the Board of Trade to consider in passing this legislation, assuming that another country would do exactly the same thing with their companies there as we are doing, is whether that would be likely to embarrass, or annoy, or cause difficulty or loss to British investments, because I venture to say that if it would we are running a very serious risk indeed in passing such legislation.
There is just one more point to which I want to refer. I would have liked to ask the representative of the Board of

2095
Trade whether there are any substantial numbers of concerns in this country that would fall under this Bill, because I really cannot think that there are. I can scarcely imagine any very large number of companies that have got in their constitution to-day provisions that a certain proportion of their capital is bound to be held by people of certain nationalities. I know of two or three companies that have the distinct provision that at least a certain proportion of the capital and of the voting power has got to be vested in British subjects; but surely that is not the kind of thing to which the Board of Trade objects. It must be just the opposite. I cannot understand the Board of Trade bringing in a Bill to try to stop or restrict British interests in a company. What they clearly want to do, if they want to do anything about it, is to restrict foreigners acquiring more than a certain proportion. I do not know of any undertaking or any concern registered in Great Britain which contains a provision that a certain proportion of its capital is to be held by Germans, or Austrians, or Turks, or that any of those countries is to have a certain voting power. If there is no such company, or if there are only one or two, why are we wasting our time here to-night in passing an Act of Parliament which can absolutely do no good, and which applies to no state of affairs that wants remedying, when at the same time we are running substantial risks of annoying other nations and getting them to impose upon us the identical restrictions and difficulties which we are going to put into this Bill? I can only make these observations in general terms, but in getting up as a private Member to say a word or two about this Bill, I am bound to point out some of the dangers which I see we should be incurring in passing it. At the same time, I am bound to admit I do not know from my experience in London of any cases, and I can hardly conceive any cases where there would be a mischief that this Bill would really be wanted to meet. If, however, there are such cases—and there is any number of them, and it is really desired to pass legislation about them—then I think we ought not only to be told in this House what the Bill proposes to do, but we should get some general idea of the magnitude and scope of these concerns, and the kind of restriction or alteration in the articles of which the Board of Trade seeks power to get rid.
Sir G. RADFORD: While I feel well disposed towards this Bill, being, like other Bills, moved by some benevolent intention, yet I am bound to say, from the short discussion that has taken place, I begin to have great doubts whether the Bill is needed. If it is, I think we want some further reasons than have been given, in order to commend it to this House. The object of the Bill is to require the consent of the Board of Trade to certain alterations in companies' articles which have "the effect of restricting or limiting the proportions or amounts of the share capital of the company or of the voting power of the company which maybe held or exercised by or on behalf of foreigners." Let me remark that this is to apply to foreigners who hold shares in British companies, and the word "foreigners" includes all mankind, except the dwellers in these Isles and the Dominions of the Empire. This is a hostile blow to all our gallant Allies, and is, I think, quite unnecessary. I am open to reasonable argument, but I have heard no reason why all foreigners, including our Allies, should be subject to this ban. I wait to be convinced on that point. Then I am bound to say, as I have heard other Members say in this House, that we are at war, and while we are at war the shares of alien enemies in British companies are already well looked after. The Public Trustee sees that the shares of foreign enemies are vested in him. Therefore, with regard to those persons it does not seem to be necessary that we should confer this power on the Board of Trade, which would prevent a company from altering its articles in certain directions, but if the articles were so altered it would not affect the shares of alien enemies, because they are already being looked after by the Public Trustee. I do not see that there is any urgency about this provision at all. I further observe that this measure is not limited to the duration of the War, but it continues perpetually. My hon. and learned Friend near me says that that is a valuable thing, but I do not accept that opinion. In a state of war we are apt to make a change which is not necessary except for the duration of the War, and I should hesitate to alter the; law of the country in perpetuity in order to meet a war-like emergency. For these reasons the House should hesitate before accept-

2097
ing this Bill, at any rate until we get some convincing explanation from the points which I have raised.
Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I consider this measure to be a very pernicious one. You have already dealt with enemy property, but the purpose of this Bill is to limit the power of any foreign shareholder in any British company. That has never been our policy in the past, or even the purpose of the Tariff Reform policy, because their object was to get money into this country, and foreigners will not invest money here unless they have some control over it. How are these proposals going to affect America? It may be that you will have an enormous amount of American investments here in the future. The people of this country have always been in the habit of investing in foreign countries, and if you say to Italy, Argentina, or America. "We are going to limit your rights in any company in which you have invested in this country," they will retort and say, "We will limit your rights in companies in our country." The moment you say that you are going to restrict foreigners hero you will get none of their money here unless they have proper control. We shall want as much capital invested in this country as possible after the War. We want American capital, and to say to Americans that they may put their capital in companies here without having any power of voting and restricting them in that way is absurd.
In America there is no restriction as to voting. You hold shares there, and they ask you to the general meeting in the same way as we do here. The object of this Bill is simply to say that the Board of Trade has got to have power to limit these foreign investments. You have passed a Registration Act for firms, and now you can go to the Registrar at Somerset House and look at the list of shareholders, and I will defy anybody to tell from that list who are foreigners, because many of the shares are held in the names of banks who are the nominees, and, therefore, you do not know the names, and the British customers of the banks alone know the real names. It is a most dangerous thing to allow the Board of Trade to say anything that will limit, hamper, or put any friction in the way of limited liability companies, or in the way of foreigners bringing money here, with regard to which they require certain control, or the reverse operation of us invest-
2098
ing in foreign countries and being so restricted. I know a case in a foreign country of an English company, and under the rule which my hon. Friend wants to impose here they would have to create a company there to deal with their money, and the local company would simply hand over the accounts to the London company. That is not the sort of thing we want. We want to bring all the money we can here, so long as it is not German or Austrian money, and put it into our industries. This is a very pernicious Bill to which I strongly object. I am against giving any Government Department the right over shareholders to frame their articles of association or memorandum of association, and alter them as they think fit from time to time. I object to any Government Department having the right of veto upon the free action of companies in that respect. It has never been so here, and the only people who ought to have any power of altering the law in this respect should be the Members of this House.
Mr. PRINGLE: This Bill seems to me to be not only pernicious in its object, but I think it is likely to be futile in its operation. I think it is pernicious because it includes the latest phrase of the Tariff Reform agitation. We have been told in the past that the main object of Tariff Reform was to attract capital to this country, and we all know that what converted the present Prime Minister was a policy which resulted in bringing an immense amount of German capital to this country which is now regarded as evidence of the existence of the "unseen hand." Consequently we must associate the unseen hand with the present Prime Minister. This is the last form of Tariff Reform ratiocination. Consequently, you must deal with companies which have a foreign interest and if there is a provision in the articles of association restricting these foreigners you must prevent the change of that article which would allow of any increase of foreign capital. What is the use of doing that? Why should a company, if it desires to get rid of such a restriction, be prevented from doing it? Is there any public policy in that?
Supposing a company wants fresh capital and it can only get capital from America. We know the straits to which the Government have been reduced, for we have been selling foreign securities. This Act might positively interfere with the exchange operations of the Treasury.

2099
I do not know whether the Government have contemplated that or not. It is quite impossible to see any intelligible reason for the introduction of this strange piece of legislation. I would like to ask if it will have any real effect. If anyone wishes to evade this provision it would be very easy to do it. I see the name of the Solicitor-General on the back of this Bill, but I think he could advise anybody for a very small fee how to evade this Bill, and it would not take him long. On this point I forbear because I do not wish to interfere with the earnings of my learned brethren. No doubt the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Rees) will be ready to eulogise the virtues of the present Government, and will no doubt say that this is an admirable piece of legislation in harmony with the long line of Liberal traditions, and in the true spirit of the great statesman whom he now so ardently and consistently follows.
Mr. CARADOC REES: In regard to this Bill I am a seeker for information. What I thought this Bill meant to do is this: There has been a Committee of this House dealing with the winding-up of alien enemy firms, and it is only in regard to those firms that there are any restrictions at all in the articles of association such as are dealt with in Clause 1 of this Bill. The idea being that the Board of Trade have insisted upon special articles of association being embodied in the articles of the company that will be taking over enemy businesses. It would be ridiculous to wind up an alien enemy business and then allow loopholes for the aliens to creep back into such businesses. In ordinary companies in this country there are no articles restricting the employment of foreign money, or restricting the voting power of foreign shareholders. In these particular businesses which have been wound up and handed over from alien enemies to British subjects, those British subjects are prevented by certain articles which the Board of Trade have imposed upon them from allowing the alien enemies to creep back into the company?
Mr. RENDALL: Will the hon. Member explain exactly if that is really so? Does this Bill apply only to certain companies?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): May I point out to the hon. Members that it is not in order for two hon. Members to be on their feet at the same time.
Mr. RENDALL: Will the hon. Member for Carnarvon give me his legal opinion as to whether this Bill applies to any other companies except those he has described? I thought this measure applied to all companies.
Mr. REES: No other company will want to alter its articles of association in order to give voting powers to foreign shareholders. It is only where such articles are in that the company would want to alter them. This Bill is to prevent alien firms which have been taken over by British subjects from modifying or altering articles of association which have been imposed without the consent of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade in their wisdom may modify those articles which they insisted upon a company putting in. In this matter I am a seeker for information, and I would like an explanation.
Mr. G. ROBERTS: I certainly did not apprehend that I was going to lay myself open to the charge—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member can only speak again by leave of the House.
Mr. ROBERTS: I presume it is the desire of the House that I should reply to the points which have been raised. I certainly did not apprehend that this would lay me open to tin; charge of having become a tariff reformer. Most of the criticisms which have been advanced are entirely due to a misapprehension as to the scope of the Bill. The Bill, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Rees) has just observed, is confined in its operations to those companies which are dealt with under the Trading With the Enemy Act, 1916.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: The Bill ought to say so.
Mr. ROBERTS: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my statement. It is perfectly correct to say that no companies other than those have these restrictions in their articles of association, and it is equally true to say that until this legislation was passed no company either contemplated or included such restrictions in their articles of association. Therefore, it may be accepted that it only applies to those companies that have been dealt with under Section 4 of the Trading With the Enemy Act. I stated in my

2101
introductory observations, though perhaps I did not make myself as clear as I ought to have done, that the Trading With the Enemy Act provided two methods of dealing with enemy businesses, namely, either direct winding-up, or, where it was desirable to maintain it, providing for the business being carried on under certain restrictions. In the latter case the Board of Trade have felt that measures ought to be taken to ensure that the business shall not relapse under enemy control. I am advised that the wording of the Bill has the effect of restricting its operations to those companies that are dealt with under the Trading With the Enemy Act. At any rate, that is the intention of the Department. Section 1 reads as follows:
"Where any provision in the articles of association of a registered company is designed to restrict or limit, or has the effect of restricting or limiting."
Until this legislation was enacted no company in this country ever so restricted its articles of association. It is, therefore, plain that the measure only applies to those companies dealt with under the Trading With the Enemy Act. I speak with deference in the presence of hon. and learned Members, but if it should be that the wording of the measure is not sufficiently explicit, I will give an undertaking that I will consult with the Solicitor-General in order to ensure that the wording is made perfectly clear. I recognise that, after all, it will be undesirable to place unnecessary barriers in the way of the flow of capital into this country, but I think we are correctly interpreting the feeling of the House and the desire of the country by enacting that companies which have enemy undertakings and which have been under German influence, gnawing away at the vitals of our commercial life, shall not be at liberty again to carry on their operations in the same way as before the War. It has been found expedient to wind-up these undertakings under legislation passed by this House, and as it is our intention only to apply this measure to companies thus dealt with, I think it may remove any misapprehension.
Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: It applies to these companies only?
Mr. ROBERTS: I have made inquiries, and I understand that it only applies to the companies thus dealt with, although there are two or three other companies
2102
who have voluntarily altered their articles of association in order that they may claim that they are exclusively British.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. James Hope.]

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION BILL.
Order for Second Beading read.
Mr. G. ROBERTS: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Whilst the last Bill might have excited some apprehension, I think this measure is sufficiently clear to secure for it an easy passage through the House. The object of the Bill is to avoid the necessity which arises under the Census of Production Act, 1906, for taking a census of production in the year 1918, covering the production of the present year. Everybody will agree that the present year is obviously a most unsuitable period for the purpose of a census of production. Industry is dislocated, and works, factories, and labour are diverted for the purposes of munitions and other war expedients. A census prepared under these conditions would afford no trustworthy index to the course of internal trade, which is really the purpose intended to be served by a census of production. Furthermore, the staffs that would be charged with the preparation of the census are also diverted to war work and work of greater urgency. It is, therefore, deemed desirable to secure power to postpone the third census of production. It will be remembered that under the Census of Production Act an Order was made in 1911 providing that the census should be taken over quinquennial periods, and unless this Bill is passed and that Order is altered it will be necessary for us to proceed in the matter. The manufacturers of the country would feel that they were overtaxed if they were called upon on this occasion to devote the services of their staffs to the compilation of the necessary statistics which are required under the Census of Production Act.
It is not possible at the present moment to state definitely what may be the earliest year for which the next census of production may properly be taken, and it is, therefore, proposed to confer on the

2103
Board of Trade power to prescribe by Order the dates of every future census, such Order to be made at least a year before the commencement of the year for which the statistics ma;; be required. It is clear that even a prophet could not with accuracy predict the duration of the War. After the War there will be a period of reconstruction and readjustment to normal standards, and to that period also it is difficult to give an accurate date. It will be observed that power is also to be taken to limit any census of production to prescribe trades or businesses. It is clear that some businesses may be readjusted earlier than others, and it might be helpful if statistics could be compiled for particular trades as readjustment ensues. There are really three points in the Bill. First of all, we ask for power to postpone the third census of production. Secondly, we ask that power be conferred on the Board of Trade to prescribe the dates of each future census. The third point is the power to limit any census of production to prescribed trades or businesses. I hope that I have succeeded in explaining the scope and purpose of this Bill, and that it may secure the assent of the House.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. J. Hope.]
Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. BALDWIN (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This a short one-Clause Bill, which is brought forward for the consideration of the House at the request of the Railway Executive Committee of the Board of Trade under circumstances which I can explain in a few words. The House is probably aware that the Passenger Duty which railway companies have to pay is one of 5 per cent, on all railway fares exceeding 1d. per mile, and it has been in force with some slight modification since
2104
the earliest days of our railway system. Under the Order of the Board of Trade issued in November last, there has been an increase of 50 per cent, in fares, and the result is that practically all railway fares throughout the Kingdom will be brought within the scope of this Railway Passenger Duty. The clerical labour involved, both to the railway companies and the Board of Customs and Excise, who have to check the figures, is not inconsiderable; but however inconsiderable that work may have been when the duty was confined to fares exceeding one penny per mile, it is obvious that it will be very heavy under the changed circumstances, and at a time when it is desirable to reduce all unnecessary labour in the country as far as possible, it has been thought well to ask the permission of the House to remit this duty on the controlled companies for the term only of the period of control.
The only question which has probably jumped to the mind of every Member of the House is whether this is going to be of financial benefit to the railway companies. The answer is that so long as the period of control lasts, financially it makes no difference either to the railway companies or to the Government for the very simple reason that the duty is part of the working expenses of the company, and when it is removed the amount that has to be paid by the Government to the railway companies is that much less. It makes no difference financially whether a separate payment is made to the Government through the Board of Customs and Excise, or whether the same amount is accounted to the Government as ordinary receipts through the Board of Trade. Under these circumstances, as this proposal makes no financial difference to the railways or to the Government, as it has received the approval of the Board of Trade and of the Board of Excise and Customs, and as it will save clerical labour to some extent both to the railway companies and to the Board of Customs and Excise, I hope the House will give it a Second Reading, and if it feels that the proposal is a reasonable one, I trust it will not think I am asking too much in inviting it to allow the Bill to proceed through its further stages to-day. We know this is the last day of February; the duty is collectable on the tenth day of the

2105
second month after it falls due, and consequently the duty which arose during the month of January is due to be collected on the 10th of March. If the principle of this Bill be agreed to, it is desirable to get it into operation at once, and on that ground I hope there will be no delay in its progress.
Mr. RENDALL: The hon. Member in charge of the Rill has explained its purport with great clearness, and I am quite sure the House will be desirous to assist him in getting the measure passed through all its stages to-night. At the same time he has made it quite plain to the House that, while the railway companies under the financial arrangements by which the Hoard of Trade has control over the railways during the War are not going to be helped financially, the Bill will save them a very great deal of clerical labour, and in that sense it will be a real advantage to them in the conduct of their work. I venture to suggest that the Board of Trade, in bringing forward a Bill of this kind, ought to see that the advantages are not all on one side. There have been continual complaints in recent times against the railway companies for not giving more facilities to the travelling public. When they are seeking to escape certain legal liabilities the Board of Trade conies along and says it is for the good of the country. But while we may be willing to relieve the companies of these legal obligations where it can be done, we think that the claims of the travelling public, who are suffering many inconveniences by reason of inadequate train services and by the difficulties which are raised in regard to the inter-availability of season tickets, should not be lost sight of.
I suggest that when the Board of Trade comes down and asks this House to give facilities which will be of advantage to the railway companies, it should at the same time be prepared to concede something which would be good for the travelling public. For some weeks I have been approaching the Board of Trade in regard to the matter of the inter-availability of season tickets. A man may live in a town in which there are two railways running to London. If he buys a season ticket he is only allowed to travel by one line, but if he takes an ordinary first-, second-, or third-class ticket for the double journey he may travel by either line. Take the case of a man at Plymouth who takes an ordinary second return ticket to London. He may travel up by
2106
the South-Western and return by the Great Western but if he takes out a season ticket, then he is tied to one line. When appeals are made in regard to this matter we get replies from the Board of Trade stating that it is making inquiries and is considering the point. But the reply of the railway companies is that if a man has a season ticket and it is made inter-available it is difficult to adjust the amount to which each company is liable, as there are no means of telling by which line he has travelled, and, consequently, one company may not get the full amount which it should receive. It seems to me that in these times, when we are anxious to give every facility to business men, they should not be forced when coining to London on business to waste time in the Metropolis awaiting a return train on a particular line when there are earlier trains on the alternative route. I submit that the Board of Trade under these circumstances should insist on the inter-availability of railway tickets in such cases as these.
When I put a question on the subject the other day to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade he replied that it was impossible to do this with regard to short mileage. I realise that when there are two lines running to London for a short distance it is possible that all the traffic may converge on one particular line at certain times of the day and cause considerable inconvenience thereby. But that difficulty does not apply to long-distance trains, and, bearing in mind that the people who use these long-distance railway services are nearly all men of business who come to London to do important work and desire to return at the earliest possible moment, it does seem absurd that they should be compelled to waste their time in London awaiting a train on a particular line when there are earlier trains available on the alternative line. These things ought to be viewed with the modern eye. To-day the sympathies of the modern railway director may be more with the shareholding public than with the travelling public, but as the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has now been relieved of his duties as a railway director and has come forward with this Bill, I think it would be very nice if he would show an unprejudiced mind in regard to this matter, and give an undertaking that this small point, which is of very considerable interest to the travelling public, especially to-day

2107
when so many more men are taking out season tickets, shall receive consideration. The fact that the number of season tickets has increased enormously recently certainly strengthens my argument, as it shows that a far larger number of men will be confined to travelling by a single line and will lose the advantages which attach to the ordinary ticket-holder of having an alternative route. Having made that protest, I must say that while I am very glad to save the railway companies labour, I would ask the Board of Trade, while promoting this Bill, to do something to save inconvenience to the ordinary travelling public.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I desire to congratulate my hon. Friend on the explanation which he has given of the provisions of this Bill. As he has pointed out, while the Passenger Duty brings in very little revenue it entails a great deal of clerical work, and, personally, I wish the Government could have seen their way to carry their proposal a step further and abolish the duty altogether. Perhaps this Bill is a preparation for what may come hereafter. Both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have referred to the Railway Passenger Duty as part of the working expenses of railway companies. But I know when I had the good fortune, as some people may call it, to be a season-ticket holder on the South-Eastern Railway, I found by experience that the Railway Passenger Duty on my season ticket was charged separately, and I believe the same practice applies to ordinary tickets. In fact, that was recognised by the Legislature in the Cheap Trains Act of 1883, when the Passenger Duty on cheap fares, that is, fares under the Parliamentary rate of one penny per mile was abolished so far as cheap trains are concerned and reduced in the case of urban traffic. One appreciates the point that the Board of Trade increase of 50 per cent, in the railway fares will bring many fares which hitherto have been exempt within the operations of the Railway Passenger Duty.
Owing to the exemptions, owing to the gradual abolition of second-class fares, and also owing to various events connected with the War, this duty has been steadily-decreasing in recent years. In 1911–12 it produced about £315,000. In 1915, the last year for which figures are available, the amount realised was just above a
2108
quarter of a million sterling, and last year probably it was rather under a quarter of a million. As my hon. Friend has said, the cost of collection and the clerical work entailed are very great, and I think the Government may well consider whether this should not be a step towards the complete abolition of this old-fashioned duty, which brings us very little and costs a considerable amount to collect. So far as the Bill itself is concerned, it has my hearty support, and I hope it may be allowed to pass through all its stages now.
Mr. HENDERSON: My hon. Friends appear to be under a slight misapprehension. They think this Bill is going to benefit the railway companies arid relieve them of a burden. They appear to forget that the railways are now under the control of the Government and that this alteration will not benefit the companies one iota in any way. The railways are under an Executive in London, which gives instructions and orders to the railway officials, and it makes no difference to the latter what work they are doing. The Railway Executive Committee are not opposed to the Bill. I understand they agree to it.
Mr. BALDWINassented
7.0 P.M.
Mr. HENDERSON: It will make no difference whatever financially either to the Government or to the railway companies. The sole object of the Bill, I take it, is to relieve the railway companies of making up certain returns which they are called upon to do under the existing Act of Parliament, and the Bill is solely directed to securing that relief. I am afraid that with regard to fares what my hon. Friend said was out of order. There, again, the railway companies have no power whatever. All the power is vested in the Executive Committee in London which represents the Government. This is clearly an administrative Bill and, as such, ought to be passed.
Mr. KEATING: We are very much indebted to the last speaker for having made clear to us all the fact that it is the Executive Committee that has power to do what it likes in a matter of railways. I would take this opportunity of drawing attention to the very disagreeable experiences of suburban travellers who have to produce their season tickets every day and all day long. If it is in the power of this House to facilitate the companies in their

2109
working, the Government ought to reciprocate by giving the travelling public facilities, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to bear this question in mind and to press upon the Railway Executive Committee the folly of compelling men to show their season tickets every time they enter or leave a railway station. If they were shown once a week it would be quite sufficient to prevent fraud, but to have to show season tickets on every journey is a nuisance to the community.
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I understand from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that this extra duty is to be charged in respect of railways in the United Kingdom.
Mr. BALDWIN: The controlled railways.
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I gather that it is to be charged on the controlled railways in Ireland. That means that the passenger fares on the Irish controlled railways will be increased 50 per cent, if it has not already been done. I want to know from the hon. Member when it was that the passenger fares were increased on the Irish railways.
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that that question arises on this Bill, which is one that simply suspends the obligation to keep separate accounts.
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Yes, but I object to the increased duty in respect of Irish railways, because that necessarily means an increase in the passenger fares.
Mr. BALDWIN: I point out to the hon. Member that there is no passenger duty in Ireland, therefore this does not apply to Ireland.
Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Then I withdraw my objection.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. James Hope.]
Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Suspension of Obligation to keep Separate Accounts and make Separate Payments in respect of Railway Passenger Duty.)
A railway company whose railroad is under the control of His Majesty's
2110
Government in pursuance of section sixteen of the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, shall, during any period after the commencement of this Act for which their railway is so under the control of His Majesty's Government, be relieved of any obligation to keep the separate accounts and make the separate entries in respect of passenger duty required by section tour of the Railway Passenger Duties Act, 1842 (as amended by section thirteen of the Revenue Act, 1863, and section seven of the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, or any other enactment), or to make any separate payments as required by those enactments in respect of railway passenger duty for that period, and shall be deemed to have been relieved of any such obligation in respect of any duty for the period between the end of the year nineteen hundred and sixteen and the commencement of this Act.
Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. RENDALL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to take notice of my remarks?
Mr. BALDWIN: I would merely point out to my hon. Friend that this is purely a War measure, and that it applies only for the period of control. It will come to an end as soon as practicable after the termination of the War. I can assure him he is mistaken in thinking that any benefit at all accrues to the railway companies. He must remember that every bit of labour of which a large company can be relieved enables it, to that extent, to release servants for military service. It is the country that gets the benefit. It is to try and release men for military service that railway companies, in common with every business in the country, have clone their utmost to skim down their businesses to release every man they can for that purpose. I feel, if I may say so respectfully to the hon. Member, that it is our duty, as far as we can, to assist any company or corporation, in however slight a degree, to attain that object. I do not think he can expect me, in recommending to the House a Bill of this nature, which is purely a war measure, to give any undertaking as to what extra facilities may be given to the travelling public at this time. As an individual, I quite sympathise with what he said. Grievances of that kind, when the War is over, might be met and should be met, but we ought to remember that these increases in fares were imposed

2111
with the definite and specific object of curtailing as far as possible railway travelling, with the double view of releasing all the rolling stock that could be released in this country for the service of the War and for releasing as far as possible the services of every available man for overseas. I have no authority, of course, to speak on this point, but I cannot think that the Government at this time would look with a favourable eye on any facilities during the remaining period—the most difficult period of the War, that might make travelling easier in this country than it is to-day. I am afraid that what I have said may not satisfy my hon. Friend, but it is the plain common sense of the matter, and it is all I can tell him.
Mr. RENDALL Mr. RENDALL rose—
The CHAIRMAN: We really cannot discuss that question in Committee. We are tied down to the subject of the Clause, which I have put to the Committee, and this discussion seems wholly beyond it.
Mr. RENDALL: If the hon. Member was in order—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member (Mr. Rendall) appears to have asked a question to which the hon. Gentleman's speech was an answer. I was reluctant to interrupt a sentence, but I certainly cannot allow a Debate to proceed upon a subject wholly outside the scope of the Clause in the Bill.
Mr. W. THORNE: I am sorry I was not in the House when the Second Beading was taken, and I did not look at the Order Paper to see that this Bill was coming on to-night, otherwise I should have looked up information which I have in regard to this question. It seems that the railway companies are going to be relieved of the payment of certain sums which they were compelled to pay to the State, and which amount to several thousand pounds. When the Railway Passenger Duties Act was brought into operation, the railway companies were compelled to run workmen's trains up to a given hour in all parts of the country. I would ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he is prepared to recommend to the railway companies, if this Bill is passed, as I expect it will be, that they should run even more workmen's trains than they are at the present time and up to a later hour than they are now doing.
The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that is a matter of policy which cannot arise in Committee.
Mr. THORNE: I will raise it later.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Mr. James Hope.]
Mr. THORNE: I will now raise the point I was pursuing when I was called to ordered by the Chairman of Committees, namely, that if this Bill is passed, the railway companies will not be compelled to keep separate accounts as they are now. If that is done will the railway companies be able to cheat the Government out of certain sums to which they were entitled under the old method? I would ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he can see his way clear to persuade the various railway companies to run ever more workmen's trains than are being run at the present time?
Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise on this Bill. The first question raised by the hon. Member is relevant.
Mr. THORNE: I understand that when the Railway Passenger Duties Act was brought into operation many years ago it was passed on the distinct understanding that the various railway companies in the country should run a certain number of workmen's trains to the termini in. London and other parts of the country.
Mr. SPEAKER: That may be so, but this Bill only refers to making certain entries. It does not refer to the policy of runnning workmen's trains or otherwise. The Bill only relates to the bookkeeping part.
Mr. BALDWIN: I can assure the hon. Member that he is quite mistaken about the financial advantage to the railway companies, and if he reads in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow what I have just said I think he will be satisfied that the railway companies are not trying to take any advantage of the Government.
Mr. KEATING: I do not know what is the hon. Gentleman's opinion about my suggestion as to the need of showing season tickets every time a passenger

2113
travels on a suburban train, but any expression in favour of it would be heartily welcomed.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

SUPPLY [27TH FEBRUARY].—REPORT.
Resolutions reported,
"That an additional number of Officers and Men, not exceeding 50,000, be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for additional Expenditure on the Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, Boys, Coastguard, and Royal Marines."
Resolutions agreed to.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Mr. SPEAKER: A Royal Commission being expected very shortly, I now leave the Chair until notice is given that the Commission is waiting.
Sitting suspended accordingly.
At Eight o'clock Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message received to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to
Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1917.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes after Eight o'clock.