Commons Sitting of 30 April 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (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, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Chepstow Gas Bill [Lords].

Morecambe Corporation Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
Account presented of the Public Income and Expenditure of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the year ended 31st March, 1918, together with the Balances in the Exchequer on the 1st April, 1917; the Receipts and Payments (not being Income and Expenditure) in the year ended 31st March, 1918; and the Balances in the Exchequer on that day [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 51.]
SINKING FUNDS.
Account presented of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, showing the amount received and applied in the year ended 31st March, 1918, in respect of the Old and New Sinking Funds [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 52.]
Copy presented of Report of the Board of Education for the year 1916–17 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PRISONERS OF WAR (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 10, 1918).
Copy presented of an Agreement between the British and Ottoman Governments respecting Prisoners of War and Civilians [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    RUSSIAN EMBASSY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that M. Gambs signed, on 18th April, 1918, a certificate relieving M. Marks from being called up for military service yet, adding, after the name of Gambs, the words on behalf of the Russian Embassy; whether M. Gambs is authorised by any Russian Embassy in any capacity; and, if so, who is the Ambassador for whom M. Gambs acts?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): M. Gambs was appointed in July last, when the Military Service Agreement with Russia came into operation, to issue certificates of exemption to Russian subjects on behalf of the Russian Embassy. I have no information as to the actual certificate referred to, but any certificates which have been issued by M. Gambs will be accepted by the British authorities as effective for the purpose for which they were issued.
    Mr. KING: May I conclude that there is no answer to the last part of this question?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I gave him a reply in answer to a question he put to me as to the rather anomalous position now necessarily occupied by the Russian Chargé d'Affaires and M. Litvinoff, and I do not think I can add anything to that answer.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the position that there is a Russian official entitled to grant exemptions, but that there is no British official in Russia entitled to grant exemptions?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think any difficulty has arisen under the last head, but if it arises I shall be very glad to see if it can be remedied.
    Mr. KING: In the interests of our nationals in Russia, who might at any time be summoned for military service in Russia, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider acting in some way in their interests?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think the occasion has arisen.

    EUROPEAN NEUTRALS (EXPORT TRADE).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state to what extent this country has facilitated the export trades of European neutrals during the past three months; and can he indicate what return we receive from each of these countries for giving them these transhipment facilities at a time when the full use of our shipping, quay space, railways and man-power are urgently required for purposes vital to the success of the Allies?
    Captain Viscount WOLMER (War Trade Department): The total quantity of goods imported into this country from Sweden, Norway Denmark, Holland, Switzerland and Spain, and allowed to be transhipped, during the period 1st January to 31st March, 1918, amounted approximately to 22,355 tons. Transhipments are carefully regulated by a special committee of the War Trade Department, whose decisions are guided by considerations of home supplies, our obligations to our Allies, and the interests of British trade. Subject to these, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to refrain from hindering the commerce of friendly neutrals.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (REGULATIONS).
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Under secretary of State for War whether a prosecution under the new Regulation 40 D of the Defence of the Realm Act took
    1378
    place at the City Police Court, Manchester, on the 19th April; whether the prisoner was sentenced to two months' imprisonment; what was the nature of the medical evidence; and whether the soldier or sailor concerned appeared against the prisoner?
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now had a Report on the case of a young girl of seventeen years who, on 19th April, was sentenced at Manchester to six months' imprisonment for an offence under Regulation 40 D?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I have been asked to reply to these questions. I have obtained a police report, and I find that the sentence was two months, as stated in the first of these questions, and not six months. The girl herself stated that she was suffering from venereal disease, and this was confirmed by the prison doctor. The attendance of the soldiers whom she solicited was not, therefore, required.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Are we to understand that, in contradiction to the statement which the Under-Secretary made in reply to me two days ago, that the magistrates always summoned the soldier or sailor for cross-examination, in this, the first case that arises, the woman has been sentenced to imprisonment without the soldier or sailor being called?
    Sir G. CAVE: As a general rule, it would be as stated, but in view of the fact that the woman admitted the offence, there was no necessity to require such attendance.
    Mr. KING: In view of the extreme youth of this young person—she is only seventeen—cannot the right hon. Gentleman in some way intervene to reduce the term of punishment?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is too soon to consider that.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: As these women do not know of their power to summon the soldier or sailor, will the right hon. Gentleman issue Instructions to the chief constable in each district so that these women on each occasion may be told of their right to summon the soldier or sailor concerned to give evidence?
    Sir G. CAVE: The soldier or sailor will be usually called for the prosecution as

    1379
    witness, and the persons charged are always told that they are entitled to summon witnesses.
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the pamphlet recently published by the Liberal Publication Department containing the speech on the War and the terms of settlement delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife at Derby on the 22nd March was submitted to the Press Bureau in compliance with Regulation 27C of the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer is in the negative. I understand that the publishers took the view that as the speech dealt mainly with after-war problems it did not fall within the Regulation, and I think that there is much to be said for that view. The speech is certainly incorrectly described in the question as a speech on the War and the terms of settlement. I may add that other publications by the Department have been duly submitted to the Press Bureau.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this speech contains passages dealing with the inception of the War, passages dealing with the conclusion of a clean peace; and, in view of the fact that poor and humble men are imprisoned for single sentences, does he propose to take no action when they came from important individuals or organisations?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is a question of fact in each case. I certainly should make no distinction on account of the position of the person concerned. This is a speech on after-war problems, republished with the title "Problems of Peace." The speaker did in two sentences in the speech say our first duty was to prosecute the War and obtain a clean peace. I do not think those two sentences make the speech one which comes within the Regulations.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men are imprisoned now for single sentences in long articles, and why is the law not enforced against the Liberal party or the Liberal Publication Department?
    Sir G. CAVE: The law is enforced against everybody alike.

  NATIONAL SERVICE.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a soldier who has been confined to a lunatic asylum for upwards of one month, and subsequently discharged from the Army, is liable for medical re-examination or to be ordered to obtain work of national importance by the National Service Committee?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply. If the man in question has served outside the British Islands during the present War, or has served in the field in any previous war, or has been certified to be totally and permanently unfit by a recruiting medical board, or by a National Service medical board, after the 5th April, 1917, he is excepted from the provisions of the Military Service Acts, and cannot be called up for medical examination or for service, nor required to undertake work of national importance. If he has not served or been certified as above, he may be required to report for medical examination by a National Service medical board, and if he is then found to be totally and permanently unfit for military service, he will be freed from any further liability, and will not be required to do work of national importance.

  VOLUNTEER FORCE.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of men of military age, including officers and civilians, there are engaged on work in connection with the Volunteer Force, and how many of them are Territorial officers who have been disabled in the War?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): The numbers employed in the War Office up to the age of fifty-one under the Director-General of the Territorial and Volunteer Forces in connection with the Volunteers are:

  Civilians

  …

  …

  18 (3 partly)

  Officers

  …

  …

  10 (1 partly)

  Soldiers

  …

  …

  51

  Total

  …

  …

  79

  The officers include two Territorial officers who have been disabled in the War.

  OVERSEAS CHEVRON (WOMEN).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he can permit to all the women who have served on any of the war fronts, either in hospital or any other units, the right to wear a special badge or chevron, so that the public may know those women who have served in overseas forces during this War?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The Regulations provide for the award of the overseas chevron to all women employed under authority with any of the British forces outside the United Kingdom.
  The several categories that may be awarded chevrons include:

  Members of Nursing Services.

  Members of Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps.

  Members of Voluntary Aid Detachments.

  Members of the Women's Legion.

  Personnel working under the Joint War Committee of the British Red Cross Society and the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, and organisations affiliated thereto.

  Personnel working under the St. Andrew's Ambulance Association.

  Women holding official appointments with the British forces.

  MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING.

    RELEASE OF SOLDIERS.
    Mr. FRANCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the total number of men returned from the Army to shipyards and marine-engine works in fulfilment of the promise that 20,000 men would be so returned?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Approximately 6,000.
    Mr. FRANCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister stated to the House recently that since the offensive began in France ships must come first, and does he not think that 6,000 is an inadequate proportion of 20,000?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Since then, as my hon. Friend knows, circumstances have considerably altered, but as a matter of fact I think the Admiralty refused a number of men for physical reasons.
    Mr. PRINGLE: How many men are now doing maidservants' work who might be usefully employed in the Army?
    Mr. WILKIE: Are there not expert workers in connection with shipbuilding who are still in the Army, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's statement?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Guards may be seen cleaning windows in Lower Swan Street any morning who might be doing useful work?

    CONTROLLER-GENERAL OF MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING.
    Mr. FRANCEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the organisation of the new Department of the Controller-General of Merchant Shipbuilding has been completed; and, if so, who are the responsible officers appointed under Lord Pirrie, and what are their respective duties?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): No, Sir; the organisation of the Department is not yet complete. Lord Pirrie is going personally into the requirements of the various sections of the Department, and has not yet decided as to the organisation of the Department as a whole.
    Mr. FRANCE: When does my right hon. Friend expect that this Department will be complete?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That I cannot say. I know that Lord Pirrie is largely seeing the shipbuilders himself, and it may well be that extra time will be occupied in that connection.
    Mr. WILKIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state if the Shipyard Labour Department—formed to deal with shipyard labour—is now under his Department, or what is its position? Where can we apply to when difficulty arises with regard to labour?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Shipyard Labour Department is undergoing part of the general revision of the whole problem.
    Mr. WILKIE: To whom can we apply for the moment?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: You had better apply to me.

    NEW CONSTRUCTION (EXPENDITURE).
    Mr. FRANCEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what Department is now responsible for expenditure in connection with the construction of merchant ships?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend will remember that special powers were given by the Treasury to the first holder of the post of Navy Controller—now the First Lord of the Admiralty—and those powers are still vested in the First Lord. The matter is referred to in paragraph 46 of the Second Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. Lord Pirrie's appointment, independent of the Board of Admiralty, though responsible to the First Lord, with direct access to the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet, makes some readjustment of the arrangements to which I have referred necessary. The matter is being carefully considered, but I am afraid I cannot make a definite Announcement at this moment.
    Mr. FRANCE: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that nobody is responsible at the present time?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: For the finance?
    Mr. FRANCE: For the expenditure upon shipbuilding.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I imagine at the present time the Parliamentary Secretary to the First Lord is responsible.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Does that answer apply equally to shipyards, such as Chepstow, as to expenditure upon merchant shipping?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend means the extensions in private yards or the new developments in national yards?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Both.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: At the present moment, as I say, I imagine the Parliamentary Secretary to the First Lord is responsible.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: Is the Parliamentary Secretary to the First Lord to be deprived of the control of expenditure on merchant shipbuilding?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot assume for a moment that, unless some fresh arrangement is made—and the whole matter is now the subject of revision—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty can be divested of his authority to the First Lord and this House.
    Mr. FRANCE: Will the changes proposed in the control of expenditure be laid before the House of Commons?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It will be our duty to acquaint the House with the procedure. That is one of our first duties.

    MARINE ENGINEERING WORKS.
    Mr. FRANCEasked the Minister of National Service whether he is now making arrangements to take men for the Army from shipyards and marine engineering works; and, if so, what is the total number of men it is expected will be obtained for the Army in this way?
    Mr. BECK: Arrangements have been made providing for the release from marine engineering works and from certain occupations in shipyards of a certain number of men fit for general service in accordance with the Schedule of Protected Occupations, M.M. 130, Revised. The release of these men for service with the forces is under the supervision of the district directors of the Admiralty Shipyard Labour Department for the respective districts. I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that it is undesirable in the public interest to give the numbers of men who are being raised for the armed forces at the present time.
    Mr. FRANCE: May I ask how the work of taking men from the shipyards into the Army is being co-ordinated with the work of returning men from the Army to the shipyards?
    Mr. BECK: We are in close consultation with the Supply Department. Certain classes of men can be spared in view of the present grave emergency. In other classes not a single man or boy can be spared from the shipyards.
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: Does the hon. Gentleman's answer also refer to Royal dockyards?
    Mr. BECK: Yes, the same principles apply broadly to the Royal Dockyards.
    Mr. HOLT: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what class of workmen in shipyards and marine engineering works can be spared?
    Mr. BECK: I should require notice of that. It is all set out in the Schedule, M.M. 130, but, roughly speaking, men employed on hulls cannot be spared, but a certain number of marine engineers can be spared.
    Mr. WILKIE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that ship constructors cannot be spared, and does not the same thing apply to Royal dockyards as to private firms?
    Mr. BECK: I shall be very glad to have information as to that. In fact, we are having a number of representations that

    1385
    too many men are being protected in shipyards. There is alleged to be great resentment in certain parts of the country because of the number of men protected.
    Mr. WILKIE: How does that square with the request of the First Lord for everybody to volunteer to go to the shipyards?
    Mr. BECK: It is a matter of balance of national interests. The physical fitness of the men comes into the question. Those taken are young, fit men who can be spared, and if they are not taken older men have to be taken.

  COMMANDEERED HAY.
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if hay which was commandeered by the War Office last year but still remaining on the farm will be paid for on the basis of last year's Government price or on this year's; and is he aware that such hay is worth £2 per ton for general use more than last year's Government price?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The price will be that stated in the contract of purchase between the vendor and the War Office.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hay was commandeered and not taken for a long period, and that there are many cases of serious hardship owing to the hay being left?
  Mr. FORSTER: Payment on account is always made.

  ALIENS RESTRICTION ORDER (CONVICTION OF ROUMANIAN).
  Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the exact offences for which Harold Aidalberry, a Roumanian, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment at Tower Bridge Police Court on 25th January?
  Sir G. CAVE: This man, whose true name is Hermann Edelberg, committed offences against the provisions of the Aliens Restriction Order requiring an alien (1) to give notice to the registration officer before changing his place of residence; and (2) to inform the registration officer of any change of employment within
  1386
  forty-eight hours after the circumstance occurs. Edelberg at different times changed both his place of employment and his residence. He gave no notice of his change of employment, and only notified his change of address eighteen days after it occurred and when the police were already making inquiries about him.

  WAR PENSIONS (LOCAL COMMITTEES) BILL.
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Pensions Minister the reason for the delay in introducing the War Pensions (Local Committees) Bill of which he gave notice at the commencement of the Session; and when its introduction may now be expected?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen): The delay in the introduction of this Bill has been due in some degree to the necessity of consultation with other Departments, but mainly to my desire to make this Bill a more satisfactory and comprehensive one by including certain Amendments which recent experience and changes suggested. The Bill is now with the draftsman, and I hope it will be possible to introduce it at an early date.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman specify which Department it is which is delaying the production of this Bill? Is it the Treasury?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: We have been in consultation with various Departments, the Treasury, among them, and I hope the differences may be shortly adjusted.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    GRASS LANDS.
    Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the large landowners are not doing their fair proportion of ploughing up grass land, on the plea that they have not horses for such work; whether his figures bear out this opinion; is he aware that high prices are being got this year for grazing land, sometimes as high as £5 an acre, and that these prices accrue to those who refuse to act according to the Government's demands; and will he take

    1387
    any action, with the assistance of the Food Controller, to limit grazing prices or to take over all grazing lands and apportion them?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): The President has not received any evidence to support the suggestion that large landowners are failing to plough up their allotted proportion of grass land. He is aware of the high value of grass land this year, and is considering whether any action can be taken to prevent occupiers who may fail to carry out orders to plough from deriving the benefit of the high prices which might accrue to them from their default.
    Mr. WATT: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether it is the fact that large landlords are not doing their share in ploughing up grass land?
    Sir R. WINFREY: If the hon. Gentleman will give any specific case I will look into it.

    MILK.
    Sir J. SPEARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will state the maximum price at which the producer can sell his milk during May and after for the summer months; will he state the maximum price a wholesale and retail dealer in such milk can charge respectively; and is he aware that much discontent is felt by producers at the high margin of profits allowed to dealers as against producers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Milk (Summer Prices) Order, 1918, in which are set out the maximum prices of milk for producers, wholesalers, and retailers respectively. The Order further provides that if in any area the cost of production can be shown to justify such a step the maximum price chargeable by the producer for milk can be increased by Order of the Food Controller. The prices chargeable by wholesale and retail milk dealers are maximum rates subject to variation by local food control committees. I am not aware that much discontent has been expressed by producers at the rates fixed by the Committees in various districts.
    Sir J. SPEAR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some producers resident near
    1388
    big populous districts deliver the milk direct to the retailer, and that no wholesaler comes in; and seeing that the expenses of the production of milk are greater owing to the proximity to the big centres, should not the producer share at least part of what usually goes to the wholesaler?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am aware of the circumstances. They give rise to argument, and I shall be glad to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman.

    RATIONING IN IRELAND.
    Major LANE-FOXasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether there is or has been any system of rationing in force in Ireland, with the exception of hotels; whether, at the present moment, fresh meat, bacon, poultry, and butter are freely sold in unlimited quantities in the shops; and why, in view of the restrictions imposed on the rest of the United Kingdom, such conditions should be allowed in Ireland?
    Mr. CLYNES: The only article at present rationed in Ireland is sugar. No recommendation in favour of the extension of rationing to meat or butter has at present been received from the Irish Food Control Committee, and, consequently, no statutory restrictions have been imposed on the sale of these articles except as regards their price. I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that Ireland is in all respects a land of plenty.

    OATS.
    Major LANE-FOXasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why a county war agricultural executive committee, acting for the Board of Agriculture and buying oats for the feeding of food-production horses, is charged the price of 56s. 3d. per quarter by the Army Supply Department when the controlled price of oats for feeding is limited to 46s. 3d. for farmers; and why one Government Department should raise the price to such an extent against another?
    Mr. FORSTER: There is no question of raising the price against another Department. The War Office was asked to assist, and has gone out of its way to do so. The controlled price referred to applies only to home-grown oats. The oats supplied were imported oats, and the price charged includes freight and the necessary expenses.

  HOLLAND (EXPORT SPIRIT TRADE).
  Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government has since January, 1917, made any arrangement with Holland relative to the export of trade spirits to West Africa; whether the views of the Colonial Office as to the policy of providing such spirits for the native races were asked; if any such arrangement has been discussed or made, will he say to what class of spirit it refers; what amount in total, and for each Colony separately; and what is the reason or consideration for the arrangement?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Foreign Office are aware of the views of the Colonial Office on the subject, but there has been no change in the policy of the West African Governments in regard to the importation of spirits, although the Import Duties have been considerably increased since the beginning of the War.

  BOY SCOUTS (WASTE-PAPER COLLECTION).
  Mr. T. WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the members of the Boy Scouts' associations in many parts of the country are collecting waste paper and that, owing to the conditions contained in a Waste Paper Order, they are, when they sell the paper they collect to a paper manufacturer, compelled to accept £3 per ton less for their paper than is paid to a person who has a permit to buy waste paper; if he is aware that the money the Boy Scouts receive for the paper they collect is all given to Red Cross and other military hospitals for the benefit of wounded soldiers; and whether he will alter the Order so that the Boy Scouts may get the same price for their paper as a private trader gets for his?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): I am aware of the facts stated in the question. The Waste Paper Order does not differentiate between Boy Scouts, private traders, or other persons, except in so far as it provides for special treatment of holders of permits. Permits are granted, as a rule, in cases where lots of 5 cwts. or
  1390
  over are dealt with and regular returns made. There is no necessity to alter the Order in the manner suggested, but I am having further inquiry made into the practice of selling or purchasing direct as between voluntary associations and manufacturers.
  Mr. WILSON: Can the hon. Gentleman not see his way to grant a permit to the Boy Scouts' associations, seeing that the collection of the paper and the sorting of it entail a great deal more labour in the case of Boy Scouts' associations than in that of private individuals.
  Mr. WARDLE: There is no objection whatever to granting permits to Boy Scouts' associations if they undertake to comply with the Order, which says that they must collect a certain weight.
  Mr. WILSON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Paper Commission has refused a permit to these associations, irrespective of the amount of paper they collect?
  Mr. WARDLE: I am not aware of that. If they have, and my hon. Friend will acquaint me with the facts, I will inquire into them.
  Mr. WILSON: Will my hon. Friend get rid of the present personnel of the Commission?

  RACING-TIPSTERS' TELEGRAMS.
  Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Postmaster-General how many racing-tipsters' telegrams were sent from the General Post Office on the date of the publication of Sir Douglas Haig's message to the British troops to fight to the last; and whether the dispatch of such telegrams is deemed urgent war work?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): No record of such telegrams is kept. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Am I to understand that no such telegrams were sent?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am sure I cannot say. They do not keep a record of these telegrams
  Mr LAMBERT: But surely the Post Office keep the records of telegrams, and they know whether on 13th April, when Sir Douglas Haig issued his message to

  1391
  the troops, tipsters' telegrams were sent through the Post Office? I have given notice of that, and asked the question.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: And I have answered that no record of such telegrams is kept.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCRIPTION (IRELAND).
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that seventeen of His Majesty's Counsel in Ireland have pledged themselves to resist the application of the Military Service Act take Ireland; and whether it is intended to take any notice of their action?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The matter is under the consideration of the Attorney-General for Ireland.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that threats are being used to compel the scattered loyalist population in the three southern provinces of Ireland to sign a pledge to resist the operation of the Military Service Act; and what measures he proposes to take to protect these citizens from being forced to become law-breakers against their will?
    Mr. DUKE: No report has been received by the constabulary of any intimidation to compel persons to sign a pledge to resist Conscription.
    Major NEWMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman or the Irish Government look into the Anti-Conscription League at Hume-street, Dublin, and inquire what they are doing?
    Mr. DUKE: That does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I ask what steps His Majesty's Government will take if cases of such intimidation are brought to their notice?
    Mr. DUKE: We will deal with them when they arise—not before.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the application of Conscription to Ireland has been sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, he has obtained any advice as to the
    1392
    illegality of the present conspiracy in Ireland to render the enforcement of Conscription in Ireland impossible; and, if he has not obtained any such advice, whether he will consult the law officers of the Crown?
    Mr. DUKE: I have been asked to reply to this question. The Government is, of course, aware of the facts to which my hon. and learned Friend refers and will be advised as occasion may require upon the questions of law which arise.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while we are awaiting that advice this conspiracy is daily assuming more dangerous proportions and is becoming more and more difficult to deal with?
    Mr. DUKE: I am aware of the facts which my hon. and learned Friend tells me as to the extent of what he describes as a conspiracy and the public danger involved.
    Mr. PRTNGLE: Do the Government intend to apply Conscription to Ireland in view of the fact that the successor of the right hon. Gentleman has voted against it in this House?
    Mr. DUKE: That raises so many questions of debate that I think I must not attempt to deal with it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Put it to the Prime Minister.

    APPEAL TRIBUNALS (PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. ALBION RICHARDSON(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the County of London Appeal Tribunal expressing their regret that the new Regulations issued under the Military Service Acts deprive an applicant of the full right of appeal from the decision of the local tribunals, and deprive him of the right of professional assistance on hearing his application; and whether, in view of the undertaking given by the Government to this House on 15th April that the right of appeal should be preserved to the applicant, and that these Regulations come into force on Thursday next, he is prepared to suspend their operation in this regard until the House of Commons had been given a proper opportunity of discussing them?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): My attentions was this morning called to the resolution referred to, passed yesterday by the County of London Appeal Tribunal. I cannot admit that the new Regulation deprives applicants of the full right of appeal from the decision of the local tribunals. I think that that statement as to the interpretation of the Regulation is incorrect. I admit, however, that the right of professional assistance to the applicant has been taken away. I may say that the sole object of that was to expedite the proceedings before the tribunal. I am now given to understand that some Members of the House, specially experienced in the working of Appeal Tribunals, are of opinion that the abolition of the right of professional assistance will really retard and not accelerate the action of the tribunals, and that they desire I should suspend the operation of this Regulation until they have been accorded an opportunity of putting their views before the House. As I understand, this opportunity will be accorded on the Local Government Board Vote next Thursday, I think the best course will be to decide whether or not it is possible to proceed with or modify the Regulation after a full Parliamentary discussion.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that this Regulation dealing with the right of appeal will not come into operation until after discussion on Thursday?
    Mr. FISHER: Oh, yes; I thought I had made it perfectly clear that the Regulations will exist, and will come into operation, on 2nd May. I have no means and no machinery at my disposal now by which I can possibly cancel that particular Regulation which prohibits the obtaining of professional assistance before the tribunal. After all, that will only operate for a very few days. If the House, after full discussion, should come to the conclusion that it is better to continue professional assistance before the tribunals—I shall listen to that Debate with very great eagerness to know what is the view of the House—I shall be able to rescind or vary this particular Regulation in accordance with the opinion of the House.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: In regard to the first part of my question, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will
    1394
    give facilities to the House to discuss the interpretation of these Regulations, and to take the opinion of the House as to what I suggest is right or what he suggests?
    Mr. FISHER: The House will have the fullest possible opportunity on Thursday, I understand, of discussing all these Regulations, if hon. Members choose to do so. I shall certainly listen very carefully to what the House has to say. I still think my view is correct that the full rights of appeal are embodied in the Regulations. That, however, will be a matter for debate.
    Mr. L. JONES: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the opinion of the House when it is expressed?
    Mr. FISHER: My right hon. Friend might allow me to be a judge of what is the opinion of the House. I am most anxious to have that opinion in regard to our Regulations, and will be largely guided by that opinion. But we do not always gather the opinion of the House just by the number of speakers who speak for or against a particular Motion.
    Mr. JONES: That is precisely the point.
    Mr. PRINGLE: We can take a vote.
    Mr. JONES: If, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he will not be guided merely by the speeches on Thursday, how, may I ask, are we to gather the opinion of hon. Members on this very important question?
    Mr. FISHER: The right hon. Gentleman is a very old Member of the House, and I think he knows how to gather the opinion of the House. I also am a very old Member of the House, and I think I know how to gather the opinion of the House.
    Sir H. NIELD: If the right hon. Gentleman is assured either by vote or the speeches in the House on Thursday, that he is wrong, will he bring in an amending Rule to preserve the rights of those persons who may be prejudiced by delay?
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Will these Regulations prohibit the National Service Department employing lawyers as National Service representatives before the tribunals?
    Colonel Sir C. SEELY: It would be obviously very unfair if the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that professional assistance should be allowed—very unfair on the few gentlemen dealt

    1395
    with on Thursday; would he not allow the tribunals to take a holiday on Thursday, so that no cases may be decided on that day, and until the opinion of the House is gathered?
    Mr. FISHER: This Debate will be pretty well known by those gentlemen who preside over the tribunals, and they will see what is the intention of the House.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hundreds, possibly thousands, of cases stand to be decided on Thursday evening, and will he take steps to postpone the decisions until the opinion of the House has been ascertained?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies—
    Mr. FISHER: I think that is a great exaggeration as to the number of cases; I could not possibly take any such action.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Arising out of that reply, is it not in the power of the tribunals to adjourn the cases until the decision of the House of Commons is taken?
    Mr. FISHER: Yes, it is; and I have not the slightest doubt but that chairmen of tribunals will, as regards professional assistance, be largely guided by what they gather is the opinion of the House of Commons.

  REAFFORESTATION.
  Major LANE-FOXasked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken, in view of the probable large demands relating to the restocking of woods in other countries, to ensure a supply of tree seeds, and to begin other preparations for replanting, after the War, the areas of timber now being felled in this country?
  Sir R. WINFREY: The Board of Agriculture and the Office of Woods and Forests have considerable numbers of seedlings in the Grown nurseries which will be available for planting during next winter and in the succeeding winters. In addition, they and the Scottish and Irish Departments of Agriculture are arranging to sow large quantities of forest tree seeds this spring. Preparations for re-
  1396
  planting in the Crown woods are well in hand, but with regard to woods in private ownership, such preparations are entirely for the owner, though every possible help will be afforded.

  HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the War Cabinet has considered the Report of the Conference on the House of Lords Reform; and whether, in view of the contentiousness of certain recommendations and the urgency of other business, he can relieve hon. Members from further anxiety by a pledge that no legislation on the subject will be attempted before the next General Election?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The Government have not yet had time to consider this Report, and I can, therefore, say nothing about it.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. MARRIOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Income Tax at the highest rate is chargeable upon manses and other rent-free official residences, even in oases where the official occupants are entitled to pay at rates below the highest; and, if so, whether he is prepared to propose an amendment of the law with a view to removing the hardship thus entailed upon them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which. I gave on the 21st March to the hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division of Northumberland. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of this reply.
    Sir J. SPEARasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is proposed that Income Tax shall be paid in two instalments; and, if so, at what dates must the payments be made?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As to the classes of income in which tax is at present payable by two instalments, I would refer my hon. Friend to the provisions of Section 33 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915. As he will see from paragraph (6) on page 8 of the financial statement which was issued on

    1397
    the 22nd instant, I propose to extend the arrangement to duty payable on property chargeable under Schedule A.
    Sir J. SPEARasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a farmer whose financial year ends on 31st December in a given year shows by his accounts that his profit has not been equal to the proposed assessment to Income Tax will he be allowed to make the amended payment in January or must he pay the full demand and secure repayment from Somerset House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Income Tax under Schedule B is payable in two instalments, the first of which is due on or before 1st January. In the case suggested by my hon. Friend, if the farmer is able to prove, immediately after the end of the year, that his profits have fallen short of the assessment, an adjustment of the charge would be made. Obviously such a course conduces to the convenience both of the taxpayer and of the Revenue Authorities.

  REVENUE AND DEBT (IRELAND).
  Major NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the amount of the Customs Duty that can be credited to Ireland for the past financial year; can he give Ireland's share of the National Debt on the supposition that her share stands at one-twenty-fifth of the total debt of the United Kingdom; and what would be the annual debt charge in respect of such share at 5½ per cent. interest and sinking fund?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The amount contributed by Ireland to the Customs revenue in 1917–18 is provisionally estimated at £6,680,000. The National Debt was on 31st March last £5,850,000,000 approximately. One twenty-fifth of this would be £234,000,000, 5½ per cent. on which is £12,870,000.

  BILL PRESENTED.
  POST OFFICE BILL,—"to alter the statutory limits of postal rates," presented by Mr. ILLINGWORTH; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Pike Pease; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: What business, may I ask, will be taken on Thursday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Supply—the Local Government Board Vote, as a desire to have that Vote taken has been expressed.
  Mr. D. MASON: Do we sit on Friday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question tomorrow.
  Mr. LOUGH: What business does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take to-day?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope to get only the first five Orders on the Paper.

  INCREASE OF RENT, ETC. (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clause standing in the name of the Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Adamson)—[Application where an Order for Eviction has been Made but not Executed]—is not in order.

  INCREASE OF RENT, ETC. (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

    CLAUSE 1.—(Restriction of Meaning of Landlord in 5 & 6 Geo. 5, c. 97, s. 1 (3).)
    Sub-section (3) of Section one of the increase of Pent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, shall have effect as if at the end thereof the following provision were inserted:
    For the purposes of this Sub-section the expression "landlord" shall not include any person who since the twelfth day of March, nineteen hundred and eighteen, has become landlord by the acquisition of the dwelling-house or any interest therein otherwise than by devolution thereof to him under a settlement made before the said date, or under a testamentary disposition or an intestacy.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words,
    "and the provisions of the said Sub-section with respect to orders made, but not executed before the passing of that Act, shall apply to orders made but not executed before the passing of this Act, as if this Act were substituted for that Act under the said Sub-section."
    I have added the last sentence to my Amendment on the Paper. A very strong desire has been expressed in many
    1406
    quarters of the House that where an order for eviction has been made but not executed this Act should embrace those cases. I myself desire to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Labour party, but as it was not in order, I have added those additional words to my Amendment.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I think the House will agree that it is unfortunate that no provision has been made to meet the large number of orders for eviction which may have been executed before the passing of this Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Amendment.
    Mr. MILLAR: I understand that we are discussing the Amendment on the Paper?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No; it is the one I have just read out.
    Mr. RENDALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the effect of his proposal upon a man who has bought a house and paid for it when the law was that he could get possession? That man paid his money on the clear understanding that the law allowed him to obtain possession, and, having got an eviction order by this Amendment, he is not to be allowed to obtain possession.
    Mr. FISHER: This Bill is retrospective, and the effect of this Amendment makes it a little more retrospective.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: What are the words which the right hon. Gentleman has added to the Amendment on the Paper—I cannot gather what their real effect is?
    Mr. FISHER: It is purely a question of drafting.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The words which have been added are "as if this Act were substituted for that Act." That may be quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think we ought to be told what is the actual effect of the Amendment. I suppose there is something in "that Act" which, if we went through it carefully, we should find it embodied by putting in these words. The proposal is quite incomprehensible, and I hope my hon. Friend will tell us what is concealed in "that Act" which is going to be put in "this Act."
    Mr. FISHER: I have already explained that if this Amendment be passed, a man who has purchased a house and has

    1407
    obtained an order which has not been executed may be brought into Court, and it will be left to the judge to decide whether that order shall be executed. The Court will ask themselves the question, "Supposing this Act had been passed, should we have allowed the execution to take place under this order?" and they will be guided by that. The Amendment on the Paper, without the additional words, would have been misleading. The object is to incorporate the words which were in the original Act, and which provided that
    "where such order has been made but not executed before the passing of this Act, the Court by which the order was made may, if it is of opinion that the order would not have been made if this Act had been in operation at the date of the making of the order, rescind or vary the order in such manner as the Court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act."
    My Amendment makes it perfectly clear.
    Mr. MILLAR: The Sub-section quoted from the original Act deals with a very different set of circumstances from those dealt with by this particular amending Bill, which simply limits the definition of the word "landlord." I take it that the Court may rescind or vary any order which has been made if a man has become a landlord after the date of the 30th September. I think we should have an assurance that this matter is provided for in the Bill and that it is not going to be left to the discretion of the individual judge.
    Mr. FISHER: The Court will operate under this Act as under the operation of that Act which is the Sub-section I have just read. The judge will say "supposing we had this Act in operation, should we have made that order." It will have precisely the same operation as under Subsection (3) of Section 1 of the original Act.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain what this Amendment means?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly plain.
    Sir C. SEELY: As I understand the position it is that if a landlord has enforced his right to get possession he stands clear, but if he has waited to give his tenant time to clear out then he is subject to whatever disabilities there may be under this Act. I can quite understand that it would be a reasonable thing to say that the Bill should be retrospective for a certain time,
    1408
    irrespective of whether the order has been executed or not, but I really should like to ask on what ground the right hon. Gentleman justifies an Amendment which makes the landlord or the sheriff who has not executed his order under the Act subject to further orders of the Court, while the landlord or sheriff who has been stern and harsh, and has seen about his order being executed at once, is left secure. If he has been kindly and has let matters drift on, hoping that the tenant would dear out, then he will be subject to these further rules. I quite understand the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman is placed, but hard cases make bad law, and this kind of legislation is somewhat doubtful policy from the point of view not of the landlord, but of the general public and of the interests of the country. I should like a little explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to how he justifies the general meaning of this Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: That is a very different question. The hon. Baronet does not ask me to qualify or explain a particular Amendment. He raises the question whether or not we should adopt the policy in the Bill, and whether or not the House wishes to make a distinction between the man who has purchased and obtained an order but has not executed it, and the man who has purchased and obtained an order and has executed it. All along, in Committee, we took up the line that there was no intention actually to reinstate a tenant who had been turned out. There would have been many difficulties in doing that. The landlord might have given up the house in which he had been living, and it might be very difficult to follow up the purchase money. There is a great difference—and I am sure that the Committee saw it—between a man who has purchased a house and has obtained an order, but has not executed it, and a man who has purchased a house and obtained an order and has executed it; in which case the tenant would have to be reinstated. It was the general view of the Committee that we should not aim at reinstating tenants who had been turned out; but that we should aim at keeping in their houses tenants who were still in possession, although orders for their ejectment had been obtained.
    Mr. PETO: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's recollection of what took place in Committee. As a

    1409
    matter of fact, I had an Amendment down, which, like a good many other Amendments, was ruled out of order. It said specifically that in certain cases—the case of a wife, widow, or dependant of an officer or man who is serving, or who has served in His Majesty's Forces—the ejected tenant—should be entitled to resume possession of, and to occupy, a dwelling-house. It is quite true that the Committee did not discuss that Amendment. It could not; because it was out of order. This Amendment is in order, because it precisely deals with that Subsection in the original Act that we are amending. It uses practically the same words. I do not like to hear that we are to consider ourselves precluded from dealing with very hard cases where people have been ejected and where they ought to be put back. Later, on the Third Reading of the Bill, I propose shortly to recapitulate some four or five matters with which it has been impossible to deal and which urgently require to be dealt with. This question of reinstatement is one of them. One would infer from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that this was entirely outside the scope of anything that Members present during the Committee stage had in their minds. There are cases where the ejection order has been executed which ought to be dealt with, and, while supporting the Amendment, I agree with the hon. Baronet that it is very illogical that a landlord who has been a bit slow, easy, and kindly and has not turned out the tenant the moment that he has obtained the power to do it should be placed in a position where the order can be revoked while the landlord who has been harsh and sharp and has turned the tenant out quickly is to be left in complete possession of the property that he has acquired by purchase exactly as if this Act had never been passed at all, and while the tenant, who may be the wife, widow, or dependant of a soldier who is serving or who has served in the War, is to be kept out of the premises.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: The object of inserting this Amendment, which was under discussion when the Bill was in Committee, was to extend the protection given by the Bill to those tenants against whom orders were pending, but had not been executed. The question of date, therefore, becomes of some importance. The critical date in the Amendment is "the passing of this Act." It seems to
    1410
    me desirable that the House should have some information as to what is the prospective date of the passing of the Act, because the longer the passing of the Act is postponed the further the critical date will be postponed, and more of these orders can be executed in the meantime. This Amendment is the only place where this phraseology "the date of the passing of the Act" occurs. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give the House some idea what will be the date of the passing of the Act and what are the Government's intentions as regards the procedure in another place and the remaining proceedings necessary to pass the Bill into law?
    Mr. J. HENDERSON: In the case of a suspended order, the landlord has been put to certain costs. What is to be done with regard to that matter?
    Mr. T. WILSON: I notice that the Bill as circulated had the date "12th March." While the Amendment does not go so tar as we would like, we fully recognise that it goes part of the way, and that when a line is drawn some are going to be hit rather badly. So far as we are concerned, we are not going to oppose it. Unfortunately, the Bill is extremely narrowly drawn, and we cannot get toe Amendments in that we would like.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, alter the words last inserted, to add the words,
    "Provided that this enactment shall not apply in any case where the court is satisfied by certificate given by or on behalf of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (or as regards premises in Scotland by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, or in Ireland the Department, of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland) that the premises in question are required for the occupation of a person engaged or employed in agricultural work urgent national importance."
    I said in the Debate in Committee that the right which a landlord had under the original Act to obtain possession of certain cottages for the purposes of carrying on the business of agriculture—cottages probably occupied by ploughmen, thatchers, and skilled agriculturists of that kind—should be preserved to any purchaser of that property, but the Bill, if passed as drawn, would preclude the purchaser of agricultural property from having the rights which were saved to the original owner of the property by the House of Commons when it passed the original Act. This Amendment will meet the general desire that

    1411
    was expressed that in these days, when we are so anxious that every acre of ground should be properly cultivated to its full value, the right should be preserved, not only to the present owner, but to any future owner of these agricultural estates to evict from certain cottages which are absolutely necessary in order to carry on the business of agriculture anybody—I do not care who it is—who is in possession. This Amendment will meet the desire that was expressed, and as it is consonant with the original Act I hope it is also consonant with the present wishes of the House.
    Sir H. NIELD: I desire to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon having done now in terms the one thing we intended to do in the Act of 1915, but which we failed to do by the interpolation of a somewhat clumsily-drawn Amendment. This is to protect the agricultural occupants or servants of an agricultural tenant or landowner of a cottage, because it is part and parcel of his farm machinery. That was the case which gave rise to the whole of this trouble, which caused an interpretation to be put on the word "landlord," which enabled unscrupulous members of the public to use the word "landlord" in a different sense from what was intended, and which has made it necessary to have this amending Bill. I tried myself in Committee to get this Amendment made, but my words apparently were not sufficiently apt, and although I was told they were included by the Title, they were excluded by the scope of the Bill. However that may be, I am glad the opportunity has been taken to put right the very source of the mischief, and I sincerely hope the House will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. DENMAN: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words "or Minister of Munitions."
    I should like to join the last speaker in thanking the President of the Local Government Board for meeting the general wish that was expressed in Committee and framing an Amendment which is in order. At the same time, I want to ask him whether he will not go a few inches further. He has met quite adequately the purely agricultural case. There is a precisely analogous case, that of munitions. There is the case which was brought up in Committee, of
    1412
    a man who was busily at work producing munitions of the greatest importance, who desired a. house close to his factory for the housing of his own employés. Under this Bill he will be absolutely unable, however urgent and necessary it is that he should obtain an extra employé, to house him close to Ms factory. I therefore move this Amendment, which would be followed later by another Amendment, leaving out the word "agricultural." The effect of the Amendment would then be that if either of the Boards of Agriculture or the Ministry of Munitions produce a certificate that the premises are urgently needed for work of national importance, then the landlord must give up possession. The addition is very slight, and although I agree that the cases will be comparatively few, sometimes they will be of such importance that I think we should wisely extend very slightly the elasticity given by this Amendment.
    Mr. RENDALL: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I do so because in Committee I made an attempt myself to obtain something of this kind, but the right hon. Gentleman was then adamant, and declined any sort of assistance to those who wanted to help men to obtain a house where they were doing work of national importance. All that will be necessary after this is to take out the word "agricultural." We know that in another place they declined altogether to allow the farm to have a Bill giving him fixity of tenure. Apparently the labourer is to have fixity of tenure. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why he cannot accept this Amendment? We certainly want munitions, and we cannot have people making them unless they have houses to live in. If these munitioners are wanting houses and the houses are occupied by people not doing work of equal national importance, the ground for securing houses for munition workers certainly stands as good as it does for men who are going to plough the soil. The difficulty may be equally great, and the interest is equally great in both cases, and the law ought to be precisely the same in both cases. If the certificate of the Board of Agriculture is good enough to turn a man out of a house in a village, the certificate of the Ministry of Munitions ought to be good enough to turn a man out of a house in a town. I cannot see any difference

    1413
    between the two cases. The Amendment I moved in Committee was to allow the certificate of the Ministry of National Service to hold good in these matters. The Minister of National Service would be a sort of Court of Appeal from both the Board of Agriculture or the Ministry of Munitions who may want a man to be housed. That would be better than to leave the matter with one Minister, who might be influenced, perhaps, by his own Department or by those persons with whom his Department has to deal. Therefore, it was suggested that the Minister of National Service should deal with all these cases. The right hon. Gentleman would not have that. Now he has selected agriculture out of all the important industries of this country for favouritism. That is not fair. He certainly ought to accept this Amendment, and, if he does, he will go a little further towards making the Bill a just one. The right hon. Gentleman probably knows that the Ministry of Munitions has had the most tremendous difficulty all over the country in getting houses for the men they have to employ. Visiting committees have gone all over the country for months, if not for years, holding meetings, interviewing town councils, and doing all sorts of things to try to get houses. My right hon. Friend now brings in an Amendment which will not give the slightest help to the Ministry of Munitions, but which, on the contrary, will interfere with the work and prevent an employer of labour in a district where munitions are being made from providing proper housing for the men he employs. I cannot understand why that should be so. Therefore the Amendment ought to be accepted. It will make the Bill a little better than it is.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: I support the Amendment, and I feel sure the President of the Local Government Board will see the reasonableness of it, because no one has been so unfair in turning out tenants in recent years as the Government Department concerned. In my own Constituency there have been cases of hardness and harshness, people being turned out without a thought and often quite unnecessarily. It has been positively a scandal. Many of them have been turned out, for works which have probably never been carried out, at a fortnight's notice, and when we hear hon. Members talking about landlords it is a case of Satan rebuking sin as regards the Government. It is not unreasonable to
    1414
    ask, if it is really necessary, that other national industries should be considered besides agriculture.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I do not care a great deal about the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment as it is, but if he accepts this Amendment to it I shall certainly vote against it. The Mover has talked about munition workers, but it must be remembered that, in addition to munition workers pure and simple, there are men and women engaged in work of equal national importance. For instance, the owners of a big factory manufacturing shells and guns might reasonably require housing accommodation in the neighbourhood of works, and they might, and probably would, turn out men and women engaged in manufacturing clothing for the Army and Navy. It is far better to leave matters as they are as far as these people are concerned than to allow the proprietors of big works to evict tenants who are engaged on work of as great national importance as that which the men or women they wish to put into the houses would be engaged upon. Therefore, the Movers of the Amendment have taken a very short-sighted view of the situation. How many people are going to be affected by it? Not a very large number. Therefore, if in the neighbourhood of a munition works accommodation is required for 2,000 people and there are only half a dozen houses which can be taken over in the way suggested, why insert an Amendment of this kind, which would lead to injustice? Something more ought to be considered. In the immediate neighbourhood of quite a large number of munition works there live the wives and families of soldiers and sailors, and if the Amendment were accepted these women and children would be evicted in order to make way for munition workers. It is, therefore, most unfair to ask the House of Commons to adopt an Amendment of this sort which gives power to any Court to evict the wives and families and widows of soldiers who have fallen. Therefore I make a strong appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say at once that he refuses to accept the Amendment.
    Captain A. SMITH: With regard to the Government Amendment, I should like to be assured on this point: Are we to understand that in cases where landlords get men to come and work on their farm the wives and families of men already serving at the front or their parents or

    1415
    other dependants are to be displaced in order to make room for new men? If that can be done under the Bill, I shall vote against it as often as ever I can. With regard to the Amendment to the Amendment, I remember that on the Committee stage a lot was said with regard to housing. The hon. Member mentioned again the question of the Ministry of Munitions sending round visiting committees in order to obtain houses. I wish to acknowledge the great sacrifices which people have made in giving over their large houses in the interests of Red Cross work, and so on, but there are a great many houses whose owners have never offered to do anything of the kind with their property, and it seems to me hard that the people who are maintaining our industries now should always be the people who have to move from one street or one town to another in order to make room for people to come and do work of a particular kind. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Munitions that they should very carefully take into consideration the billeting of people in very large houses. If people living in close proximity to munition works, but working at another trade which may be very important from a national point of view, have to be constantly evicted they are not going to take it very kindly. Victimisation has always entered into this matter, and if it is left open that any man who can get a certificate from the Ministry of Munitions can buy whole streets of houses in order to house workers—he may not do it, but so long as it is left open victimisation and irregular buying in this manner can be continued, and I am rather afraid this Amendment is stretching the point too far. I again ask for a definite answer to my question whether the wives and children of men who are now serving their country or are killed can be evicted, and will the right hon. Gentleman make any representations with regard to commandeering, if necessary, very large houses for billeting people?
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I join with the last speakers in urging the Government not to accept any Amendment which may have the effect of dispossessing from their homes the wives, widows, and dependants of our fighting men. I have had many letters from widows and wives and families in my Constituency, very heart rendering letters in some cases, and they have put this question, which is very diffi-
    1416
    cult to answer. They have said, "Do you think it right that we should be turned out of our homes and left without any place to go to or to put our little bit of furniture?" In this matter we are dealing with far more than houses. We are dealing with homes. Even to very humble people a home is a home, and they feel that to be dispossessed is a great hardship. Very few of us can realise what it means for poor people to be turned out of their homes and be forced to move into a different locality.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I will merely say that, in consequence of the letters which I have had from my Constituents, I would urge the Government to listen to the cogent arguments which have been brought forward by previous speakers and refuse to accept any Amendment which may have the effect I have indicated.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I trust the right hon. Gentleman will stand to his Amendment as it is. Those who have followed the whole of the proceedings in connection with this measure are quite aware of the exception which was made and the Amendment which was allowed to be made to the Bill in 1915. We then had the case put forward, which has been repeated over and over again, with regard to the exceptional needs of agriculture. It is not that all cottages would be affected, but there were exceptional cases where dairymen or horse-minders must reside within a reasonable distance of the farmhouse. That was the reason for the Amendment of the Act of 1915 which has led to all the difficulty. Now we are asked to extend it. The right hon. Gentleman has brought down an Amendment, which he promised to do in Committee, which defines clearly what the exception is to be. Now we have an Amendment proposing that a certificate obtaining from the Ministry of Munitions should have the same power ns that obtained from the Board of Agriculture. There is no reason why you could not keep on adding Department after Department in that way. The most extraordinary argument ever urged in favour of this addition was that put forward by the hon. Member (Mr. Gwynne). He began by attacking Government Departments—there is a good deal in what he said—

    1417
    for the reckless way in which they have cleared out property, and then he supported the Amendment in order to give Government Departments still more power than they now have to acquire property. I thought that rather strange. Let us look at the case seriously from the munition point of view. Some of us have had a great deal to do with the housing of munition workers. I have never come across a single case where a place could not be got for a munition worker in a munition area, but I am quite aware that the condition on the other side has been so severe that the Minister of Munitions has had to get exceptional powers under the Defence of the Realm Act and under the Regulations to protect munition workers in the cottages in which they live. That extraordinary power which has had to be applied to certain munition areas is just required because of the converse of the arguments we are hearing this after noon. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will stand by the Amendment as it appears on the Paper.
    Mr. FISHER: I think I had better recall the House to the very limited nature of the Amendment which I am proposing. First of all, the House came to the conclusion that in future no ordinary purchaser of a house shall be able to obtain an order for ejectment. He may buy the house, but he cannot obtain possession. An exception was made in the original Act of the landlord of an agricultural estate, and Parliament made it with its eyes open because it said: There may be cases where the landlords of an agricultural estate cannot cultivate it properly—this applies to large parts of Yorkshire and Scotland—unless he obtains possession of certain cottages. If he does not, he will not be able to house his ploughmen, shepherds, factors, and skilled agriculturists of that kind, and therefore he will not be able to farm his property to the very full extent which it is now desirable he should do. It was pointed out that although that right would be left to the man who now owns an agricultural property, yet if he parted with the property the purchaser would not have that right to obtain possession of these cottages, and might, therefore, not be able to operate the estate to its full value. There was a general expression of opinion with which I agreed, and I promised that I would, between then and Report, see whether I could put down any Amendment which would meet that case and
    1418
    would be in order. After considerable consultation with my advisers, we found an Amendment which met that case and which was in order. That is not a very easy thing to do under the title of the Bill. The effect of my Amendment is this: Supposing that the owner of an agricultural property sells that property to a bonâ fide purchaser who wants to cultivate the property for agricultural purposes, that new purchaser shall have this right, that if he wants a certain cottage for a skilled agricultural labourer and that agricultural labourer can obtain a certificate from the Board of Agriculture that he is a skilled agricultural labourer, and that he is needed for the cultivation of that estate, then, if the Court also finds that he is an agricultural labourer who is to be engaged on work of urgent national importance, the landlord shall be able to eject the occupier of that cottage, and obtain possession in order to place in as tenant the ploughman, shepherd or other skilled agricultural labourer. The hon. Member for Clitheroe may rest assured that this will operate in very few cases. The landlord, if he wants to eject anyone, must prove that the person he is going to put into that cottage has a certificate from the Board of Agriculture that he is the sort of person who is really necessary for the proper cultivation of that estate, and the Court must be satisfied that the person is going to be ejected for the sake of putting into that cottage someone whose work is work of national importance, and who is needed for the cultivation of that estate. I think that should meet the general wishes of those who have taken an interest in the passage of this Bill.
    I am asked to extend this to munition workers—that is to say, that the Ministry of Munitions shall also be able to say: "We want that row of cottages in connection with munition work." The hon. Member who moved that Amendment says that he only wants me to go a few inches further. I am afraid it would mean going a few miles further. What would happen would be this, that the Ministry of Munitions might be able to say that they wanted a row of cottages for their workers, and the workers occupying might be engaged in building ships. After all, ships are just as important as shells. Where are we going to end if we start in that direction? If you can make out a case for munition workers,

    1419
    you can make out a case for those working in shipyards, and if you make out a case for the shipyards you can make out & case for the Admiralty.
    Mr. GWYNNE: They do it now!
    Mr. FISHER: My hon. Friend's proposal would go further than he really wants to go. It would enormously extend the power of those who control munition workers, and enable them to affect other people who possibly may be engaged in work just as useful and necessary as the work of those engaged on munitions.
    Mr. GWYNNE: My object is to curtail the powers of the Government. At the present moment they do this sort of thing without going through any formality or going to any Court. If the munitions people have to come to a Court to do it in this way we should get some advantage.
    Mr. FISHER: I shall claim my hon. Friend's vote in support of my Amendment. I must ask the House to support me in my very limited Amendment, and to refuse to accept any extension of it.
    Mr. PETO: I am very glad to hear that the President of the Local Government Board will not accept any Amendment to his Amendment of the nature proposed by the hon. Member for Carlisle. Not only would it be open, under the hon. Member's Amendment, for the Minister of Munitions to turn out persons who were engaged in equally vital national work, but there would be nothing to prevent one munitions contractor buying up a row of houses already occupied to a large extent by the workpeople of another munitions contractor, and getting into the position to carry out a contract to make profits by turning out the workers already engaged in the same industry by a rival contractor. I am sure the House does not intend to support that Amendment. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that his Amendment is limited to the case of an agricultural estate or farm changing hands by purchase, and that in such a case where the cottages are spread very thinly and situated on the actual farm which requires to be worked, it may be, and I believe it is absolutely essential that the new owner who becomes the landlord by purchase should have exactly the same
    1420
    power of cultivating his farm as the man who acquires a farm by inheritance. Twice in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks he said, referring to his Amendment, that it was limited to the man who was required to be engaged or employed in agriculture for carrying on the work of that estate. That is exactly how I would have liked to see this Amendment limited, but there is nothing in the Amendment to limit it in that way. I have tried to draft an Amendment, but I find difficulty in limiting it to the actual case one wants to deal with; that is, to give power to the new landlord, who probably in many cases will be the farmer who has bought his own farm, to get possession of cottages actually on the farm or close to it, which are required for the cultivation of the farm. The President of the Local Government Board, in his Amendment tries to limit it as much by using the words "a person employed or engaged in agricultural work of urgent national importance." All agricultural work is of urgent national importance. These are not really the limiting words we want. The limiting words we want would be such words as would apply the provision to agricultural labourers who were actually required for the work of the farm itself, not merely that they were engaged in agriculture. I think the words, in my Amendment go very much nearer to the object we have in view than the words of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I use the words, "Some person whose employment is necessary for the proper cultivation of a farm." I submit that those are much more apt words to carry out the meaning and tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and I am somewhat sorry that he has not seen fit to move the words of my Amendment, because I think they are really more practicable.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are not now discussing the main Amendment, but the Amendment which refers solely to the question of the Ministry of Munitions.
    Mr. L. JONES: The right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Carlisle, and I am not surprised, because it would practically knock the bottom out of the whole scheme of his Bill. At the same time he cannot deny that the argument of the hon. Member for Carlisle is perfectly logical. What is the position of the right hon. Gentleman in exempting

    1421
    agriculture from the operations of this Bill? It is that where an agricultural estate changes hands, it is necessary that the houses required for the cultivation of that estate shall also change hands, and be at the disposal of the man who has purchased the estate. Does not that apply with equal force to a colliery which has changed hands? If a man buys a colliery he also wants the houses occupied by the men who work at the colliery, and it is absolutely necessary that he should buy the houses at the same time as he buys the colliery. It also applies to a shipyard. A man who buys a shipyard would buy the houses of the people who work in the shipyard. Therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to see that the same considerations govern the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle as govern his own Amendment. I do not want to vote for this Amendment. On the other hand, I do not like the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, and I am very much astonished at the position in which we are placed in regard to it. This Bill was introduced on the ground that aliens were turning out people who were doing work of national importance.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is an argument more appropriate to the Third Reading. Let us dispose of the matter now before us.
    Mr. JONES: I will not pursue the argument further. I only want to point out that the Amendment of my hon. Friend is perfectly logical, and to express the hope that if the Government will not accept the Amendment now, they will deal with the whole situation later.
    Mr. DENMAN: In asking leave of the House to withdraw this Amendment, I would like to answer very briefly some of the remarks—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to a second speech.
    Mr. DENMAN: Not by leave of the House? I only want, in two sentences—
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is going to withdraw his Amendment, what is the use of arguing further about it?
    Mr. DENMAN: Where it has been mis-described by various Members, I think it is only fair to the Amendment that it should be withdrawn with honour.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member does not wish to withdraw, the Debate can go on. If he wishes to withdraw, he can do so in a sentence.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Major DAVIES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add the words, "Provided that this certificate shall not be applied to the case of dependants of serving, deceased, or discharged soldiers or sailors."
    When this matter was discussed in the Committee stage, there was a great deal of sympathy expressed from all parts of the House in regard to the dependants of soldiers and sailors, and it was recognised that nothing should be done which would prejudice the position of the dependants of soldiers and sailors at present serving in the forces or the dependants of men who are deceased or who have been discharged after having done service in the Army or Navy. There have been already certain cases brought to the notice of Members of the House where the dependants of men who are serving at this moment at the front have been turned out of their homes in order to make room for the employees of particular firms, and, I believe, the same thing has happened in the case of the employés of firms. When this matter was discussed in Committee my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wiltshire (Sir C. Bathurst) specifically raised this point, and he, more than anyone else in this House, represents agricultural interests, and, as far as I can make out, he was quite prepared that an Amendment of this kind should go into the Bill to safeguard the interests of the dependants of soldiers and sailors. I sincerely hope that the Government may see their way to accept this Amendment, because they certainly expressed a great deal of sympathy with this view when the matter was discussed on a previous occasion. I feel sure it would meet not only with the general approval of the House, but also with that of the country outside.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, namely, that these exceptions we are now dealing with in connection with agriculture should not apply in cases where the persons about to be evicted are soldiers' dependants and friends.
    Mr. PETO: Friends? That includes everybody.
    Mr. WATT: Relatives. The original intention of this measure was to save the relatives and dependants of soldiers and sailors from being evicted, but the measure has spread far away from that, and applies to many other cases besides those of the relatives and dependants of soldiers and sailors. Under this particular Amendment exception is made in the case of agriculture, where a man has purchased a farm, goes into it, and desires to get possession of the cottages. That is the Government Amendment, and the Amendment I am now seconding is that in these instances of agriculture the exception should not apply where the persons to be evicted are the dependants of soldiers and sailors. I think the country realises, and certainly this House does, what it owes at the present time to soldiers and sailors, and I think it is the view of the House also that their dependants should in all circumstances be preserved in their homes. That should apply even in the case of agriculture. The effect of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment would be that in agricultural cases you would not interfere with the relatives of these men while they are fighting at the front.
    General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept some limitation of his Amendment in words similar to those put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Major David Davies). It appears to me that the Amendment as put down by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board is far too general. From the country point of view there are two distinct cases. There are always soldiers and sailors who are living in the village who have nothing to do with the farm, and under this Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman if any agriculturist wants to get more cottages—and there is not a single farm in the country which is not short of cottages—he can turn the whole of the women and children out of these cottages.
    Mr. FISHER Mr. FISHER signified dissent.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: My right hon. Friend shakes his head, but they can do so if they get a certificate.
    Mr. FISHER: In the Court.
    Sir I. PHILIPPS: Yes. They may be in a cottage in any part of the country anywhere that is required for agricul-
    1424
    tural purposes. Unless there is an Amendment in some such words as now proposed, I anticipate that there will be a large number of soldiers' and sailors' wives and children turned out of their houses. We want, at any rate, to be satisfied that that is not the case. I shall certainly support the Amendment to the Amendment, unless my right hon. Friend can satisfy me that I am wrong in my contention.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I beg to support the Amendment to the proposed Amendment because I am sure it would be distasteful to everybody to see the widows and dependants of the men who are fighting our battles turned out of their houses. I wish to point out that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed would make that distressing episode very much less frequent if it would not prevent it altogether, and for this reason: There are on most estates houses occupied in one case perhaps by a policeman and in another case perhaps by a man working on the roads. The first has a claim on the county authority to provide him with a house. The man who works on the roads has a claim on the local authority. Therefore where a farmer is pressed to get a house in order to put in a man to carry on the food production of the country it is far more important that he should have the power, which he will have under the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, to turn out, it may be, the policeman or the man working on the roads, so as to avoid turning out the widow of the agricultural labourer who ordinarily occupies the cottage which the farmer wants to put his man into. I support the Amendment to the Amendment gladly, because the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment will give the farmer an opportunity for obtaining that cottage. I should be very sorry to see any man, be he policeman or roadman, put out of his cottage, but they have claims on the county authority and on the local authority, and I think if the right hon. Gentleman accepts this alteration he will be doing what every one of us wishes to see, namely, to avoid turning out the dependants of the soldier or sailor, and yet he will enable the farmer to have the cottage occupied by another man who has no real claim on him, and thereby provide the labour necessary for the farm.
    Mr. FISHER: I am quite sure that nobody wants to evict the dependants of

    1425
    the soldier or sailor. Many of us have shown an interest in the soldier and the sailor long before this War. The Amendment would scarcely affect the wives or dependants of the soldier or sailor. It would work in this way: First of all, it would only affect those who purchased property of this kind. The purchaser of an agricultural estate might find that he could not work a particular farm unless he had in his possession a particular cottage on that farm. He will say, "I want to get a ploughman and put him into that cottage." Then he finds he cannot get possession of that cottage, and he can then obtain from the Board of Agriculture a certificate that the cottage in question is required for the occupation of a person engaged in agricultural work of urgent national importance. That does not mean just for any labourer on his property. The man must be engaged in work of urgent national importance. He must obtain a certificate from the Board of Agriculture because he is wanted to be engaged in such work. Then he has to go to the Court and he has to ask the Court to give him an order to evict from that particular cottage a particular person, because the Court says that the person he wants to put in is a man doing work of urgent national importance. I believe the cases of the dependants of soldiers and sailors will be fully taken into consideration by the Court. I cannot imagine any Court not asking whether it is not possible for that landlord to obtain another cottage for his ploughman within a fairly reasonable distance of his work, and only giving possession when it is proved that without the possession of that particular cottage the farm cannot be properly worked. After all, personal hardships must give way to work of national importance at the present time. I believe that in the case of soldiers' widows and dependants we may safely leave it in the hands of the Court who have to decide this matter. This Amendment now proposed, if carried, would only affect a very few cases, and it would only be, I am sure, in cases of necessity that the Court would say that on the whole a particular cottage should be occupied by a ploughman or a shepherd rather than by a soldier's wife or children. I cannot imagine a Court coming to that decision unless it was satisfied that the soldiers' dependants could obtain fairly easily another cottage suitable for their
    1426
    family. I believe we may safely rely on the Court to take all the circumstances into consideration.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend (General Sir I. Philipps) that every farm just now is short of cottages. In my own district nearly every farm has unoccupied cottages. The cottages being empty, the wives and relatives of soldiers, usually coming from a distance, have been allowed to go in on the understanding that if the cottages are wanted for agricultural work they would go out. The effect of that is that whenever the cottage is wanted the person in question will say, "I may have said that, but I have changed my mind." Consequently it would render this Amendment absolutely useless. This Clause would be operatives only in cases where people have been allowed to go in because the cottage happened to be empty at the moment. If the Amendment is to be of any use there must be some confidence in the Court, and it must be left to the Court to decide whether a person is to be turned out in order to be replaced by someone doing work of vital national importance at the moment. No one wishes more than I to do everything to assist the soldier at the present moment, but there are certain misconceptions as to the position of soldiers' wives. To suggest that because somebody happens to be the wife of a soldier she is to be exempt from a law which applies to other people is to carry the desire to assist the Army rather too far.
    Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I am sorry the President of the Local Government Board entirely refuses to adopt the Amendment. I do not feel at all happy in leaving this question to the Board of Agriculture in the ordinary course. Several cases which have recently occurred have induced that feeling. There are cases of very great hardship. There is one I heard of only last week. A man had bought a farm and decided to use the farm-house to live in during the summer. He therefore had to turn out the bailiff who had hitherto occupied it and to find for him another cottage, and the tenant of the cottage selected had to be got rid of accordingly. One can imagine in cases like that great hardship falling on the tenant of the cottage. In this particular case it so happened that the husband of the woman living in the cottage was a soldier on active service.

    1427
    If we are going to give the Board of Agriculture discretion to issue a certificate which will involve the eviction of a tenant simply to meet the convenience of the purchaser of a farm, I think that, at any rate, we should put in a restriction safeguarding the cases of wives and families and dependants of soldiers and sailors. I am not sure that I like the precise words of the Amendment. I should prefer to see some onus thrown on the Board of Agriculture, or on whatever Court is to have the dispensing power, to satisfy themselves that other cottage accommodation can be obtained for the wives and families of soldiers and sailors before they can be evicted. I can conceive many cases in which a farmer would very much desire to put a ploughman into a particular cottage now occupied by the dependants of a soldier or sailor on active service, and the farmer might find it easy to satisfy the Board of Agriculture or the Court that it was important he should have possession of the cottage. But if the onus were thrown on him to prove that the tenant could get a cottage elsewhere, it might be an inducement to him to use his influence to find a cottage for the person he wishes to evict, or some other cottage for the man he is going to employ. Remembering the conditions of country life, it is obvious that owners of estates have many opportunities for obtaining cottage accommodation which tenants do not possess, and I therefore feel very strongly that in cases where the Board of Agriculture is asked to give this dispensing power for the eviction of a tenant there should be some onus cast on the owner of the estate to secure some accommodation, at any rate, in the cases where the tenants are the wives and dependants of soldiers or sailors.
    Mr. FISHER: The number of cases where a landlord might desire to turn out the tenant of a cottage who happens to be the wife or dependant of a soldier or sailor likely to arise under this Bill is not very large, and I doubt if it would be possible to find any words which would absolutely secure what is aimed at by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. But after consultation with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, I can give an undertaking that the Board of Agriculture will not issue any certificate to any man by which he can obtain possession, for a ploughman or anybody he desires to
    1428
    employ, of a particular cottage without first considering whether it is a matter of grave national necessity from the point of view of carrying on the farm that he should obtain possession of the cottage. That will have to be most carefully considered, and at the same time it will also be considered whether or not suitable and adequate house accommodation can be obtained for the person proposed to be evicted. I hope that undertaking will satisfy the House, and I am assured by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture that the Board is really inspired by a desire to act in that spirit.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to accept the Amendment. I quite recognise the anxiety to protect as far as possible the cases which are covered by the Amendment to the Amendment, and I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman give this undertaking on the part of the Board of Agriculture. But Boards of Agriculture come and go, and while we may now have a very sympathetic Board we may at some future time have a Board which has not the same sympathy with the particular cases it is desired to cover by the Amendment. I confess I do not like the right hon. Gentleman's own Amendment, and the only thing which would make it palatable to me would be the acceptance of the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision. I do not think cases of the character sought to be safeguarded here ought to be left in a haphazard position. Proper provision ought to be made in the Bill itself to protect them, and the particular Amendment now under discussion can alone do that.
    Mr. L. JONES: I think hon. Members do not quite realise how small is the scope of the Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Then why have it at all?
    Mr. JONES: We are dealing with a very small class of landlords. These cases can only arise when an estate is sold after the passing of this Act, and, as it is hoped the Act will not have to remain in force very long, the number of estates coming under its operations will not be very large. Then, furthermore, it will be necessary to get a decision by the Board of Agriculture that a man is absolutely necessary to be engaged in agricultural work in a particular neighbourhood, and that the house is wanted for him. Further than that, it will

    1429
    be necessary to go before a Court and get it to decide that the matter is of urgent national importance and that the house must, therefore, be handed over to the landlord. This particular Amendment will apply only to cases where men are wanted to engage in urgent national work of agriculture, thus defined by the Board of Agriculture, when an estate has changed hands after the passing of this Act, and where the cottage as to which the question arises happens to be occupied by the wife or widow or dependant of a soldier or sailor. The right hon. Gentleman has given an undertaking that the Board of Agriculture will not grant a certificate in such a case unless it is absolutely necessary. Neither, I think, would a Court grant an eviction order in such a case unless it considered it to be absolutely necessary. I think, in view of that undertaking, it is unwise to press the right hon. Gentleman further. He has gone a long way to meet the universal feeling of this House that the dependants of soldiers or sailors on active service shall not be turned out of their houses, and I do submit that he has quite sufficiently safeguarded these cases in his Amendment and that it would be unwise for the House to further narrow it.
    Mr. ALBERT SMITH: I feel very keenly on this matter, because I have known of scores and hundreds of cases where the dependants of soldiers and sailors have been evicted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) told the House just now that soldiers wives are not always immaculate. Neither are our soldiers. But they are sufficiently immaculate to fight for this country in its present trial, and their womenfolk ought to be sufficiently immaculate for us to see that they are properly protected in the absence of their men folk. I want to see no stone left unturned to afford them sufficient safeguards. When it becomes a question of whether a cottage could be more usefully employed for agricultural purposes than by allowing it to be occupied by the wife of an absent soldier or sailor, it is very probable that in certain cases invidious distinctions may be drawn, and there are people in this country who will be likely to lay more stress on invidious distinctions as to character than they really ought to do. Personally, I cannot see what real objection there can be to adding these few words to the right hon. Gentleman's own Amendment. If a
    1430
    good landlord is not likely to take advantage of the Act to turn out particular tenants, there is no reason why his successor should not act in the same way when the estate changes hands. The proposed words are very simple, and I hope the House will insist on their addition to the Amendment
    Mr. DENMAN: The arguments by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Leif Jones) might have been very cogent had they not already been answered by the President of the Local Government Board. I admit that as I came down to the House I was inclined to trust to the discretion of the Board of Agriculture in regard to granting certificates of this sort, but after what was said by the President of the Local Government Board on a previous Amendment I realised that the Department cannot always be relied upon. It is very important that the wives of soldiers and sailors should have their interests safeguarded, and I see no possible objection to the Amendment now proposed. I shall support it in the Lobby.
    Colonel Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: On a question of this kind I feel very keenly indeed. This is an Amendment moved in the interests of the dependants of the very people on whose sacrifices we are depending for our very existence. I cannot see any reason why these words should not be inserted in the Bill, especially in view of the fact that the Government with the best intentions, have on a number of occasions been compelled to break their pledges owing to the exigencies of the War. This makes it the duty of anyone who takes an interest in these people to support the Amendment and to relieve the Government of any power of discretion by putting what we intend into the Statute itself. I was surprised to hear from the President of the Local Government Board that the Courts were to have any discretion in the matter. It is not the business of the Courts to exercise discretion, it is their duty to carry out the law, and it is for us to put into the Statute that which the Court is ultimately to interpret. In order that there should be no difficulty in this matter, I, for one, am prepared to support this Amendment in the Lobby.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. L. Jones) that the Amendment

    1431
    of the Government raises rather a small issue. The question which arises, and which we are now discussing, only refers to an agricultural problem, but that seems to raise the issue as to whether it was necessary for the Government to put in the Amendment at all. What is the existing situation? The present holder of the property is presumably cultivating the land with the labour available. If he is not doing so, the Board of Agriculture can force him to do so. Why should the purchaser be put in a better position than the existing tenant or owner?
    Mr. JONES: He will not be in a better position than the existing owner. The existing owner has the power at present to take the house if he wants it for an agricultural purpose.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I accept that point, but, anyhow, I do not think either of them should have the right. Granting, however, that you are putting this in the Act, it seems to me to be very important that it you are going to do it you should safeguard by Statute the interests of the dependants of soldiers and sailors who are residing in these cottages. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that there is a case for that, because he has given an undertaking to protect the interests of these people. But what is the value of this undertaking? That is what the House has to consider. There is no real difficulty in inserting a statutory provision. It may be that the words of my hon. and gallant Friend (Major D. Davies) are not quite satisfactory, but, personally, I see no grave objection to them. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman merely takes objection to the phraseology, he has expert assistants who in a few moments could give him the correct legal phraseology and the apt words to the effect desired. Why, therefore, should it be necessary for the House to content itself with an undertaking, especially in view of the fate of so many Ministerial undertakings in the past? As nothing better than an undertaking is offered to the House, and as the offer of the undertaking proves that a case has been made out for the undertaking, I think the only right course is to go into the Lobby in favour of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment.
    Mr. PETO: In reply to what the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) has just stated, I should like to
    1432
    say that he forgets one thing which ought to be present to all our minds, namely, that under the powers given to the war agricultural committees fresh ploughing-up Orders are being issued every day. Let us take one very simple and concrete case. A man buys a farm on which there are five cottages. The late owner found that with the arable area so far cultivated he could do with four cottages, and the fifth is occupied by the wife of a young ploughman who is now serving. An additional ploughing-up Order is issued, and it is absolutely necessary, in order to cultivate the land in this isolated district, that this cottage should be occupied by a person who is able to assist in carrying out the order for the ploughing up of the land. That is all this does. It gives the new purchaser exactly the same powers as the present owner has.
    Mr. JONES: Less power. A new owner will have to go before the authorities.
    Mr. PETO: Certainly; it is more limited in that respect. The Department and a Court have to be satisfied as to the urgency of the case, which was not the position before. It is very easy to let ourselves be a little carried away by sentiment, and I really think that with the undertaking the Under-Secretary for the Board of Agriculture has given, and which has been made here perfectly clearly by the President of the Local Government Board, we can perfectly well leave this extremely restricted provision to be carried out and put into effect only when the urgent national necessity for increased arable cultivation makes it absolutely necessary to do so. I only rose because there seems to have been in several speeches recently delivered rather a tendency to say that if we are at all in favour of protecting the widow, the wife, or the dependant of the men who are fighting, we must go into the lobby against the Government proposal. I do not agree with that at all. I think we have to have some sense of proportion in the present time of crisis, and we must have some confidence, at any rate, in the administration of this urgent question of food production by the Board of Agriculture, and we must believe that they are going to do what is necessary in these rare cases—only to allow the Order where some reasonable alternative premises can be

    1433
    found for the occupation of the wife or widow. I do not believe for a moment that anybody will be turned into the street but I do say it is absolutely necessary, in order to carry out the provisions and policy of the Cora Production Act, that we should not reject, fetter, or cripple the discretion of the Board of Agricul-
    ture, who are responsible to the country, by accepting such an Amendment as the one which has been proposed.
    Question put, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 123.

    Division No. 30.]

    AYES.

    [5.7 p.m.

    Adamson, William

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Arnold, Sydney

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Hinds, John

    Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rowlands, James

    Barton, Sir William

    Hudson, Walter

    Smallwood, Edward

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Burns, Rt. Hon John

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    King, Joseph

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Clough, William

    Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

    Tickler, T. G.

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Maden, Sir John Henry

    Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Millar, James Duncan

    Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Morrell, Philip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Geddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Philipps, Maj.-Gen Sir Ivor (S'hampton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major Davies and Capt. A. Smith.

    Gulland, Rt Hon. John William

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    NOES

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Gretton, John

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Parkins, Walter Frank

    Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

    Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glos., E.)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Bathurst, Capt. Sir C. (Wilts, Wilton)

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

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Beach, William F. H.

    Herman-Hodge, Sir R. T.

    Roberts Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Tyneside)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hills, John Waller

    Robinson, Sidney

    Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth)

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Bird, Alfred

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Boyton, Sir James

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Shortt, Edward

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Stoker, R. B.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Butcher, John George

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Ches., Knutsfd.)

    Cator, John

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Tillett, B.

    Clyde, James Avon

    Joynton-Hicks, William

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Clynes, John R.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Featham

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Wardle, George J.

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Whiteley, Sir H. J.

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.)

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

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

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

    Meysey-Thompson, Col. E. C.

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Fall, Sir Arthur

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Younger, Sir George

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Parker.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. PETO: I rise only to point out to the President of the Local Government Board and the House that although, in two respects on the Report Stage he has improved the Bill by meeting some of the points which were made in the Committee stage, it has not been within his power to enlarge the Bill, with its very unlimited scope, to meet some of the real cases of hardship, both on the landlord's side and on the tenant's side, which were pointed out again and again, not only in the Committee stage but on the Second Beading, as being matters which are urgently required to be dealt with. In the Amendment which the House has just passed we have dealt with the case of the orders for ejectment that have not been executed. We have made the Bill somewhat more retrospective in that particular; and we have just dealt with the case of cottages urgently required for carrying out the programme to increase arable cultivation or in any other increase of the actual cultivation of a farm. In respect to the first of these two enlargements, it was pointed out by several hon. Members that it really operated in a very unfair way, for it dealt with the purchasing landlord, who has taken an easy and a kindly view of his responsibilities towards the occupiers of small-house property after having obtained an order for ejectment in certain cases, but had not had to execute it, while the man really quick, who had got his tenants without the slightest consideration, was not dealt with at all. I believe that is one of the cases we have got to deal with, particularly where it concerns the wives, widows, or dependants of deserving soldiers or sailors, or men of the mercantile marine, living in ordinary houses in a town or seaport, as the case may be, from which they have been ejected simply for the sake of finding accommodation for other people, who certainly have no such right to be considered as these widows and wives of our soldiers and sailors. In such cases as that, where they have been ejected, we ought to have power to put them back. That, however, was not dealt with under this Bill, but the President of the Local Government Board indicated at an early stage that he wished to ascertain the views of the House,
    1436
    though he did not tell us positively that the Government would bring in a Bill with a less limited title to deal with cases of the kind I have now mentioned.
    The question of the extension of the rental value was raised. It is limited to £26 under this Bill in England, in Scotland to £30, and in the metropolitan area to £35. The limitation prevents our dealing with the whole body of wives of officers in the Army, the Navy, and the mercantile marine. I mentioned at an earlier stage to the President of the Local Government Board a petition or memorial, signed by no less than fifty-seven masters and officers of merchant ships carrying on urgent national work from the port of Southampton alone, who are all either under notice to get out of their houses, or in fear of being served with ejectment orders. In those cases the rental value would certainly be more than £26 a year. In almost every case the rental value would probably be £40 or £50 a year. It is well known that numbers of houses in Brighton and various other seaside places have a rental of £50, £60, and £70 a year. They are occupied by the wives of officers of the Navy and of the Army, and are not covered by this Bill. Their occupants are not protected from being turned out in order to give accommodation to people who want to go to Brighton or to some other place, either to escape raids or because they desire a more pleasant place to live in. They travel up and down from town with season tickets, thereby using coal which it is sought at the present moment to economise. All these cases are not dealt with at all. Then there is the question of the policy of the Wages Board set up under the Corn Production Act. Again and again, in the course of the Debate reference was made to the question of putting the ordinary agricultural labourer in a cottage with an economic rent. It was held to be desirable to settle what was a reasonable economic rent for a cottage, so as to place the tenant in a position much more independent. I should not have alluded to that if it had not been that this question was submitted to a special Committee, which considered it and reported in favour of an economic rent and a wage being fixed sufficiently high to enable the occupant to pay an economic rent for his cottage. That Report has been accepted, and transmitted to all the district wages boards in the country—I am speaking of wages boards that deal with agricul-

    1437
    tural wages—and, that being so, clearly it is necessary that power should be given to raise the rent in those cases. It is not a question of ejectment at all, and it cannot be dealt with under this measure with its narrow title.
    On the landlords' side, in the course of the Debate, it was pointed out that one of the questions in connection with increased rents or interest on mortgages, under the Act of 1915, was the cost of repairs. The cost of repairs has gone up enormously since the War, and I do not think that an increase of rent to cover that cost is an increase of rent of the sort that complaint is made of. I do not think the tenant would regard it as unreasonable if the landlords, who are appealed to by the sanitary authorities and others to keep their properties in a state of decent repair, charged an additional amount of rent to cover their out-of-pocket expenditure on the maintenance of their property in good condition. That is a matter, however, which could not possibly be dealt with in the Bill we have before us. I have enumerated several different things which it was impossible for this House to deal with owing to its having been decided in another place that this measure should be strictly limited to altering the definition of landlord in a single sub-section of a Section of the Act of 1915. I think, however, that there is ample reason for the President of the Local Government Board to bring in a Bill to deal with the cases to which I have referred. I ask him to deal with the cases of wives of officers of the Army and Navy, and of the Merchant Service, which are not dealt with at all in the limited measure before us. These people to whom I refer are subject to the chance of having the houses which they occupy being bought at extravagant prices for occupation by people who simply want to find accommodation in some area which is not subject to air raids. The tenants in these houses already are the wives of officers in the Naval and Military Services and in the Mercantile Marine, and they are the very people whom we want to leave in possession. We do not want to see them turned out, and, therefore, we have not really met the case at all about which there has been so much indignation expressed in the newspapers. Those cases are not in this Bill, which purports to amend the Act of 1915. But we welcome it, so far as it goes, particularly as it has been extended on the Report stage, and I hope
    1438
    that the President of the Local Government Board will be able to bring in a measure at an early date—not a long Bill, and I believe that he will be able to pass it in a day or two—and I do not think that he will find any opposition to such a measure.
    Mr. MILLAR: While I also welcome this Bill, I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that it only represents a very small instalment of legislation necessary to deal with the situation which has arisen in various parts of the country. Speaking as a Scottish Member I can say that it has created a very considerable amount of interest in certain districts of Scotland, where the practice of eviction has been growing, especially within these later months. I have received a number of representations from various bodies, as well as individuals, on the subject, including the Middle Ward of Lanark, and several local associations, as to the immediate need for dealing with this question in Lanarkshire. I am very glad, therefore, that the matter is in the hands of so sympathetic a member of the Government as the right hon. Gentleman, who desires to meet the situation, so far as he can, in all parts of the United Kingdom. I strongly urge on him to go a little further. Personally, I am disappointed that this Bill does not deal with the question of the orders which have been issued, and which have been executed, before the date when the Bill was passed into law. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to tell us when that date is likely to be. I hope it will be very early—at any rate in the next day or two. My hon. Friend has just told us of a number of landlords who have undoubtedly executed their orders within recent weeks. It is a very great pity that on the introduction of the Bill some means were not taken to prevent any order being executed until the matter was thoroughly considered in the House of Commons. I know a number of hard cases which, under the Bill as it now stands, will not be dealt with as they ought to have been, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will, in a further Bill, promise that this matter, as well as the other matters which have been mentioned, will be dealt with.
    Under the original Act I think we all agree further protection is required for those who are being evicted, and in the course of the Debate, I think in the Committee stage, reference was made several

    1439
    times to the action taken by the Ministry of Munitions in scheduling certain areas within which no evictions would be allowed except with the consent of the Ministry. I think it desirable that meantime the large industrial areas should all be protected by Orders issued by the Ministry of Munitions until further legislation is introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. I trust it may be possible to schedule the large munition areas in Lanarkshire with the other munition areas in England, so that no eviction will be allowed in any case without the consent of the Ministry. That will afford us at least some additional protection until we have a further amending Bill. I think the right hon. Gentleman has himself already indicated very clearly his desire to go further into this matter, and there are many of us who would like to force upon him in the present Bill some wider Amendments. We have not pressed them, in the hope that he will fulfil the undertaking he has given to the House, and that the whole question will be reconsidered in a further Bill to be shortly introduced.
    Sir H. NIELD: With regard to the closing remark of my hon. Friend, I would like to say that I think the spirit of the House is that we would have been perfectly willing to force the Government if we could have done it, but those who have advised with regard to this Bill as introduced in another place have made it so cleverly narrow that we cannot do so. They know in the other place what it is to get a Bill through this House, and it is only punishing the House of Commons and getting the better of it by so skilfully preparing a Bill that we cannot have a prolonged debate upon it. I think we are perfectly willing, if it could be done, to enlarge the scope of the Bill very considerably. I do not think it is a virtue, but my right hon. Friend will admit that I was one of the earliest complainants, and that I began to worry him as far back as the first week in October, because these undesirables began to flee from east to west and to begin to trouble His Majesty's subjects as soon as the raids began. However, the mischief has not been cured by this Bill, though it has been very considerably ameliorated. There is still abroad a desire to make money—I suppose it is a desire that pervades all human nature except my Friend the Member for the City of London—and they are still trafficking in houses and in
    1440
    biggish houses in those districts which are called safe. I ought to have had with me a letter, but I have it in the precincts of the House, stating that a couple of hundred pounds has been boldly placed upon the purchase money of a house bought relatively lately because of its situation, and the tenant of which was given an opportunity of either purchasing it at an increased purchase price of £200 or else paying an increased rent of thirty odd pounds.
    That is the kind of thing that is going on in certain districts where the landlords do not hesitate to take advantage of the peculiar situation in which the district is placed with regard to air visitations. I hope, therefore, that the Government will look upon it as a duty due to the House to introduce a Bill at the earliest possible moment There was a question answered to-day, if it was put, to the Minister of Reconstruction. I hope that the Committee, which this question intimates has been set up—my Friend asked whether its object was to consider the extension of this Act as amended by this Bill beyond the period of six months—willnot be used as a reason for shelving further legislation. I hope that no reference to a Committee of Reconstruction with regard to the continuance of this Bill will affect the Government's intention as expressed by my right hon. Friend to introduce another Bill which will deal much more widely with the mischief which is complained of. I agree with the Member for Devizes with regard to soldiers' wives not being evicted, though I should have thought that the undertaking which the Board of Agriculture was ready to give to my hon. Friend would have saved the division which has recently taken place, because there is no section of this House which is not desirous of giving ample protection to the dependants of those whom the soldiers have left behind.
    One word with regard to unexecuted warrants. I have expressed myself before on this subject in agreement as to the difficulty of legislating by reference. It makes it extremely difficult afterwards for the Courts to interpret, because the Courts cannot take evidence of this Debates in this House or take the reasons and expressions of opinion made here, and that it very often happens that the object of the House is defeated for want of knowledge of its intention That is partly accounted for by the abolition of the good old practice of the Preamble, and I

    1441
    do venture to think that the Preamble of the old Act, which we used to refer to was of great use to the Courts. If the words "unexecuted warrants" be now inserted, and this Act is to be regarded as having been the principal Act—that is to say, to be interpreted as though the words now put in were in the principal Act—that would have the effect of preventing any landlord in the interval taking advantage of the ejectment law. It may be that there is some considerable difficulty owing to the various circumstances of different classes of cases, and it would be a great amount of trouble to the learned judges who are called upon to construe the Act as amended.
    I venture to think there is a good deal to be said for the consideration that when this Bill has passed and has amended effectually the Act of 1915, those persons who have possession under an order made since the 30th September will feel themselves in a precarious position. It is their own fault, because, as my right hon. Friend admitted, these men took advantage of conditions which they knew they were not entitled to and under legislation which they knew would be amended as soon as it could be done. Therefore, they have only themselves to blame in the event of their finding that the ejectment orders are not effective as far as they are concerned. My impression is that that is what they will find, and that they will be put to the greatest inconvenience for having taken advantage of a condition of things which they knew perfectly well they were not entitled to. I conclude as I commenced by earnestly expressing the hope that the Local Government Board will proceed at once to consider whether, by the appointment of the inevitable committee, departmental or otherwise—I know not, and I care not except in the sense that I wish the matter pushed quickly forward—they can come to the conclusion that it is necessary to amend the law in general with regard to these matters, and that they will set to work to draft a Bill which, instead of being restricted, shall be as comprehensive as possible, so that the matter may be put once and for all on a satisfactory basis.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Get an undertaking.
    Sir H. NIELD: I leave my hon. Friend behind me to get the undertaking. I am content to know that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to get this matter considered in all its aspects, and
    1442
    produce a really useful Bill in order that we may accelerate its progress, a Bill which will substantially amend the law, and put an end to that section of the community which is ever ready to take advantage of the necessities of the times, and put them in the position in which they ought to be placed. I think my Friend behind me has great ground for complaint with regard to the question of repairs. Repairs are deprecated just now. Necessary repairs to prevent further waste, yes; but I have known of a case where a landlord who was under an obligation under the Public Health Act to make up a road used that obligation on being called upon by the local authority, perhaps unreasonably in time of war, to pay for the making of the road—used it to try and secure an increased rent from the tenant in possession! Those are matters which can be dealt with in any Bill which is introduced. We ought to be able to put an end to the greedy spirit which has shown itself since the War began, particularly in some areas.
    Mr. D. WHITE: I can hardly expect very much from this class of legislation because it is emergency legislation, and it does to some extent meet the emergency. But I would like on this occasion just to address a couple of sentences to the right hon. Gentleman who has piloted this Bill with so much consideration and with so much clearness to the House. The first case I would like to put to him which has arisen out of this legislation is one from Glasgow which I heard only this morning. I venture to put it because it suggests that there may be similar cases. So far as I can make out the facts, a person who was in the position not of a landlord, but of factor, appears to have given notice to the tenant that he wanted the house for his own use, claiming that under this legislation he was entitled to have it. One would like to know whether he had the power to do that because, if being a factor for a number of landlords is considered to make him an agent in the employ of every one of those landlords, it makes a very big hole in the protection which was to be afforded to tenants under this legislation. I know all these questions are somewhat complicated, but I hope I have made the point clear to the right hon. Gentleman. The second point is one which I have already mentioned in the Debate on an Amendment, but I would like again to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman, if I may,

    1443
    the protection afforded under this Bill under cases where eviction or ejectment orders are pending. The critical date is the passing of the Act, and, therefore, I venture to impress upon the Government the desirability of taking special steps to pass this measure into law at the earliest possible date.
    Sir J. BOYTON: Some hon. Members have had nothing but praise to offer in anticipation of what the right hon. Gentleman is going to give in the way of legislation shortly. I only want to warn him that there are other views besides those which have been expressed in the course of the Debate. They seem to think, especially my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing, that house property is one which only enjoys the profits of mankind, and that in his own particular constituency landlords are committing the most unpardonable acts in getting as much rent as they can. My hon. and learned Friend is very keen about a bargain, and I wonder he has not taken advantage of the opportunity to purchase some of the premises on offer at Ealing. Only a little while ago, as I happen to know, he could have bought a house for £1,100 which had cost £2,200. I am surprised to find him so sleepy with regard to these bargains. There will be a number of other things to be considered, of which I am sure the President of the Local Government Board is aware. The Government to-day pays something like 5¼ per cent. for money, and most of the so-called landlords have mortgages, and their mortgagees ask unhesitatingly for a much higher rate of mortgage interest. It is no use going to your banker, for instance, and saying: "I want to borrow some money. Please let me have it at the old pre-war rate of 4 per cent." He will smile blandly at you, but will not let you have it. He will say: "You can have it at 1 per cent. above Bank Rate," or 6 per cent. Houses of the villa type, from £40 to £60 a year, are only occupied by tenants on a yearly tenancy, or three years' agreement, and the landlord has to do repairs, and we have heard in the various Debates on this Bill the enormous increase in the cost of these repairs, all of which has fallen on the landlord.
    We have had a good deal of discussion in the various stages of this Bill, and I do not want to delay the passage of the
    1444
    measure, but I do want to warn the right hon. Gentleman that if he listens to the blandishments of all those hon. Members who only refer to one side of the question, he will find that he has made a very great mistake, and he must expect on any extended protective legislation of this kind a good bombardment from the many and varied interests connected with the vast ownership of bricks and mortar. And I do not envy him his difficulty. He has got to hear many classes, notably, as has been said during these Debates, the building societies throughout the country. They are going to have a lot to say. I sometimes doubt whether hon. Members are quite sincere in some of the statements they have made during the passing of this Bill. I cannot help thinking sometimes they are conscious there is a General Election coming, and they want votes from the tenants who are more numerous than the landlords, but the capital invested and the burdens which the so-called landlords have to bear will have to be taken equally into consideration fairly and justly with the claims which are put forward with such avidity on behalf of the tenants
    Mr. ADAMSON: I want in a word or two to support the Third Beading of this Bill. In certain respects the Bill relieves the present situation. At the same time, it is of far too limited a character, and only touches the fringe of the housing problem. That being so, I hope the right hon. Gentleman, at a very early date, will introduce a much more comprehensive measure. Unless this is done, we shall have a grave condition of affairs at the end of the War. For years past the building of houses has not kept pace with the demand. At the present moment we are hundreds of thousands of houses short of the requirements of the population of the United Kingdom. In addition to that, there are many houses at present occupied that are really in an insanitary condition, and but for the shortage would be condemned. If the shortage of houses is to be fully dealt with in face of the present high cost of building, it can, in my opinion, only be done effectively by the Government themselves. The Government, in accepting such a suggestion as I am making, would only be extending the policy they have had in operation for some time past. In munition areas they have been making special provision for housing the workers who were taken to those particular districts,

    1445
    so that in making the suggestion that if this matter is to be properly dealt with it can only be by the Government themselves, I am making a suggestion that they should extend the policy they themselves have adopted. In suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman that he should at an early date introduce a more comprehensive measure than this, I am not unmindful of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman will be introducing a thorny subject, and that he will require to deal with both sides of the question. I think all of us who have taken part in these Debates are fully conscious of the fact that there are two sides to this question, and when you come to deal with it from a wider aspect than the present Bill provides we shall have to deal with both sides of the question. Meanwhile, I am pleased that this Bill has reached its Third Reading. It will relieve the situation to a certain extent, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the earliest possible opportunity of introducing a much wider measure.
    Mr. PRINGLE: This is a very small Bill to amend an Act passed only two years ago, and the Debate on this Bill has been made the opportunity for demanding further amending legislation. I think the cause both of this Bill and the demand for a further Bill is due to the inherent vice of the original Act. My hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) has spoken about looking at both sides of the question in any further and larger legislation, but it seems to me that if the Government and the House had looked at both sides of the question when the original Act was introduced and passed through this House they would have been saved many of the difficulties which have since confronted them, and which will continue to confront them, not only during the War, but after the War. When the original Bill was under discussion in this House, I think almost the only two Members who had the courage to protest against it were my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and myself. My hon. Friend below me (Mr. Adamson) says it is an unholy combination, but I think it will be found that when we are agreed we are right, and the experience of the intervening years has proved it. You are doing an open and flagrant injustice to people who own small house property in this country, in that you are preventing them, the only section of the investing
    1446
    class, from receiving an increased return on their investments during the War. You are doing that by legislation. You have allowed other people to have a certain percentage increase of their profits. You have done that with regard to coal and all sorts of property, but here you have a class of people who have invested their earnings in house property in this country, and those people are deliberately penalised by this House and prevented from receiving any increase. And that was done in face of the fact that the charges were increasing, and were bound to increase, as they have increased, during the intervening two years.
    When you do a flagrant injustice to any class of people those people endeavour to evade your law. They think they are unjustly treated, and they think they are entitled to resort to evasion, and they have resorted to evasion. Hence this Bill. You may take it also that the action of these people in regard to the houses which are above the standard mentioned in the original Act has been due to the fact that they have been unjustly treated with regard to the smaller houses. Probably it will be necessary to deal with the larger houses. I am not sure whether the Government will deal with them. These are only middle-class people, who do not combine together, and do not strike. Of course, the original Act was passed because of a strike in Glasgow. It was not justice, but panic. The middle-classes will never create a panic anywhere; consequently they are likely to suffer this injustice and unfair treatment for the rest of the War. The hon. Member for East Marylebone (Sir J. Boyton) need have no grave concern about any further injustice being perpetrated in respect of the class for which he so ably speaks in this House.
    I think it is a great misfortune that no recognition is made by the Government of the great increase in the cost of necessary repairs. I think the Government ought to face it, because undoubtedly at the present time necessary repairs are not being carried out. Large classes of property are falling into the condition of slums in all our great centres. You have every day and every week aggravated the housing problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife referred, simply because of your failure to allow a just treatment of these people who are bound, or who ought, to keep these properties in

    1447
    repair. I think that is the real question to which the Government ought to address its mind, and to face it fairly. I think possibly they might expose themselves to a certain amount of unpopularity by granting a concession to a relatively small and unpopular class. But, after all, it is not only a just thing, but it is an absolute necessity. I am not going to enter into the wider question to which my hon. Friend referred, but undoubtedly it is growing and urgent, and this Government and the preceding Government undoubtedly have to accept a large share of responsibility for the almost hopeless condition to which the housing question has been reduced during the past two or three years.
    Mr. FISHER: I am sometimes tempted to say that a Bill may be said to be a good Bill if it fails to meet a certain section of its critics who say that it does not go far enough, and at the same time fails to meet that section of the critics who say it goes too far. If that be the criterion of a good Bill, I think I might almost say this is a good, practical measure. I know there are two schools of thought in this House. I have heard very eloquent speeches from them. One was represented by my hon. Friend the Member for East Marylebone, who evidently thinks that under no circumstances, even war circumstances, is it admissible to interfere between the landlords and the tenants.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. FISHER: I do not know what is the grievance between landlord and tenant that the hon. Member has in his mind. He probably belongs to a school which thinks that a measure of this kind is inadmissible, even in war-time. Then there is another school, to which apparently my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes belongs, who consider that a Bill of this kind might be a far more comprehensive measure. That view is shared by the hon. Gentleman who leads the Labour party; also these hon. Members hold the view that it might interfere much more widely and deeply with the national law of contract between the landlord and the tenant, now that we have interfered under this Bill. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says that he joined with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London in the Debate on the Second Read-
    1448
    ing of the original Bill—which we are now amending—and that they are now actually opposing this Bill strongly because it does injustice to the landlord. It is very easy to do injustice even in a Bill, and the hon. Member says he is opposed to injustice to landlords. I do not know what the hon. Member suggests we ought to do.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I made a suggestion on the point.
    Mr. FISHER: I do not know what the hon. Member suggests we should have done to meet the very serious situation with which the Government of the day found itself confronted. What was that situation? It was no less than this: That on account of the shortage of houses—aggravated year by year because no houses were being built, and because the landlords of these working-class dwellings had the tenants in their power—these landlords were, indeed, in a minority—I do not say a majority of them acted as we say—but a minority were treating these tenants week by week by raising their rent and making them most miserable and most uncomfortable, and placing them in a state of insecurity; and because of this in certain districts we were threatened with riots, and almost revolution, in places like Glasgow and munition areas in the East End of London.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to my conduct on the original Bill. I desire to state all the facts. First of all, in the month of July, I called the attention of the Government to the likelihood of this difficulty arising before there was any risk of riot, and it was suggested that by reasonable action then, namely, by fixing a rental standard, that the matter could be dealt with. The Government, on the other hand, waited until these riots arose; then they had to make a concession which was unjust in order to satisfy the discontent.
    Mr. FISHER: The only suggestion I have heard from the hon. Gentleman was to-day, which was that the Government should allow the landlords more money because it costs them more money to do the repairs. That is the only practical suggestion he has made.
    Mr. PRINGLE: That was suggested before.
    Mr. FISHER: I myself, on the Second Reading of the Bill, admitted that had we had the knowledge on the original Bill

    1449
    that we had then we might perhaps, very wisely, have dealt with the question of repairs, and also with the question of subletting. But these various other suggestions would not have met the problem in the very least. I know still no practical way in which we could meet that very dangerous situation unless we had met it in the way of stereotyping the rent that was paid on 3rd August, 1914; unless we had taken measures to prevent purchasers from evading the original Act by buying the houses and then obtaining orders from the Court to enter into possession, notwithstanding that they were undoubtedly deliberately evading a law which this House passed for the protection of the tenants. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, on the other hand, has told us of many things that he would desire to see covered in this Bill. For instance, he would desire to see wives and relations of soldiers and sailors protected from eviction. Yes, but to pass a measure such as he has sketched must have taken a very considerable time. Take the point alone of the protection of the wives and dependants of soldiers and sailors. If they under no circumstances ought to be evicted from their houses—if that had been suggested in any particular section of the Bill—I am quite sure hon. Members would have risen up and said: "Are not other people just as much entitled to protection; is the wives and dependants of soldiers and sailors?" What about all those on work of national importance: those engaged in the shipyards, in agriculture, and so forth? What about Civil servants, who sometimes are deliberately kept from going into the Army because they are people of national importance with respect to their work? I am quite sure that what the hon. Gentleman suggests would mean discussion of extreme length even if these things were ever found incorporated in the Bill! I am convinced of this: from all I have heard on the Second Reading and on this Report stage, that the Government did wisely in framing their Bill that it should be a Bill on which very few Amendments could be moved, for this reason: the Government, as everybody knows, is in a very congested condition as regards legislation. They have a great programme of legislation in front of them. We all know the hon. Member for East Marylebone's awful warning as to what he is going to do if the Government should dare to introduce a comprehensive Bill which would
    1450
    deal with the many points raised by the hon. Member for Devizes. We should have a very warm bombardment from him and his friends. Such a Bill would on no account be a Bill which could be labelled non-controversial—one which we should be able to get through the House in the quiet, comfortable, little sitting of three, four, or five hours to which we are now accustomed on these Bills.
    Therefore, I think the House will generally agree that if we want to apply this measure to 80 or 90 per cent. of the cases in which certain persons have driven hard bargains under the original Act we were right in limiting this Bill to working-class dwellings as denned in the original Act. I have enormous sympathy with those who are now living in houses of a rental value of £40, £50, £60 and £80 per year, who are now, and have been, subjected to their landlords coming and saying, "You must either buy your house or leave it." It may be that these men are not able, from various circumstances, perhaps by reason mainly of their occupation being unsettled, or the necessity of having to change their neighbourhood—as it may be in the case of bank managers—to buy their houses. It is very hard on them. On the other hand these houses, as a rule, are let on lease or by agreement, which is not the case with working-class dwellings. There is a landlord's case which might be made very strong in the case of these larger rented houses which cannot be made as regards working-men's dwellings. I have invited the House to bring before me evidence of hardship which may have occurred in cases where men were told, who had occupied these larger rented houses of from £40 to £75 a year, that if they would not buy the house they would be turned out. I asked hon. Members to give me evidence of hard oases that they might be discussed. I have taken note of the evidence which I have been able to collect. I will take care that it is brought before the consideration of His Majesty's Government. So far as this particular matter is concerned, it is hardly, however, a Local Government Board matter. Let me say that. As a matter of fact I hardly know how the Local Government Board took up the present Bill. I think it was the desire of my right hon. Friend, who is now Colonial Minister to lend a hand in stopping an evil which he saw which led to the Bill being taken up by my Department. The matter shall be thoroughly

    1451
    well considered. I can, however, make no promise on behalf of the Government. They have an enormous programme of legislation in front of them. Nor can I give any undertaking that any other Bill will be brought forward this Session. All I can say is that the evidence put before me shall be carefully considered by the Government.
    I have been asked two questions, and with that, I trust, the Debate will be allowed to close. The hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow inquired whether a factor was a landlord within the meaning of the Act? I should say he is not a landlord for the purposes of this Act. If, however, a landlord were to endeavour to obtain an order for possession of a house for the use of the factor who is in his employ, it would be for the Court to consider whether it was a reasonable thing to require possession of that house for the use of the factor.
    Mr. D. WHITE: The question was whether the factor could be in the employ of more than one landlord?
    Mr. FISHER: That is a question which I would rather leave to the Court. I cannot conceive that the Court would give an order to two landlords for the possession of two houses for the same factor. I was further asked when will this Bill be passed into law? I cannot say exactly when it will receive the Royal Assent. The House will remember that this Bill came from another place, where it was very fully considered. I have no reason to think that our Amendment will be unacceptable to the other House. I have no reason, therefore, to think that the other House will occupy any length of time in reconsidering this Bill, or to think otherwise than that this Bill will receive the Royal Assent. One thing we may say. Many thousands of tenants there are who really lived almost in terror of being evicted from their houses—the houses which they have occupied for very many years. While I admit it may entail hardship on a few landlords, I hope and believe, as I have said, that on the balance this House, by this Bill, will have done much to relieve the hardships inflicted on these tenants. If we have done that, we shall have done something to stop up the gap which has been artificially created in an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. J. HENDERSON: I consider this to be a very bad Bill. I quite agree that all
    1452
    those tenants who are in these congested districts and subject to these particular air raids and munitions demands ought to be protected. Everybody is willing to do that, I should say, in this House. Why, however, we should go beyond that, and go to districts where there is nothing of the kind, and insist that a man who happens to be a tenant shall remain whether the landlord wishes it or not, I cannot understand—especially as you provide no protection for this kind of thing. I know the popular idea of the landlord is a man who has a fur coat, drinks champagne every day, and so forth, but there are a great many landlords and landladies who are living upon the small incomes they get from their houses. What is the fact which I pointed out before in regard to these houses? Take the case of the house let at £25 per war the rent in 1913. Repairs to-day cost just three times what they were in 1913, so that a house paying 5 per cent. on the capital is now only paying 1 per cent. These people are subject to high prices of food just like everybody else. I am not at all sure that these men and women could not get places in the same town, but they cannot do it at the same rent; they object to pay any more, and they do not see the justice or paying a little more to these people who have to live on the rents which they receive. It shows how politics is getting fearfully mixed when we find a right hon. Gentleman who is a staunch Conservative getting up here and pushing a Bill of this sort through this House, which inflicts a great injustice upon a great many people. This Bill is slovenly drawn, and it ought to have recognised that the cost of all these things has gone up, and that articles that used to cost £2 or £3 a few years ago now cost £9 or £10, and this makes it impossible for some property owners to continue to get a living out of their houses.
    I hope something will be done in another place in regard to these Amendments. I think you might give power to the Court to protect the landlord against a man who can easily get another house, and who is sitting at a cheap rent, and in such a case something towards the additional cost of repairs should be provided by means of an additional rent if the man is not to remain in possession. It is not fair to the landlords that these people should remain at the old rent when the landlords are subject to all these increased expenses and an increased Income

    1453
    Tax as well. I know the case of a house which was let at £30 a year; the repairs last year were over £12, and the Income Tax between £4 and £5, making altogether about £18. The house cost between £400 and £500, and what sort of an income is derived from that kind of property? In this case the tenant can stop on at the old rent until the War is over, and nothing can disturb him. There are a great many cases like that. In districts where the abuse complained of on the part of the landlords is rampant by all means deal with them, but this Act should not apply to the rest of the country, where such a state of things does apply, and this object could have been achieved if my right hon. Friend had scheduled the parts affected and left the ordinary law to remain in its common action throughout the country in places which are not affected with this particular mischief.
    Mr. W. WATSON: I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman has put into this Bill the two Amendments of which he spoke the other day, which are undoubted improvements. I do not agree with the hon. Member who said that this is a bad Bill. It may be in some respects, but I do not think it goes quite far enough. I wish to refer to an abuse which undoubtedly exists. The purpose of the original Act was to prevent landlords profiteering on account of the War, but surely it is equally necessary and proper to prevent the tenants from profiteering. There are many cases where tenants, sitting secure in their tenancies, are able, by sub-letting and putting in perhaps a stock of furniture, to do the very thing which it was the purpose of this Act and this Bill to prevent. That is an evil which ought to be stopped as soon as possible. Owing to the tight rope which the right hon. Gentleman put round his neck in the title of this Bill, he could not deal with this point in this measure, and that is why I put down an Amendment. It is an evil which exists, and having in view the purpose of the original Act and this Bill, it is highly proper that this evil should be remedied at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to associate myself with those who have declared that this is an unfair measure. The original Act has had to be supplemented by this Bill. Nobody who took an unbiassed view of the Act passed a few years ago could have come to any other conclusion than that it is based on injustice. I think it is advis-
    1454
    able when we see inherent injustice in any case that we should speak out boldly, and I hope to do so now. Who can say that it was not unjust to provide in the Act of 1915 that a landlord should be prevented from raising his rent above the pre-war price? Who can say that it was otherwise than unfair and unjust that a bondholder or a mortgagor of property should be prevented from raising his rate of interest on loans above pre-war rates? In all branches of trade fixed prices have been established since the War began, but in no other case but rent has a fixed price been made where that price is the pre-war level. In all other instances where prices are fixed they have been considerably above pre-war rates, but only in regard to property in the case of rents has a pre-war price been fixed.
    Under this Bill, where a man has purchased a house he is prevented from taking possession of it, and that is an extraordinary and sweeping proposal to pass in an Act of Parliament. Not only is that the case, but the proposal is retrospective, and that is very unjust. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) is already shouting out for a third measure, and my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone has indicated that if the Government carry further this policy of spoliation it will be met with great opposition. Munition workers, engineers, and other workers are getting extraordinary advances of wages, and to say they are not to be called upon to pay higher rents in times of high prices is absurd. I believe the earners of high wages would not object to paying a small increase in rent, and I am sure owners of property would not object to paying a higher rate of interest. The original outcry for this measure was for the protection of the dependants of soldiers and sailors, and it was intended to meet the eases of evictions of such dependants that the outcry arose, and for that reason the Government initiated this measure. They have, however, failed entirely to satisfy that demand, and they have had to make the Bill much wider.
    Mr. GWYNNE: A good deal has been said by some speakers about the dependants of soldiers and sailors, and it has been hinted that some hon. Members here desire to turn them out of their houses. I think that is a very unfair suggestion. I do not think any hon. Member of this House in any quarter of it would wish to see the wives or dependants of

    1455
    soldiers or sailors turned out of their houses, either now or in the future. I think it would have been better if the Government, in considering the whole matter, had seen fit to curtail their own activities in the way of turning people out of their houses, and not only the wives of soldiers and sailors, but other unfortunate people. I could give case after case where Government Departments, under the Defence of the Realm Act, have ruthlessly turned people out at a fortnight's notice, and left them without any compensation. One of the first acts of the Government ought to be to remedy these evils of which they are the perpetrators. I am sure we are all agreed that this rush of aliens out of London, which has the effect of turning citizens out of their houses, should be stopped. The whole Debate on this measure has been of too narrow a character. The President of the Local Government Board wishes to see this Bill through, but I feel that its effect will be to prevent people putting more money into building. Nothing could give a greater want of confidence than the effect of this Bill.
    I have in my own Constituency come across several bonâ-fide cases where people acting in the ordinary course of trade have speculated in property before the War and erected cottages with borrowed money. The War broke out, and the houses had to be let at lower rents. Later on, there comes a great demand for these small cottages, and the builder who perhaps could then get out of them very well is prevented from doing so. He is faced with an enormously increased expenditure on repairs and with the necessity of finding the money to pay the mortgagees. He cannot sell the cottages, and he becomes bankrupt. Many people have come to me and said that if this course of legislation goes on it will be impossible for anyone to put another penny piece into the building of cottages. It is largely owing to the fact that builders and others have put up these cottages that the housing problem has not been much worse. I do trust that the right hon. Gentleman will do something to restore the confidence of these people who have put their money into these cottages. There are not only builders, but many working men among them. It is very difficult indeed to get anyone to put any money at all into the building of cottages, and, after such a discussion as we have had to-day, it will be practically impossible.
    Sir GARROD THOMAS: I would like to add my appeal to the Government to have some regard for the landlord as well as for the tenant. When one hon. Member was speaking a few days ago about bad landlords, I heard someone say—it is true that it was said sotto voce—that there was no such thing as a good landlord. But one knows from one's experience that good landlords are quite common. Some concrete cases have been mentioned to-day, and I would like to add another. I happened to know an old man who was a builder and who built half a dozen cottages and a rather better house in which to live himself. He died and left his property to his two unmarried daughters These two old ladies are nearer seventy-five than seventy years of age, and all that they have to live on is the income from these small cottages. Up to the present, by earning a little with their needlework, they have been able to meet all their obligations, including their doctor's bills, so that they must be pretty honest people. But the times have changed, and whereas they always used to have a small margin to the good, now, owing to the fact that repairs cost more—the wind will come and blow off slates, plaster will fall, and various other repairs have to be done—they have a rather big margin to the bad. I had a letter from one of them a month or so ago asking me if I could see the Superintendent Collector of Rates so that they might not be punished. I found that I was speaking to a sympathetic ear, but the remark he made to me was this: "I cannot advise my committee to wipe off this for anything less than the full payment, because the moment that the door is open there will be such a crowd of people that the queue will reach from here to the railway station. There are heaps of people in exactly the same position." You may say, "What about the tenant?" One knows for a fact that there are tenants who are actually making money by sub-letting. Some tenants by letting two rooms are getting more than their full rent. I have risen merely for the purpose of appealing to the Government to have some regard for landlords such as those I have mentioned as well as seeking to protect the tenant.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (FOOD PROFITS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DONALD MACLEAN, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (FOOD PROFITS) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—Forfeiture of Excess Profits from Overcharging for Food.
    1. Where a person has sold any goods at a price in excess of that allowed by or under any Order made by the Food Controller in pursuance of the powers conferred on him by the Defence of the Realm Regulations, that person in addition to any other penalty to which he may be liable, shall forfeit to His Majesty a sum equal to double the amount of such excess, and in any proceedings taken to recover such amount the Court, if satisfied that there has been a breach of the Order, may order an account to be taken in like manner as if the sum recoverable under this provision had been money had and received for the account of His Majesty.
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move, at the beginning, to insert the words "After the passing of this Act."
    I am sure that my hon. Friend is anxious to make progress, and, as I see that the Amendments are most of them in my name, I would appeal to him to take a business view of some of the suggestions that I desire to make, because it will perhaps facilitate the passage of the Bill. I do not think that we need have any discussion with regard to the retrospective character of the Bill, because my hon. Friend has said that he would introduce words to put that matter right. It will appeal to the Committee as being perfectly reasonable that a thing like this should only come into operation from the passing of the Act, but, as the point has already been agreed to, I will not delay the Committee with any further arguments.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): It is true that in the Debate on the Second Reading I said, in answer to a question, that there was no intention to make this Bill retrospective, and, in order to bring our intention within the terms of the Bill I am, of course, quite willing to accept the Amendment, though not in the place suggested. If it would not in any way preclude the moving of other Amendments, I would prefer to accept the words after the word "has" [" Where any person has"].
    Mr. LOUGH: The offer of my hon. Friend is, of course, perfectly satisfactory to me, and I would suggest, subject to your
    1458
    direction, that I should withdraw this Amendment and proceed to move my second Amendment. When we have disposed of that, we can insert the words as the hon. Member suggests.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move, after the word "person" ["Where any person"], to insert the words "not being a producer or manufacturer."
    We really want to introduce some words, and I would, appeal to my hon. Friend not to think that I am hostile to the object that he has in view in proposing these words. I listened very carefully to his explanation of the Bill on the Second Reading, and, as he explained it then, it was to punish with these severe penalties all persons who charge a price in excess of that allowed or fixed, and especially merchants who distribute throughout the country and duplicate their offence in the case of each of their travellers, which was the one case that he took. Of course, he will also have in view the practice of shopkeepers and distributers in charging a higher price. I do not propose in any way to limit the effect of the measure on all that great class of people, but I fear that the Bill will hopelessly interfere with production if it is not very carefully guarded, and I am sure that my hon. Friend's own experience will satisfy him that there should be some qualifying words, if not quite as wide as those that I suggest, to protect the producer a little. It may be said that the exemption which I propose," not being a producer or manufacturer," is very wide, but it has been the uniform experience of the Food Controller that he has been unable to stick to the price on which he has first settled of any article with which he has dealt—potatoes, butter, beans, bacon, beef, etc. In the national interest a little more has had to be exacted, in some cases considerably more. My hon. Friend has had to wink at higher prices being charged, as in the great case of Irish cattle. The same thing went on with regard to bacon until the price had to be altered in the national interest. The same thing occurred in the case of butter. I think after that experience my hon. Friend ought to introduce some words to protect the producer. The first necessity of the nation is to get these indispensable foods, but by fixing a price you may easily stop production. Although you may try to do good, you

    1459
    may really do great harm. You may promote famine and scarcity and not achieve the object which you have in view.
    Mr. CLYNES: I am quite unable to accept this Amendment. It would very seriously narrow the operations of the Bill, and take away a large part of the object that we have in view. No reason has been given by the right hon. Gentleman for excluding producers or manufacturers from the effects of the Bill. I explained its general object during the course of the Debate on the Second Reading, and my right hon. Friend has already persisted in repeating statements despite denials which have been offered in the course of discussions in this House. I am not going during the course of the Debates on the Committee stage to enter at length into controversial matters or to debate the general question of the policy of the Ministry of Food. In answer to his argument I say that there is just as much reason why a producer or a manufacturer of an article of food should be made subject to the penalties of this Bill as there is for applying them to a person who may be merely a buyer. Therefore I am totally unable to sympathise with or to accept the right hon. Gentleman's view, because his object is so seriously in collision with the objects of the Bill. If we were to insert these words, one-half at least of the measure would fail in its purpose and a large section of people would be excluded from its operation, and others would naturally complain that they were prejudiced by what would be in fact a one-sided Act of Parliament.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: After the word "has" ["Where a person has"] insert the words" after the passing of this Act."—[Mr. Lough.]
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the word "knowingly."
    If my hon. Friend will think for a moment he will realise the great difficulty of the decisions of the Food Controller being known all over the country to a multitude of people affected by them. This is quite a customary word in an Act of Parliament. I see the Solicitor-General shakes his head.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I do shake my head.
    Mr. LOUGH: That astonishes me very much. It is a common Amendment to make in Acts of Parliament. The reasonableness of it is so obvious that I move it without any further argument, and perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell me why it is not necessary.
    Mr. CLYNES: Members of the Committee will recall the fact that the issue raised by this Amendment has often been debated, and I cannot recall a single occasion upon which the House has agreed, on a penalising measure like this, to the insertion of any such qualifying word. It is difficult enough as things are for a Court of law to settle questions on evidence, but here the Court of law will have to determine the matter, not upon the evidence relating to the issues that are raised but upon the point whether the Court could be quite certain of the state of a man's frame of mind or conscience at the time in question. An offender, if brought into Court, could plead as part of his defence and in support of his case that he did not know, but whether he did or not the Court must determine and they must weigh the evidence for what it is worth. On the ground of precedent, and generally on the ground that the Amendment would frustrate the object of this Bill, I cannot accept the proposal.
    Amendment negatived.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough), is outside the scope of the Bill. I have some doubts about the next one, but I will hear what he has to say upon it.
    Mr. LOUGH: The Amendment I desire to move is, after the word "Regulations," to insert the words "or paid, or agreed to be paid, or sanctioned by him in the purchase of any of the commodities, whichever may be the higher."
    Perhaps I may ask my hon. Friend some questions on this point. I suggest to him that, besides the prices formally fixed in Orders, there have been prices fixed for producers—for instance, in the case of the Irish cattle, and also other prices paid by the Food Controller for bacon and butter, which he has imported in large quantities. When you are considering the prices fixed by the Food Controller, I suggest you should take into account either the price named in the Order or the price actually paid. It seems

    1461
    to be a very great hardship to impose heavy penalties on people for charging a price which the Food Controller himself is paying at the time. Therefore, I propose that the fixed price shall be the price named by the Food Controller in an Order, or the price paid, or agreed to be paid or sanctioned by him in the purchase of any of the commodities, whichever may be the higher. If there are two prices obtaining with regard to an article dealt with in the Food Control Department, if the Food Controller is working at one price and he sanctions another price in the Order for the same article, he should choose the price which is the higher. I submit that the Amendment is quite in order, and I would ask my hon. Friend to take this opportunity of explaining the matter. I would ask him whether the point I have drawn attention to is not a customary practice of the Department with regard to the great articles of food?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman must, of course, be relevant to the Bill. I gathered that the purpose of the Amendment was to raise a question in regard to the fixing of prices. The purpose of the Bill, as he will observe, is to double the amount received by way of penalties for the sale of goods at prices in excess of those allowed by the Food Controller. It seems to me that if I allow the Amendment to proceed it would widen the Bill beyond the scope indicated by the Title. I am afraid I cannot allow it to proceed.
    Mr. LOUGH: On the point of Order. Surely the price allowed by the Food Controller must cover the price he is actually paying at the time. We have had it consistently admitted in the House that a price was being paid by him for beef and for butter much in excess of the fixed price. Therefore I am calling attention to these prices, and ask which of the two prices are governed by the words
    "allowed by the Food Controller."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must be guided by the fact that the House passed the Second Reading of the Bill with this Title. I regret I cannot allow the Amendment.
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move to leave out the words, "in addition to any other penalty to which he may be liable."
    This Amendment deals with the question of the double penalty. I would suggest that a penalty of a sum equal to
    1462
    double the price in excess of the price fixed, an examination of a trader's books, and the opening up of every transaction is quite sufficient, but we have in the Bill the words
    "in addition to any other penalty to which he may be liable."
    I do not know whether my hon. Friend thinks it necessary to have these words.
    Mr. CLYNES: I certainly take the view that the words in the Bill should be retained. On the Second Reading my right hon. Friend not merely admitted, but said repeatedly that the prices fixed by the Food Minister were very generous to traders, and allowed a reasonable margin, of profit.
    Mr. LOUGH: Hear, hear!
    Mr. CLYNES: If that be so, he will agree with me in saying that those who are not satisfied with the reasonable margin of profit, and those who are not content with the generous treatment they receive from the Food Minister, deserve very severe punishment when they seek to make a profit in addition to what is. reasonable by evading the law or by committing breaches of the law. The Court at present can only go to the length of imposing a penalty not exceeding £100 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months. We have had a few cases where penalties of that kind are clearly not sufficient, and have not deterred others from repeating those offences. Accordingly we ask that, in addition to the existing penalties permitted by the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, the offender should be made to return not only what he has secured in that way as his illicit gain, but double the amount of any such gain. The Bill would therefore fall far short of its object if it dropped one set of penalties merely in order to institute another. Its object is to increase the severity of the penalty, not because we regard any large number of traders as potential criminals or as persons who do intend to offend against the law, but because we have had a few exceptional cases, and the public indignanation has been such that we feel compelled to increase severely the penalties which may be imposed upon them. Accordingly I cannot accept these very limiting words.
    Mr. LOUGH: I have always made it a matter of principle to say a word or two against these Bills which include heavy

    1463
    penalties. I have always found them to be utterly inoperative. I believe that will be the case with this Bill. Parliament takes no interest in it, and I do not believe that the public take the slightest interest in it, or that any useful purpose will be served by it. Therefore I will not proceed further with the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move to leave out the words" equal to" ["a sum equal to double the amount of such excess"], and to insert instead thereof the words "not exceeding."
    May I say one further word about penalties? The Bill is very curious in this respect, that it fixes the penalty absolutely apart altogether from the discretion of the judge. I therefore suggest the insertion of the words "not exceeding." But if the matter is to be treated in the almost vindictive spirit of the last pronouncement, I shall not propose to proceed to argue it further, but formally move the Amendment, so that it shall be left to the judge to take all the circumstances into account, and so as not to make the Bill a complete farce.
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir G. HEWART: I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend has a little misapprehended both the purpose and the intent of the provisions in the Bill with regard to the penalty. If I follow him, he desires that there should be left to the tribunal a discretion as to the amount of the penalty which should be inflicted in any particular case. That is precisely what the Bill does. The Bill would not have done that if the Amendment which my hon. Friend moved a moment ago had been accepted. If he will kindly look at the Bill, he will see that the fixed penalty which is intended to be imposed by this Bill is a cumulative penalty—that is, it is in addition to any other penalty to which a man may be liable. Within the limits of the penalty already prescribed the Court has discretion; but the effect and purpose of this Bill are quite deliberately to say to the tribunal, "Whatever discretion you may exercise within the limits of the existing penalty, one thing is fixed and clear—you shall, in a case to which this Bill applies, require the defendant to forfeit to the Crown a sum equal to double the amount of such excess." That element in the penalty is fixed and certain. The discretion of the Court comes in with reference to the other
    1464
    penalty. The effect of the Bill is not to give the Court discretion as to the amount of forfeiture. That is the plain policy of the Bill, but in all other respects the discretion of the Court remains.
    Colonel GRETTON: I handed in a manuscript Amendment dealing with this point in rather a different way. These prosecutions are undertaken by the Minister of Food and sometimes the penalties inflicted for particular reasons appear savage and undue to the offence that has been committed. We all know cases in point where very heavy penalties have been inflicted for technical offences. It seems to me unjust, when the Court has to make a technical conviction, and would probably inflict a nominal or inconsiderable penalty, that it should not be left any discretion, but should be forced by the Bill to inflict a heavy penalty, though the offence is found, on investigation, to be only a technical one of a trivial and inconsiderable nature. I think my right hon. Friend will admit that it is very unusual to take all discretion away from the Court as to the extent of the penalty to be inflicted. It would be a very great hardship in such a case that a fine of double the excess of the amount obtained should be inflicted, and by some means injustices of this kind should be guarded against. The Regulations are extremely voluminous, very technical, very badly worded, and extremely difficult to understand. With the best will in the world it happens sometimes that persons make a slip and commit a technical offence, and it is hard to inflict a savage double penalty and take all discretion away from the Court.
    Mr. HOLT: I support what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Gretton). I do not think it is proper to take away from the Court all discretion as to the penalty which it may inflict. It is quite true that it does not in this case take away all discretion. There is a certain amount of discretion left, but nevertheless there remains a penalty which is entirely outside the discretion of the Court in any sense of the word. It consists in requiring a man to pay twice the difference in the price between that at which he has sold the goods and that which the Food Controller has allowed. It is quite easy to imagine a case in which a man happened to have a bonâ fide misapprehension of the Order of the Food Controller. He might

    1465
    commit this offence, and the amount which he received might not be a profit at all. It is not twice the profit he has made, but twice the difference between the two prices, and it is easy to conceive circumstances in which a man may have made a mistake as to whether the goods were in one class or another and had sold them at a wrong price, and yet might find that, though he had charged more than he was allowed, he had made no profit whatever. Yet however much he may satisfy the Court that he has done no intentional wrong, and possibly, in fact, nothing wrong, the Court is bound either to acquit him altogether, as we know Courts are apt to do when they consider a penalty utterly unreasonable, or else inflict the penalty. I hope the Government will reconsider its decision and will leave it open to the Court to impose such penalty as it thinks suitable.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not quite sure that I agree with the hon. Member that profits have nothing to do with it. If a man has sold an article at a price beyond that at which he is authorised to sell it he has committed a fault, and to say that he does not make a profit does not seem to me to be a very good argument. I have tried to understand the Bill, and it seems to me that this might possibly occur. Presuming that a man was prosecuted for selling an article above the price authorised, and his defence was that the sale took place on Wednesday, the 10th, and the Regulation only came out on Tuesday, the 9th, and he had not seen it, speaking as a magistrate, I should be rather inclined to dismiss the case, but under the Bill I should be bound to say the man was liable to forward to His Majesty twice the amount of the excess. If that is so it is most unjust, and I think it must be so under the wording of the Bill, and I think the hon. Gentleman ought to accept the Amendment.
    Colonel SANDERS: I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. It seems to me to be eminently reasonable to leave the discretion to the magistrates. The intention of the Bill is only to severely punish a man who has committed a real offence. I do not think there is the slightest fear, in the present state of public feeling, that when a man has committed a real offence the magistrates are going to be unduly tender to him. The question is really whether a man has committed a purely technical offence, or has com-
    1466
    mitted an offence inadvertently. In that case it seems to me the Bill says he must pay this penalty of double the excess. I see no danger whatever of injustice being, done by leaving it to the magistrates to decrease that penalty if they wish to.
    Mr. LOUGH: I think there is inconsistency in the argument presented by the-Solicitor-General. He said the magistrates were left a discretion with regard to one of the penalties. That is why the words I proposed in the last Amendment, to strike out have been left in the Bill But he said he would give them no discretion with regard to the second penalty. Surely that is very inconsistent. There may be circumstances which would force the Court to do great injustice if these words are left in. I quite admit that the Food Controller's Department is not always to blame, but some of his prosecutions have been most unfortunate. There was one last week where a penalty of £90 was inflicted for an offence which the Court unanimously believed to have been committed quite innocently, and I think there were a good number of similar cases. With the best intentions of making their Orders right they may not be perfectly right in every case, and they may not have come to the notice of the persons who has unwittingly infringed them. My words would not at all prevent the infliction of a penalty, but would only leave discretion to the magistrate. This has been supported in all parts of the Committee, and I think my hon. Friend would do well to accept it and not prolong the Debate.
    Mr. PRINGLE: After the discussion which has taken place, I think the Government might reasonably make a concession on this point. The Amendment does not really weaken the force of the Clause. Undoubtedly where there is a glaring offence the magistrate will impose the maximum penalty, and if it is desirable to allow the magistrate a discretion in respect of one of the penalties surely the argument holds equally good that the same discretion should be allowed in respect of the other, if there is to be ground for the exercise of discretion at all. The whole basis of the Solicitor-General's argument was that the case for discretion was complete. He said "There is a discretion for the penalty which at present exists, but we are not going to give you any discretion in regard to the very serious penalty which is now im-

    1467
    posed." There must be many cases where it is not clear until the trial actually takes place what the extent of the guilt of the accused person is. Surely under these conditions it is desirable that the Court should be able to impose a penalty in proportion to the offence, and by accepting the Amendment the Government will enable the Court to act upon it. Apart from that, they will be driven to impose this penalty in every case, and you may, in such circumstances, find magistrates refusing to convict altogether.
    Mr. CLYNES: I am not without sympathy for the individual who has figured in the speeches of hon. Members, and I want to pay every regard to the arguments which have been adduced in support of the Amendment. But there is another side to the case which has not yet been altogether exhausted. It is that the Courts have now a very great amount of discretion within which to determine whether a man is guilty of this offence against the law or not. They have discretion as to whether he shall be imprisoned and as to the extent of the fine which should be imposed upon him, and the object of the Bill is to say that, however much the Courts may use their discretion in those two respects, on one point there should be no variation, no doubt, no dissimilarity of decision or judgment, and that the offenders should pay equally the whole country over the same penalty—at least, with respect to the amount of excess prices which have been secured as the result of the offence. To allow discretion would, of course, be to produce variations of penalties and of decision. It would mean that in some cases Courts would decide that only a fraction of the excess prices should be returned, in others that the whole should be returned, and in others that double should be returned; and you would, therefore, have in the minds of traders a feeling of discontent against a law which would apply so inequitably in different parts of the country. Although there is a good deal of margin of discretion upon this point, the view of the Ministry is that neither the Court nor the country, nor the traders should be left in any doubt whatever as to the penalties which have to be imposed. Even the man who is guilty of a technical offence has no right to retain the gains of that technical offence. It is fair, in time of war at any rate, to impose upon him the penalty of
    1468
    returning double the amount of gains which has accrued to him through the commission of that technical offence. I may mention how unequal the law is to deal with the conduct of some traders. I saw in the papers within the last few days the report of a case of a trader in London who has been fined five times. The ordinary penalties to be inflicted by law as it now stands have in five separate cases been imposed upon this offender. It appears to me that the law at present means to some of these traders that the violation of the law is a paying game. Despite the penalties, they are still more or less encouraged to commit these offences. The least we can do to meet public opinion is to give the mass of consumers an assurance that anybody who earns ill-gotten gains in this way, if he is detected by the law and convicted, will have to forfeit at least double the gains which he has wrongly secured.
    Mr. MORRELL: The arguments we have heard from the hon. Member would strike at the idea of giving discretion to the Courts at any time. He says that if you give discretion there may be a certain amount of dissimilarity between various sentences in different parts of the country. Therefore, he said, let us have a cast-iron rule, and whether a man is merely technically guilty or absolutely guilty, whether he has heard of the Regulation or not, whatever the circumstances, the Court must have no discretion, but the man is to forfeit double the amount. The hon. Member says he has considerable sympathy with the individuals whose cases have been put before him from all sides of the House. I must say he did not betray much sympathy in his arguments. In fact, I was reminded of the sympathy shown by a certain autocratic King in the Bible, who wished to deal with everybody who did not worship God in a particular way, and decreed that they should be cast into a den of lions. When it was reported that his own servant, Daniel, had broken this decree, the King was sorry. Nevertheless, there was the decree, and it must be carried out; it was a hard and fast rule. The hon. Gentleman went on to tell us that such offences were increasing and that therefore we must have bigger penalties. He said that he was hearing of new offences against these food regulations.
    Mr. CLYNES: I did not allege that the offences are increasing. That would be a serious charge to make against the trading

    1469
    community, I merely say that we have discovered certain offences in certain places. I do not mean they are being added to.
    Mr. MORRELL: Then they are not increasing, I am glad to hear that. It comes to this that because the Government are discovering them better the penalties must be increased and the discretion must be taken away from the Courts of Justice who administer the law.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Whereupon, the Serjeant-at-Arms attending the House of Lords having come with a message for the House to attend the Lords Commissioners, the DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went, and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,
  Army (Annual) Act, 1918.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (FOOD PROFITS) BILL.
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, "That the "words 'equal to' stand part of the Clause."
  Mr. MORRELL (resuming): When the Debate was interrupted, I was engaged in commenting on the very unreasonable attitude taken up by the Government with regard to this very moderate Amendment. The Amendment asks that the Courts shall have a discretion as to the amount of penalty that they shall impose in certain cases brought before them. The Government insists that if the Court find that the charge is true, then, whatever the extenuating circumstances, however technical the error, however innocent the defendant, they must exact the full penalty of double the excess that has been received. This would be, in any case, a remarkable and unusual departure from the ordinary practice of this country; but that the Government should persist in it, in face of the Debate which has already taken place, seems to be really nothing less than
  1470
  an outrage on the Committee. What arguments have they used to meet the objections to their attitude which have been brought forward? Here we have had a Debate in which hon. Member after hon. Member has got up from all parts of the House and has pointed out that this may lead to serious injustice to a great many innocent people. In reply, the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill merely says that if a discretion is allowed to the Courts there may be a variation in penalties as between one Court and another and one district and another. The Solicitor-General utterly failed to meet any of the arguments, except that he told us that it was a very serious offence. We quite agree that it is a serious offence, and if the Courts find it is proved and there are not extenuating circumstances, they would still be able to exact the usual penalties. All we ask is that, following immemorial practice, the Courts shall have discretion. As no sort of reply has been given to the arguments brought forward from all sides of the Committee, I hope, unless he gets some satisfaction from the Government, that my right hon. Friend will go to a Division.
  Sir G. HEWART: I rise to add a word, because it has been said—though I fail to see how it can be maintained—that no sort of reply has yet been made. May I endeavour to explain the matter? It is important to see what it is exactly that is aimed at by this Bill. As the law at present stands, where a person is charged with the kind of offence with which this Bill deals, there are at least three courses open to the Court on conviction. A Court may impose a fine on the offender—a fine limited by the amount of £100—or the Court may send the offender to prison for a term of imprisonment limited to a period of six months. Also, the Court, if it thinks fit, may do both, one and the other, or any combination of them—that is to say, it may impose a fine up to £100 and also sentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months. Within these limits, the Court has and will retain absolute discretion. But now, consider the position of the defendant. It may be that there are circumstances of aggravation which seem to require a sentence of imprisonment. It may be that there are circumstances of aggravation which seem to require the infliction of the maximum penalty by way of fine. With all that matter this Bill interferes not at all. But it does say this—and whether it

  1471
  be right or wrong its policy is to say this—"Whatever punishment, as punishment, the Court may think fit to impose, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, whether it be a fine, and the amount of the fine; whether it be imprisonment, and the length of the imprisonment; or whether it be some combination of the two, there shall, in future, be one fixed, clear, certain element, and that is this, that where a man has committed an offence of this nature, the effect of which is that he recovers an excessive price over and above what he ought to recover, he shall not only be unable to retain that excessive price, but he shall forfeit it, and as much again." Whatever may be said or thought of the policy of the measure, one suggestion I do utterly resist, and that is the suggestion that it deprives the tribunal of all discretion. The question of the punishment, and of the nature of the punishment—whether it shall be a money punishment or imprisonment, or some combination of the two—is still left absolutely to the discretion of the Courts. The policy of this Bill is to say, "This offence is so serious and so strongly prohibited by the law that whatever else remains in doubt, the forfeiture in every case shall be a forfeiture of twice the amount of the excess." I really fail to understand the state of mind of hon. Members who say that by passing a Bill of that character you are taking away the discretion of the Court. Suppose a magistrate were trying a case, he might say, "I have heard the evidence in this case. I am satisfied that this is no aggravated case. I am satisfied that, although you ought to have known what you were doing, you have been careless and negligent. Therefore I am not going to send you to prison, and I am only going to impose a penalty of 20s. But you have done a thing which it is the determined policy of the Legislature to prevent, and you must pay this forfeit." And the defendant himself—if I may probe a little further into the minds of hon. Members below the Gangway—in such a case might, if he were the kind of defendant for whom the sympathy of the House is desired, say, "Not only will I not keep in my pocket the excess price, which I have negligently or inadvertently obtained, but I will cheerfully pay it back and a like sum in addition, having regard to the offence committed." Let there be no mistake, whatever may be the
  1472
  criticism of the policy of this measure, nothing could be further from the truth than to say that it deprives the tribunal of all discretion.
  Mr. ROCH: I think we are all grateful to the Solicitor-General for the very clear exposition which he has given of the effect of this Clause. I do not think that anybody who had read the Bill had any doubt of what the effect of it would be. What the right hon. Gentleman has not fully appreciated, however, is the basis of the argument addressed in favour of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of an aggravated offence. In the case of an aggravated offence we are all with him in the desire that it should be dealt with very seriously, and no cast has been made from the Government Bench that the magistrates have been lax about that. That has never been suggested, and no one can read the papers without seeing that benches of magistrates have, very properly, taken a very severe view of such breaches of the law. The Solicitor-General has not satisfied those who have spoken in favour of this Amendment. Take the case, not of aggravated circumstances, but of extenuating circumstances. Take the case of a person coming before a magistrate where only a technical offence had really, in effect, been committed. Does the Solicitor-General really think that, in the case of a technical offence merely, that a magistrate who, to use his own illustration, would only think it right to inflict a fine of 20s., should be forced also to inflict a very serious double penalty, such as would be forced on him by this Clause if the Amendment were not accepted? I had hoped, in response to the reasonable arguments from all quarters of the House, that the representative of the Ministry of Food would have shown a little give and take in this matter, and would have made some small concession. But this is really not worth wrangling about, one way or the other. I do not suppose this Bill will apply to more than an infinitesimal number of cases, but there may be cases of really extenuating circumstances, in which the magistrates would wish to impose only a nominal fine. The result of this will be that they will probably dismiss the case altogether, and, so far from the law being assisted by the excessive stringency of the penalty, it will tend to bring it into contempt, which is not a thing to be desired.
  Mr. LOUGH: The Committee will admit that on every Amendment I have spoken very briefly, and have withdrawn the Amendment very quickly, and so have endeavoured to facilitate the business. If the argument on this has proceeded a little further than in other cases, it is because of the unreasonable attitude which the Government has taken up. The whole Committee admits that, and I will try to reply as briefly as the Solicitor-General did. The Solicitor-General will not admit the case of the action which is contemplated in the Bill being committed without any offence whatever. There are elements in this Bill to prejudice everybody. The words, "Food Profits," appear on the back of the Bill, but there is nothing about profits on the face of the Bill. The action with which the Bill deals may be committed for no offence whatever. Let me give you one case, which will occur on Thursday in this country to a tremendous extent. I have asked half a dozen times that that case should be dealt with. I will make this one offer to the hon. Gentleman, and if he will meet me on that then I will withdraw the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] On Thursday there will be the largest beef market in the Kingdom. Four thousand cattle will be sold at prices ten shillings above the prices fixed by the Food Controller. That will be done whether this Bill is passed or not. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me under what terms or under what secret arrangements these high prices are to be paid? Seventy-six shillings is the fixed price here, but that does not run in Ireland. How are the two things to be explained? The farmers will come on Thursday with all these cattle, and will know nothing about this Bill or about the price being ten shillings more than that allowed by the Ministry of Food, and if this Bill is passed into law then every man in the market will commit the same offence, yet there will be no conviction in Ireland obtained against them. You are putting innocent people into this dilemma. The Government have admitted the desirability of giving the Court discretion with regard to the most severe penalty, that of imprisonment, and with regard to the other penalty, yet if the Court finds that there has been no offence and that the charge is perfectly groundless, is it not hard that this particular double penalty should be extorted?
  Sir G. HEWART: The accused may be acquitted.
  Mr. LOUGH: No. The Solicitor-General will not try to understand my argument. The point here is whether, in. the case of a person who takes a price in excess of the price fixed by the Food Controller, and who may do that without making any profits—he may even incur a loss—and he does it perfectly innocently, the Court is to have no power of discretion in regard to the penalty to be imposed. Everybody in the House, excepting the representatives of the Government, realise there may be cases in which no offence is really committed, and I say, as it has been deemed desirable to allow the Courts discretion in regard to the most serious parts of the penalty, it ought equally to have discretion in the class of cases I have explained.
  Mr. HOLT: I want to make an appeal to the Government. I think they themselves have taken up their present stiff attitude under a pure misapprehension. They are mixing up two different things—the charging of extra prices and the making of exorbitant profits. The two things are very different. A man may charge an excess price without making any profit at all; a trader may have paid an excess price for goods under a bonâ fide mistake. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had ordered payment of double the excess price by the merchant who sold to the trader he would have been standing on different grounds, but, instead of that, he says that the trader shall forfeit double the excess price he charges, whether he makes any profit or not. I submit it is only reasonable that the Court should have discretion in these cases. It is quite possible that a man, by mistake, may have charged too high a price and yet not have made a halfpenny out of the transaction. He may never have intended to make a profit. He may have acted purely under a misapprehension, and surely in such a case the Court should be empowered to impose a purely nominal penalty and not be compelled to inflict this double penalty.
  Mr. WATT: I am very much surprised that the Government have not seen fit to accept the Amendment. I have listened to the whole Debate, if Debate it can be called. Practically every Member who has spoken has suggested to the Government that the Amendment should be accepted, and it is very difficult to understand why that advice has been rejected.

  1475
  I am driven to this conclusion, that the Solicitor-General, in the earlier part of the Debate, thought he could steam-roller the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough). He now finds he cannot, but his amour propre prevents him going back upon the position he originally took up. The same remark applies to the Under-Secretary to the Food Ministry. He felt that the Government as a whole must go in for unity, and his learned Friend having said a certain thing he could not go back upon it, whatever his personal views might be. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington will divide the Committee upon this Amendment, or that the Government will change its views. The discretion of magistrates in this matter ought not to be taken away. The Solicitor-General knows it is quite usual in Acts of Parliament to give this discretion, and that it is most unusual in actual legislation to insist that magistrates shall penalise defendants at a certain figure. I hope that even yet, with an important Division hanging over their heads, the Government may depart from their present stiff attitude which has simply prolonged the Debate, without having united the Government.
  Mr. CLYNES: My hon. Friend who has just spoken may be right in regard to all his points except one, but on that I am certain he is wrong. He has stated that I am keeping up an appearance of unity in the Government, but that in my heart I believe the Amendment should be accepted. My answer is that this deals with the very substance of the Bill, and any modification of the terms of the Bill, such as the acceptance of this Amendment would involve, would be a desertion of the policy of the Ministry. May I repeat again the argument which has already been advanced from this bench, that if this Bill is passed in the terms in which it is submitted there will be three kinds of penalties, and that only in respect of one—namely, where illicit profits have been secured—
  Mr. LOUGH: There may be no profits at all; it may be a loss.
  Mr. CLYNES: The Ministry of Food has approved a list of prices in which he has admittedly, allowed liberal profits—
  Mr. LOUGH: My hon. Friend is taking advantage of my candour and simplicity.
  1476
  There is a large range of prices, and I quite admit that those affecting the trade with which I am most connected treat the trader liberally. But I have had no answer to the question I put about the sale of cattle at the forthcoming market at 10s. over the price fixed by the Ministry of Food.
  Mr. CLYNES: That is an illustration which has scarcely any relevance to the real issue before the House. The Ministry of Food fixes the prices at which certain articles of food may be sold, and those prices allow a generous profit to the trader selling them. The Bill now before the House proposes that where the trader or seller secures a price in excess of those fixed by the Ministry he shall return not only the excess, but double the amount of the illicit profit so secured; and I say to do other than that is to run away from legislation which public opinion has demanded and which the House has accepted as quite reasonable. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the law or with the practice of the Courts to settle what is the type of case which has been referred to in this Debate by many Members as a technical case. I take it most offences are technical in the sense that they are violations of certain terms of law passed by this House. Where the offence is technical it is quite within the cognisance of the Court to make some allowance. It need not, for instance, send the accused to prison or impose a heavy fine; it can decide that he shall merely return double the excess or illicit profit which he has secured. We are therefore not imposing any fetter on the action of the Court or taking away from it any discretion which it generally possesses. The whole answer with regard to the cattle question is that the live-weight prices do not operate in Ireland in the sense in which they operate in England, and therefore the transaction to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded will not be in the nature of an offence.
  Mr. LOUGH: But the 76s. price runs in Ireland!
  Mr. CLYNES: I repeat that the live-weight prices are not in operation in Ireland in the sense in which they are in England. I do not desire in any sense to impeach the traders of this country as wrongdoers to a greater extent than any other section, but I say the Ministry of Food has been driven to bring forward this Bill by cases where people have

  1477
  repeatedly offended against the law and have found it profitable to do so. I think the House may take it that there will be no purely technical offender injured by this Act, and that on the whole this Bill is a real necessity.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I regret that the Government, in spite of the appeal made to them, have hardened their hearts. The only defence which has been advanced for this extraordinary penalty is the statement that a number of traders have in the past found it profitable to commit offences under the Act, and that the present penalty has proved insufficient to debar them doing so. If that be the case, why not provide in this Bill that where a man, after a first conviction, offends again, this double penalty shall be imposed? That would be a perfectly fair way of dealing with such people, who know what they are doing when they charge these excess prices, and at the same time it would give the Court discretion to deal with cases where the offence has been purely technical and unpremeditated. I wish one of the Scottish Law Officers had been here, because the administration of this Regulation in Scotland has been attended with difficulties and brought about decisions somewhat different from those which have been come to in this country. I understand that the Court of Justiciary in Scotland has held that the Orders of the Food Controller are too vague to offer material for constituting an offence in Scottish law. If that is the situation, you are going to have the extraordinary
  anomaly of people getting off scot free under the Scottish decision, while other people who are doing the same thing south of the Tweed are being mulcted in heavy penalties. Obviously this would not apply in Scotland at all, because the High Court of Justice has held that under these Food Orders it is impossible to constitute an offence in Scottish law. It is not only Ireland—
  Mr. LOUGH: It is going on all over the country.
  Mr. PRINGLE: They will be able to do the same thing in Scotland, and there is nobody on the Government Bench who can tell us what is going to be the position in Scotland. I put it to the Government that the High Court has given this decision in a test case. It will cover a great many other cases, and if the prosecutions under the existing Regulations cannot be successful in Scotland then your authority is not going to apply there either. I think when you are altering the law as you are doing in this Bill we must insist on knowing what the effect is going to be in all parts of the United Kingdom. There is no one on the Government Bench who can give us any information on this point, and in those circumstances I think it is my right hon. Friend's duty to divide the Committee.
  Question put, "That the words 'equal to' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 25.

  Division No. 31.]

  AYES.

  [8.3 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. R. C. A.

  Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Barnett, Captain R. W.

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis J.

  Nield, Sir Horbert

  Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

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

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Brassey, H. L. C.

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George

  Carew, C. R. S.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund

  Cator, John

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Clynes, John R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Hudson, Walter

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Rees, G. C (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Currie, George W.

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Smith, Capt. Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Stoker, R. B

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

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

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Duke, Rt. Hon Henry Edward

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Tootill, Robert

  Wardle, George J.

  Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Walker, Colonel William Hail

  Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.

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

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  NOES.

  Arnold, Sydney

  John, Edward Thomas

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rowlands, James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Thomas, Sir A. G. (Monmouth, S.)

  Clough, William

  King, Joseph

  Watt, Henry A.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Wedgwood, Commander Josiah C.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Maden, Sir John Henry

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Morrell, Phillip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lough and Mr. Pringle.

  Hinds, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words, "Provided that a Return shall be made to this House of all prices to which the Act applies, and that no prosecutions shall take place under it until the Order has been laid upon the Table for twenty-eight days."
  In moving this Amendment, I would make this appeal to the Government. They have provided nothing in the way of security that these prices shall be known. It must have occurred to my hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes), in considering these Amendments, that some effective notice should be given to the large classes that will be affected by these prices, and that they may be liable to very heavy penalties. This is the second Amendment I have moved with the object that people should not be taken unawares. I now move it formally in order to give my hon. Friend an opportunity of replying.
  Mr. CLYNES: I regret I am unable to accept the terms of this Amendment, though I quite see the object my right hon. Friend has in view, and I have a great deal of sympathy with that object. I think it might be obtained by some course other than that suggested in this Amendment. In effect, if this Amendment were passed it would not add materially to the notice which the trading community now receives of the various Regulations and Orders that determine the prices of the various articles. If we lay on the Table of this House every one of these Orders, even for twenty-eight days, I doubt whether that act in itself would cause one single trader to be any the wiser. I doubt whether any man would come to this House and ask to be taken into the library in order to see the terms of the Regulations. Such an Amendment would not, therefore, attain the object of securing the wider publicity for the Orders of the Ministry which my
  1480
  right hon. Friend has in view. The Food Ministry does endeavour to make known as widely as possible its decisions on these questions. It is not a concession to the trading community; it is a duty on the part of the Ministry. It circulates fortnightly many thousands of copies amongst the trading community, amongst the 2,000 local food committees, and these copies contain fully the various Regulations dealing with prices. It circulates, in addition to that, thousands of leaflets giving fully the terms of our various Regulations. These all find their way in turn into the trade papers, according to the interests of the persons whom they affect. Moreover, it uses every day the Press of the country, rather extensively as my right hon. Friend has pointed out on previous occasions, in order to make known what are the decisions and Regulations of the Ministry. So, by circulars, pamphlets, press communiqués, and the ordinary trumpeting of the news abroad, the persons who are going to be affected by this Bill will be more fully informed of our actions than they could possibly be by placing any decisions or actions of ours on the Table of this House. I can assure my hon. Friend opposite that I will see what the Ministry can do in order to ensure fuller publicity and the more effective circulation of the Regulations of the Ministry, but I cannot accept the terms of the Amendment, which would not really serve the purposes which he has in view.
  Mr. LOUGH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words, "Provided that nothing in this Section will operate so as to render valid any Order made by the Food Controller which, but for that fact, would not be valid."

  1481
  All these Orders purport to be made under the Defence of the Realm Act. I am quite certain that not one single person ever believed that the Act could be used for the purpose of fixing the maximum price for food or any other article. I do not think that the Act would have been passed if that had been in people's mind. If I personally were brought under one of these Orders of the Food Ministry, I should take it through all the Courts in order to have it tested. I object wholly to the policy of the Government of fixing maximum prices which might, but for the effect of this measure, be held by the Law Courts to be ultra vires. The object of the Amendment is to leave it quite open to those who come under the Regulations to test their validity.
  Sir G. HEWART: I welcome the pledge of the hon. Member that if he should ever be prosecuted under any Regulation of the Food Controller he will carry it through all the Courts to have it tested. I am quite sure that some of my colleagues at the Bar will welcome that statement, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not disappoint them. The hon. Gentleman appears to think that if this Bill becomes law it will prevent him, if he were being prosecuted, from raising the plea that the Regulation was ultra vires. I beg to assure him that when the Bill becomes an Act it will not give validity to any Order which would otherwise be invalid, and it will be no less open to the hon. Member, after the passing of this Bill into law, to allege, if he please, that the Order under which he is being prosecuted is ultra vires.
  Mr. HOLT: In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  HORSE BREEDING BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  1482
  This Bill, which stands in my name and that of the Secretary for Scotland and of the Secretary for Ireland, is a Bill to regulate the use of stallions travelling for hire, or exhibited in certain places, or markets, or shows, and after the appointed day to prohibit any stallion without a licence from so travelling or from so being exhibited. This country is famous all over the world for the excellence of its horse breeding. That reputation has been built up by the capital, skill, and energy of individual breeders, supported by the great Breeding Societies. These Societies, by refusing awards and premiums to any unsound hire, have done a great deal to educate the breeders in the commercial and other advantages of soundness. Though that has been done, a great deal remains to be done; there is great room for improvement, and there is, indeed, urgent need for improvement. The Army has recently, during the War, bought a number of light and heavy horses, and the reports of their remount officers disclose a very serious state of affairs. A letter from the War Office is quoted in the Report of the Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Agriculture to consider the supply of horses for military purposes. That Report was published in 1915, and I quote from the fifth page:
  "The War Office wrote on the 13th December, 1914, as follows: 'Owing, however, to the inferiority of many of the sires, a, large number of these horses are of so poor a stamp as to be of no military value, and the Council regard it as of the utmost importance that steps should at once be taken to arrest the deterioration of the light draught horse stock in this country.'
  On the 9th July, 1915, a letter was received containing the following paragraph:
  'Unhappily the experience of the recent mobilisation has proved that though this country produces many super-excellent, horses, the number of unsound and utterly worthless animals, which ought never to have been bred, it deplorably large.'"
  A well-known expert, who has been for the last thirty years one of the most successful breeder of shire horses, expressed the opinion in public that at least 50 per cent. of the horses employed upon farms were unsound. If that state of things is thus revealed, it becomes very important and very urgent—indeed, it is of military and national importance—to endeavour to improve the breeding of horses, and the first and surest step towards so improving the soundness of our horses in this country is to eliminate the unsound stallion. A single stallion in a single season may get from fifty to sixty unsound foals, and the

  1483
  object of this Bill is to prohibit the unsound stallions from travelling the country for stud purposes, or from being exhibited in public or in markets for this purpose. This step has been taken already in many countries—in France, in Germany, in Austria, in some of our Dominions, in a great many of the Federated States of the United States—and if we are to maintain our horse-breeding supremacy, we must take similar action.
  The subject is not a new one; it has been before the country now for many years. As long ago as 1873 a Select Committee expressed a pious opinion that compulsory registration of stallions was desirable. It has been again recommended by a Committee of Inquiry into Horse Breeding in 1896. Resolutions in favour of it have been passed in considerable numbers by the Advisory Committee on Horse Breeding of the Board, and in 1915 Lord Middleton's Committee, from which I have already quoted, strongly recommended the compulsory registration of stallions, which is the object of the present Bill. The first of their conclusions, the one which they put in the forefront of all, is that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries should institute any legislation required for the purpose of compulsory annual registration by the Board of all stallions that travel for service or may be exhibited for stud purposes.
  In 1911, when the Grant was made by the Development Commission for the improvement of horse breeding, the Board instituted a system of voluntary registration. Under that system pedigree stallions were registered after veterinary examination, and the commercial value of that register had been shown by the large number of voluntary entries which have been made. We have very nearly 1,900 entries already, and probably we have the majority of pedigree stallions entered in that voluntary register. What we want to do now is to make registration compulsory, and to extend it not only to pedigree stallions which travel for service, but to all travelling stallions, whether they are capable of being entered in any recognised stud book of the particular breeds or not. We wish to extend it to all, so that for the future, after the appointed day, no owner of a mare shall be publicly tempted to send his mare to a stallion which is paraded in the market town or is exhibited in public for purposes of the stud.
  1484
  No doubt if this matter is carried into law it will cause a very considerable loss of money and of income to the owners of the stallions which cannot get a licence. That is a matter in which, perhaps, the House may feel some sympathy, but, on the other hand, the nature of the business, the interests of the owner of the mare, and the national interests of the nation, ought to be considered.
  When these horses are paraded in any country market town, for every horse which has the Government licence and certificate of soundness there is probably paraded another horse which has no recommendation at all except the lowness of the fee at which it serves. It is these blackleg stallions, so to speak, which are doing irreparable mischief to the horse breeding of the country. After all, these horses which have not got the certificate are brought before the public, their attractiveness is carefully heightened by grooming, so as to catch the eye, and their fees are lowered as much as possible to tempt the pocket. The owner of the stallion knows that the article he offers is not to be compared with the article that is offered by the certificated, licensed, sound sire, and yet he exhibits his animal, he travels it, and he brings it to the farmhouse for the purposes of the stud. The owner of the mare does not know that the animal is unsound, and both he and the nation suffer by the unsound progeny that is begotten. So strong is the feeling that something ought to be done on the lines of this Bill, that we have had support from many of the principal breeding societies of the country, the measure is supported by the Royal Agricultural Society of England, it is supported by the National Farmers' Union, we have had resolutions from many of the county horse-breeding associations, and, so far as I can understand, there is not one of those associations which is not in favour of this principle of compulsory registration of stallions, while the "Live Stock Journal," which is the best-known organ of the livestock industry of this country, did not overstate the truth when it said that the principles of this Bill have received unanimous support from all our light and heavy horse breeding societies.
  I may point out that we do not altogether do away with the unsound stallion. The Bill is designed to prevent the public temptation offered by it being travelled for service, to do away with the convenience of the animal coming to the door

  1485
  of the farmhouse, and to do away with what I may call public invitation. If the unsound stallion continues to serve, it can only do so on the premises of the owner, and the owner of the mare has to take the trouble and go to the expense of sending his mare to that stallion, and if he is prepared to do that, the Bill leaves him to back his own judgment and to take the risk. The Clauses of the Bill carry out, as I think, the objects quite clearly. The first Section provides:
  "Any person who after the appointed day, being the owner or having the control of a stallion of a prescribed age, travels it for service, or exhibits it at any market or show or in any public place or permits it to be so travelled or exhibited, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20 unless the stallion is at the time licensed under this Act."
  The Section does not in Great Britain prohibit the use of unlicensed stallions for stud purposes altogether, but it makes it an offence to travel it for service or to publicly exhibit it. The Bill applies to Scotland and also to Ireland, but the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction have a different Clause, which is to be found at the end of the Bill. England and Scotland are combined in the Bill, as I have indicated to the House.
  The Bill goes on to provide that every stallion is entitled to be licensed on payment of a fee not exceeding one guinea, unless (a) it is affected with any contagious or infectious disease, or (b) is affected with any other disease or defect prescribed by the Board, and what we intend to do is to put into our Regulations the diseases which are specified in the Regulations of the Board under the present voluntary system. Other provisos are (c) if it has proved to be inadequately prolific, or is calculated, if used for stud purposes, to injure the breed of horses. In other words, we mean by paragraph (a) that if the defect is of a temporary character we can suspend the licence. For instance, if it is a temporary disease like glanders, of course the licence is not granted, but is held over. If the defects are of a hereditary nature, as in paragraph (b), then the licence is prima facie not granted. But if the defect is one of malformation, then again the stallion cannot be licensed. Clause 3 deals with the subjects of duration, transfers, and renewals of licences, and Clause 4 provides for appeal. Now in this case of appeal we intend to move some modification. As the appeal is given in the Bill the decision of a professional referee is final. It is
  1486
  rather flattering to the Board to find that the Horse Breeding Societies have a greater confidence in the decision of the Board, and the form of the appeal therefore will be that the veterinary referee will report to the Board, and the decision will rest with the Board. There are certain obvious advantages to anybody interested in horse breeding in putting it in that form, and we propose to adopt that form of appeal. Clauses 5 to 9 contain a variety of provisions to secure the proper administration of the Bill, and Clause 10 deals with stallions on commons and in the New Forest. Under the Commons Act the commoner is entitled to frame his own regulations and his own bye-laws. We do not interfere with that, but, if he is willing to accept the licensing provision of this Bill, then in such case the present Bill will come into force on the common.
  Clause 11 deals with the expenses of administering the Bill so far as they are not met. The charge on the Treasury will, I think, be extremely small, and it is subject, of course, to the approval of the Treasury. The twelfth Clause is merely an interpretation Clause, and the thirteenth deals with the application to Scotland. The fourteenth is the Irish Clause, and when the Bill comes to be discussed—I hope the House will grant the Second Reading—that side of the measure will be explained by the Irish Secretary or some representative on his behalf. Of course, the Bill may, in the opinion of the House, require amending. I am sure I shall be prepared to consider all the Amendments most impartially, but I hope that the national importance and urgency of this measure, which we must bring into force as soon as we can, after giving a reasonable notice to the owners of the stallions, justify me in asking the House to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
  Sir J. SPEAR: I cordially support the Second Reading of the Bill. I think we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing it before the House, and I believe if carried it will do something—much, I hope—to stamp out hereditary disease among horses. It is extremely disappointing to a farmer to breed a colt, keep it for two or three years perhaps, find then discover that it is unsound, and have to dispose of it at a very heavy loss. Therefore, I think he is entitled to the protection provided by this Bill. It has been shown clearly that far too large a percentage of horses that are bought for the Army develop hereditary disease, and in

  1487
  the interests of the nation it is surely of great importance that steps, such as are proposed by this Bill, should be tried to do away with this great loss and risk. I note—and the right hon. Gentleman has emphasised the fact, that there is a right of appeal to the owner of a condemned horse. I am glad it is made very simple, and, I think, effective. We know that veterinary surgeons, able though they may be, differ as to whether a horse is sound or not. It is a very serious thing to a man who has a horse that he believes to be sound to find it condemned, and therefore this Bill is, I think, only just and very desirable indeed.
  I would have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman could have gone a step further, and provided that no stallion should be used for hire that could not produce a certificate of soundness. In Clause 14 that proviso will prevail in Ireland. I do not see why it should not also prevail in this country. The Clause is applied to Ireland, and a man may use an unsound stallion to his own mares: he cannot use it for hire. The Bill will apply only to stallions that are exhibited, and, therefore, exhibited in the markets and fairs for the purpose of attracting notice, and securing custom. I am afraid the provisions of this Bill may appeal to owners of uncertificated horses who may charge a somewhat higher fee. There is a danger of that driving foolish parties to use horses that have never travelled but have been kept at home on a farm at a very much lower fee. I think it is due to the owners of certificates that they should be preserved from this nondescript opposition. Still, I understand there is great opposition in this country to extending the Bill to deal with all stallions use for hire whether travelled, or exhibited, or not; and rather than lose the Bill, so valuable do I think it, and so much do I think it will contribute to the stamping out of hereditary disease, that I accept the Bill even with Clause 14. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to apply the principles of the Bill to all stallions used for hire or payment, whether travelled or at home, I believe he would greatly increase the advantages which would accrue from the Bill. It would be a calamity to lose the Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman can include what I refer to in the English Section, that no stallions shall be used for hire the owner of which cannot produce a certificate of soundness, I think he would
  1488
  be greatly extending the beneficial effect of the Bill. I cordially support the Second Reading.
  Major DAVIES: I follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in congratulating the President of the Board of Agriculture in having brought this Bill before the House. I sincerely trust that he will get an easy passage for it through the House. As he has told us in his speech this measure is really very much overdue. Its principles are already in operation in many countries. It is at this very late period that at last the Board of Agriculture—I do not wish to associate the right hon. Gentleman with this comment—have been able to bring this measure before Parliament and to endeavour to get these provisions passed into law. It is a very favourable time for putting this measure into operation. There is a shortage of food all over the country. Therefore it will not be so difficult to persuade the owners of unsound stallions to get rid of them. I think the Board are wise in bringing the Bill in at this particular time. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, said something about the Report of the Committee on the question of providing horses for military purposes. I should like to take this opportunity of calling his attention to the fact that at the present moment the farmers and people in this country who produce light horses do so at great loss to themselves. The War Office only pay the price fixed before war began. As we all know, prices for commodities have gone up by leaps and bounds, and the result is that the cost of the production of horses is something like 50 per cent. more than it was, and in some cases almost 100 per cent. more than four years ago. It is only right that the Government, having fixed a maximum price for agricultural and other products, based upon the cost of production, in respect of other matters should apply the same principle to those people producing light horses for the use of the Army. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will bring this matter to the attenion of his Noble Friend the Secretary for War, so as to induce the War Office, in their own interests, and in the interest of the production of horses for military purposes, to reconsider this matter, and I trust he will succeed in persuading them to give a price that covers the cost of production and a reasonable profit to those concerned. After all, before the War farmers were told that it

  1489
  was a patriotic work to provide horses for military purposes. They have often continued breeding since the War on that account, although they might have turned their attention to other and more profitable agricultural work. They have done so simply because it was in the interest of the State, and because they were told that by so doing they were helping on the War.
  I should also like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to another fact. Certain societies, amongst them, I think, the Hunters' Improvement Society and the Association for Light Horses—with which I happen to be associated—are particularly anxious that we should insert some provision in the Bill to the effect that after these stallions have been examined for a certain number of years that they should be exempt from any further examination. After all, the object of the right hon. Gentleman is to prevent the spread of hereditary disease. He will accomplish that object, I think, if he follows the suggestion made, although, of course, he will have his own veterinary experts to advise him. I understand, however, that there is a consensus of opinion amongst the big societies that his object will be achieved if he limits the examination to six or nine years, following which exemption should take place. I should like to join with my hon. Friend opposite who urged that Clause 1 should be made more stringent. Apparently there are people who in different parts of the country find that it does not pay to keep these animals at home unless also they are allowed to travel. However these considerations may be, I certainly support the idea of making the Bill more stringent in the direction indicated, and laying down the law that this rule shall apply impartially all round—to the horses which are stationary and, at any rate, to all horses in respect to which a fee is being charged. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be content with this Bill, but bring in more Bills on similar lines which will refer to other categories of stock. The whole question of breeding stock and the elimination of unsound stores is one which the Board ought to press forward. If at the end of this War the agriculturists of this country are going to maintain their place and their supremacy so far as breeds are concerned, they will have to adopt measures of this kind. I desire, in conclusion, to express, on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member
  1490
  for Bridgewater (Major Lane-Fox) his gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for having introduced this Bill, and we hope it may have a speedy passage through all its stages.
  Mr. ARCHDALE: I wish to offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman for this Bill, and I am sure every horse breeder in Ireland will be grateful to him for having brought it in. I am connected with the Royal Dublin Society, the largest to do with horse breeding, I suppose, in the world, and for many years we have tried to get a Bill of this kind brought forward. Almost every agricultural society in Ireland has been urging that a measure of this kind should be introduced. I think the conditions for Ireland in this Bill are what they should be. I certainly support the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir R. Spear) in thinking that it will be a good thing for England if the conditions are made the same as in Ireland in regard to not allowing unsound stallions to serve at all. I also support the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in regard to certificates after a certain number of years, because an old stallion is bound to go astray after twelve years' service. After seven or eight years continuous sound certificates a stallion should not be examined again. It is very hard on an old horse to be examined, and you may put away a most valuable horse if that proviso is not put in I thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of Irish horse breeders for bringing in such a useful Bill.
  9.0 P.M.
  Major BRASSEY: I should like to utter a word of dissent in regard to what has fallen from the three speakers who have addressed the House. I am not at all hostile to the Bill; in fact, I welcome it, but when hon. Members asked the President of the Board of Agriculture to go further and to apply the provisions to all stallions who serve for a fee, he will be doing a great deal of harm to the very important industry of thoroughbred horse breeding. I think all hon. Members acquainted with this subject will agree that veterinary opinion differs very widely on this subject. I think I may safely say that many of the greatest thoroughbred horses which have won important races in the past have probably been sired by horses that might not have passed some of the tests which so he veterinary surgeon would wish them to pass. Many thoroughbred horses have won

  1491
  good races on the turf and stood the test of training for many years, and I think it would be extremely unfair to those horses and their owners that they should be liable to be rejected for stud purposes by some of the smaller defects which are looked upon by many veterinary surgeons as being of an hereditary character. The hon. Member who last addressed the House spoke of testing stallions for wind. I think hon. Members will agree that to test stallions for wind is almost an impossibility, let alone the fact that, in the opinion of many experts, the wind infirmity is certainly not always hereditary. I only wish to express my dissent from what has fallen from the last three speakers on this point, and I urge the President of the Board of Agriculture to turn a deaf ear to their request to apply the provisions of this Act to all stallions. I think the Clause in the Irish Bill, as I read it, which excludes from the operation of this measure thoroughbred stallions who serve none but thoroughbred mares would be a very fair provision, and it would cover my objection to what has fallen from hon. Members who have addressed the House. I think there ought to be some protection for horses of great value which have stood the test of many years' training for racing, and whose defects are probably well known to breeders of thoroughbred stock. They should certainly be allowed to serve for hire without passing the test which is very rightly put on horses which travel and are exhibited for service.

  LAND DRAINAGE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This is a measure to amend the Land Drainage Act, 1861, and to make further provision for the drainage of agricultural land. It is not a heroic measure. It does not profess to deal with the rivers of England in any other way than the
  1492
  natural drains carrying away the water off the land. It does not, in the first part, propose any change in well-established principles. It leaves the person interested in the land to make the expenditure that really may be necessary, and it does not offer any State aid. It leaves it to his decision, as he is the man who pays the money, whether or not the drainage measure should be adopted, and, generally, it acts on the principle of helping the land-owner to help himself. But though it is not, as I say, a heroic measure it is a measure that is most urgently needed in the interests of food production at the present time, and it is in all its details a practical attempt to use the existing drainage authorities and to make the operations of existing powers more simple, less expensive, and more effective. With regard to the need of the Bill, everybody who cares about agriculture knows, vaguely perhaps, that very large areas of the country are much in need of drainage. They are for long periods of the year often covered with water, and they are thereby rendered unfit for arable cultivation, and grass is spoiled by rushes. I confess that I myself had no idea of the extent to which that deterioration of land, owing to floods, had been carried in England and Wales. We have asked our War Agricultural Committees to take surveys of the country and to let us know what areas in their opinion require drainage. We find, on the returns already completed, that there are something like one million acres in this country for which drainage is seriously needed. In Yorkshire, for instance, there are 300,000 acres which might be enormously improved by the operation of some such Bill as that I am proposing. In Lincolnshire there are 200,000 acres, and they are described as rich fen land; that is to say, some of the richest land in this country. In Norfolk and Suffolk there are 77,000 acres, and they are described as good alluvial soil. Similarly, in Wales there are very large areas, three counties alone contributing something like 100,000 acres. Altogether, there are within sight, so to speak, 1,000,000 acres, which, if promptly handled, might probably either be brought into arable cultivation or be enormously improved grass by the harvest of 1919. I should like to point out the bearing that this extension of cultivable land has upon the employment of labour and the placing of soldiers and sailors after the War upon the land.

  1493
  Last year the Board of Agriculture, under the Defence of the Realm Act, took certain powers for dealing with drainage. Those powers included the power to call upon occupiers to clean out channels and ditches on their land. If they did not do it, the Board took power to do it themselves and charge the expenses. The Board also took power to make drainage authorities exercise their authority if, in the opinion of the Board, they were nor, properly doing so; and the effect has been very considerable. Within the last nine or ten months we have tackled something like 80,000 acres in this country. A large part of that acreage is brought into cultivation for the harvest of this year, 1918, and we intend to continue that work under the Defence of the Realm Act and to bring the remainder of the areas that we have marked down into cultivation for the harvest of 1919. The exercise of those, powers has shown us that they are in certain ways insufficient, and it has also shown us, by the way in which they were welcomed in the countryside, that those powers ought to be made permanent and ought not to be allowed to expire with a temporary measure like the Defence of the Realm Act. We have had a considerable number of petitions from county councils all over the country in favour of the present Bill.
  The main reason why the Bill is wanted at the present moment is that there are a number of existing drainage authorities which, for various reasons, either do not or cannot carry out their work. Those drainage authorities are of three different kinds. There are Commissions of Sewers, who are appointed under a Statute of the reign of Henry VIII. Their area, which is marked out for them in the Commission under the Royal Manual, is often so vague that the Commissioners do not know where it extends, and their actual exercise of power is often over a very small area within the larger area to which their powers extend. Then there are drainage authorities set up by private Acts of Parliament under the Enclosure Awards and in other ways. Those Acts also are, many of them, very ancient. The powers are obsolete and inconvenient, and very often they are unaccompanied by the power to rate the inhabitants, and the expense and the inconvenience of getting an Act amended has prevented them from exercising their powers at all. There are also navigation authorities—again, some of them are very ancient—who have to main-
  1494
  tain a certain head of water in the river. Although the river itself, for all navigable purposes, has long teased to be used, yet, because they are under this statutory obligation to hold up a head of water large areas of the country are improperly drained. Finally, there are the drainage boards, set up under the Act of 1861. Where these boards have been set up a great deal of good has been done, but when we come to work that Act practically it is seen to have certain grave effects. The procedure under that Act for setting up the drainage board is this: It commences, and can only commence, when a petition by the proprietors of one-tenth of the area to be drained is presented. It requires that there shall not be less than the proprietors of one-tenth in acreage of any bog, moor, or any other area of land that requires draining. The proceedings have to be initiated by that number of proprietors. The drainage required has to be a combined system. That has led to the creation of small districts, which are really too small to bear a district beard. There are certain other provisions for making an inquiry, which we incorporate in our present Bill, and the actual consent of two-thirds of the proprietors is required before you can proceed further. On the petition an Order is made. Whether the Order is consented to, or is not consented to, it has to go before Parliament to be made an Order. Up till the time of confirmation it is merely a Provisional Order, whether it is agreed to or not.
  This Bill alters that procedure in four different ways. Instead of only the stated number of proprietor being able to initiate proceedings, the Board itself may initiate proceedings. The reason for that is that when you deal with a large number of persons there is a great deal of passive inactivity about them. It is everybody's business to begin, therefore nobody begins. Everybody thinks that it is his neighbour's and not his own work to drain his land. The result is that you cannot, in the ordinary way, under the Land Drainage Act, 1861, get your drainage scheme initiated. When you have got it initiated, you are in a difficulty, because when the Board sends down to inquire into the circumstances, they may find that it is not a district which requires, in the accepted interpretation of the phrase, a combined system of drainage, but that something much larger and more comprehensive is wanted. But supposing you have initiated the petition, supposing you have found

  1495
  that the circumstances are such that the Board makes a draft Order constituting a drainage district, then you have to get the consent of two-thirds of the proprietors in acreage. If the district is large, to get that two-thirds requires a very great amount of active canvassing. We propose in the changes that are contained in the Bill to turn it round and to say that the Order shall go forward unless one-third dissent. If there is going to be inactivity at all, let it be on the part of the opposition. The Board initiates the scheme as well as the one-tenth proprietors, and to county councils we also give the power to initiate a scheme by petition to the Board. Then it gets started. Let the Board make the necessary inquiries; let them draft an Order, and then let it go forward unless one-third dissent, instead of vetoing it because two-thirds do not consent. The fourth change we make is that when an Order is unopposed it need not come before Parliament. The reason for that is that an unopposed Order has very often taken twelve months to get through Parliament, and that there is some amount of expense and a great deal of delay. Every opposed Order, as before, we propose should go to Parliament, Those are the four principal changes in the procedure of initialing the proceedings which our Bill proposes to make.
  There are other grave objections to the existing system of working the various drainage powers. To alter the boundaries of a district is very difficult. You can only alter the boundaries—that is to say, increase your area—by gelling a new drainage district established in which the small separate piece you want to incorporate shall be merged. You have to go through the whole process over again in order to obtain an enlargement of the boundaries. We propose to give the Board power to define the limits of any Commission of Sewers. As I said before, the limits of area of the Commissions of Sewers are often vague and indeterminate, and the Board wants power, for instance, to define what is meant by "the maritime parts of a county." That is a form of words which is used in these Commissions of Sewers, and as no other drainage authority can be set up within the limits occupied by any already constituted, that vagueness of area is very difficult to deal with. Again, we say that where under some private Act or local Act fresh powers of levying drain-
  1496
  age rates or borrowing powers are in our opinion expedient, we want the power to alter and supplement those powers. The House will realise that in all those powers we have to proceed in the method that I have pointed out—that is to say, in constituting an area a separate drainage district we have to get either the initiation by one-tenth of the proprietors or we can initiate the proceedings on our own behalf, or the county council can initiate the proceedings, and then we proceed after the proper inquiry in the form laid down in the first Schedule to this Bill. An Order is only made effective if it is practically agreed to. If it is not agreed to, it has to come before the House for confirmation. Similarly, when we propose to alter the boundaries of any drainage district, or the limits of any Commission of Sewers, we cannot begin to act unless the drainage district itself asks us to, or unless it initiates the proceedings, or, in the case of Commissions of Sewers, unless the Commissioners of Sewers ask us to do so. When we initiate proceedings the procedure goes, as before, through the various stages. When it comes to defining the limits of any Commission of Sewers, we cannot do that on our own motion; we have to be asked to do so, and have to be sot in motion by the Commissioners of Sewers themselves. Similarly when any drainage authority wants to increase its powers it has to ask that they should be increased, and we ourselves cannot initiate that proceeding, but they alone can do it. Then the procedure for making the Orders is set out in Clause 2, and you will see there the various methods in which these petitions can be brought forward and the necessity of having in each case the authority already acting there supporting the petition in the first instance. The expenses follow the existing rules, and are unaltered. That is Clause 3.
  In Clause 4 there are various provisions as to rating. The first Sub-section removes the doubt which has been judicially expressed as to the basis of acreage or the basis of annual value. It puts it beyond question that where either practice has been adopted that is to be deemed to have been empowered under the principal Act. All the change that is made is that it may be embodied in the Order. As to the powers of local authorities to contribute to drainage expenses it very often happens that the sanitary authority is anxious for drainage works to be carried

  1497
  out but cannot contribute, although the health of the neighbourhood is going to be immensely improved. Similarly, the highway authorities often find that their roads suffer immensely from the want of drainage, but they cannot contribute to a drainage scheme at present. The fifth Clause empowers them, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to contribute in those cases. The sixth Clause meets another very great difficulty. Two drainage authorities at present cannot join together to execute joint works or pay for or contribute towards the doing of works which benefit them by another drainage authority. Power is therefore given to enable arrangements to be made between drainage authorities. Then comes the question of the drainage authority and the navigation authority. I stated how some of these very ancient navigation authorities are obliged to hold up a head of water under some obsolete Act, and thereby the drainage of a whole district is ruined. By arrangement between the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Trade, navigation authorities can enter into agreement with drainage authorities and carry out necessary drainage works. That, again, I think from my own experience will be a very useful power. The eighth Clause is that where owners of land within a drainage area are authorised to invest money on real security they may do it on a first mortgage of the drainage rate. It very often happens that the owner has a very large interest in the drainage of a district, but cannot advance money towards the execution of the work if he has a trust because these investments are not trust securities. The Crown, on its own property, cannot invest in drainage rates because they are not trust securities, but in a considerable area of Crown land they would be glad to do it if these drainage rates wore made trust securities. Then there follow certain definitions. There are certain minor Amendments in the Schedule which can be followed easily enough with the Drainage Act by your side.
  The second part begins with Clause 11. This is an important Clause, more important perhaps, in the second part than in the first. The first part of Clause 11 gives the Board the same powers to compel persons who are liable for the maintenance of banks, drains, etc., in their district to fulfil their obligations as is possessed by the existing drainage authority. Where there is no such body the Board will
  1498
  be able to do it. Sub-section (2) is very useful, as we have already found. It enables the Board to take action itself where the drainage authority neglects to exercise its power of drainage. Clause 12 is a new principle altogether and I frankly own it is a matter on which the opinion of the House may differ widely from mine. The object of it is to enable the Board to deal with small areas where the constitution of a. drainage board is not convenient but where drainage works are desirable for the production of food and would be profitable, but that the owner or owners cannot or will not agree to execute them. This is the one compulsory Clause in the Bill and the one new principle. The Board is to formulate a scheme and, after hearing the objections, if it decides to go on it is to settle and confirm it. In that scheme are to be set out the works which are proposed to be executed, the area which will be improved, the cost of the work and the manner in which the expenses are to be apportioned among the various lands in the area. When the Board has settled and confirmed this scheme it can carry it out with all the powers of a drainage board and can recover the expenses, subject to the limits specified in the scheme, from the landowner either in a lump sum or in the same manner as a private improvement rate, and it is proposed that the rate should be collected by the local authority with its other rates. I have in my mind a number of cases in which the areas drained are so small that they could not be dealt with by a drainage district, where at the most two, three, or four owners are concerned, and where it would be manifestly to the interests of food production that the drainage works should be carried out. In that case what is to be done is that the Board calculates the expense, definitely puts down a sum of money that the works will cost, and is entitled to go in and do the work as if it were itself a drainage board. Clause 13 allows the Board of Agriculture to delegate its powers, but not the power just mentioned, to any body which may be constituted to carry them out. In other words, it may delegate them to a committee of the county council which may act as its committee, or it may delegate its powers to a war executive committee. Clauses 14 and 15 and the remainder of the Bill do not call for any remark.
  The Bill no doubt touches a vast number of points in which Members will be

  1499
  interested. It is the sort of Bill which in the old days, in happier times, would, I believe, have gone upstairs. It is a Bill full of practical suggestions which can only be explained with great difficulty unless you explain them across a table; but we have in the present circumstances to bring it before this House, and my great argument in favour of this proposal is that every suggestion that is made here is a practical suggestion to meet practical difficulties. The practical suggestions as well as the difficulties we are trying to face in the proposal which we are now making. They will, we believe, facilitate in a great degree the work of drainage in this country without disturbing the existing drainage authorities, and at the same time without in any way attempting to anticipate the far larger measures for dealing with the waterways of this country in their broader aspects which must come some time or other. This Bill is confined to treating the rivers as the natural drains which convey the water off the land. It follows the old principles of the Drainage Acts except as regards Clause 12 to which I have drawn particular attention, and I hope that it will so far commend itself to the judgment of the House that they will give it a Second Reading. It is a measure which is designed to meet a real need which was never more urgent than it is to-day.
  Major LANE-FOX: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having brought in the Bill to the extent to which it goes, but I regret that, as he says, it is not a heroic measure. I wish it were. Of course, I understand the difficulties he is up against. He has a good many interests to conciliate and a good many interests which may clash, but I do regret that this Bill seems not only to perpetuate but to increase the number of small local bodies, which, to my mind, have been the curse and ruin of our drainage throughout the country. This Bill, though it sets up many new small drainage authorities, does give power to the Board to act in default and to delegate its powers to bigger bodies, such as the county council, and that all involves delay. I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to set up some permanent broad system by which there should be some definite county official permanently there dealing regularly with the problems as they arise and dealing with any neglect he may discover. There are many counties where the
  1500
  problem is small. In those cases these powers could be handed over to the county surveyor or any other county official it is desired to give them to; but in many counties it will involve the whole-time work of one man to deal regularly and consecutively with all the problems arising out of drainage. If we had had that we should have been saved the trouble which is arising now which is due to the constant neglect of many years. In many districts the admirable work done by our forefathers and the splendid work done by the old Dutchmen in the Eastern Counties has been absolutely ruined by sheer neglect.
  This Bill appears to contemplate a good deal of new work. I do not think there is much new work wanted. The problems of drainage are old problems. Our forefathers did this work very effectively, and what we are suffering from now is the neglect to maintain the work so well done by them. If we had had a definite authority responsible for the maintenance of old work, and to save the blocking of drains which exist, we should not be in the miserable position in which we find ourselves in many parts of the country to-day. We have had little local drainage authorities, and in some cases, no doubt, they have done good work, but in a great many cases those authorities have been composed of very worthy but sleepy old gentlemen whose idea was to save money and to worry nobody. Excellent principles under certain circumstances. The principle of letting sleeping dogs lie applies very well in some cases, but it does not do to allow what should be a running drain to stand. That is what has happened in many cases, and now that it is discovered all over the country that food production is necessary, we find that the result of the neglect of years is that many hundreds of thousands of acres are lying practically derelict and it is not possible to turn them into food production until they are drained. The result of the accumulated neglect of many years is that large works are required at a time when labour is scarce and supervisors and gangers are almost impossible to find. You have tribes of German prisoners up and down the country, but apparently there is an impossibility of finding large gangs to deal with the work. At this time, when this heavy expenditure is necessary, it falls with particular hardship on a particular class, and the main grievance which occurs in the matter of drainage is not dealt with in this Bill. The difficulty

  1501
  which many authorities have come across is that owing to the continued neglect to clear out the various streams and drains the work has become very expensive, and it appears that the cost can only be charged to the immediate frontager, the occupier whose land abuts on the drain or stream itself. That may appear a very small matter. I can give an instance of a widow whose farm was sold. The estate was sold and the tenancy changed. Some work on a stream which abutted on her land was undertaken by the war executive committee, and she was charged with the cost which related to that particular part of the drainage which ran through her land. Having lost her land, she will not get any benefit from the work, but still, in this particular case, a bill of some £35 is due, and will have to be paid by this particular widow. I heard of another case, in which a man, who was only a road mender and had a couple of cows—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong about this—
  Mr. PROTHERO: If you ask me the question, I think it will not be the effect of this Bill to rate only the occupiers who abut on the river. That will be altered.
  Major LANE-FOX: I am very glad to hear that, and I do hope it is clearly laid down in the Bill that not only the occupier immediately abutting on the drains or streams concerned, and not only the occupiers around will be rated, but that the charge will also fall on the owners. Up to now it has been a great grievance, and has been a great obstruction to the carrying out of drainage work, that only the immediate occupiers, who may be very small men occupying a very small portion of the land, have been rated. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not resent the friendly criticism I have offered. I wish to welcome the very valuable provisions in his Bill. I wish he could have been more heroic, although I quite realise the difficulties he has had to meet. I am quite certain that, so far as they go, the provisions of the Bill will make a very serious problem much easier to solve.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I think this Bill will be cordially appreciated, not only by the landlord, but by the tenant farmer, but I agree with the last speaker that it is a pity that the measure is not more drastic in its provisions. No one is now in doubt as to the absolute necessity for the production of food in this country, and it is becoming generally known, through
  1502
  the War executive committees, what an enormous area of our available land has been lying waste in this country during the last few years, mostly on account of the fact that the drainage system has been allowed to go out of repair, and has not been looked after. But, if I am not mistaken, the powers already delegated by the right hon. Gentleman to the War executive committees are rather stronger than the powers which he asks under the present Bill. I hope he will reconsider that matter. I am rather sorry to hear the conditions that he has imposed with regard to Clause 12. As a member and a one-time chairman of a War executive committee, may I point out that one difficulty we had was not with the larger areas, but with the smaller areas, and in particular with individual farms. We found, very often, that one farm or two farms adjoining could not be drained because, lower down, nearer to the sea, the land was in the possession of an owner who, for certain reasons, and occasionally from a question of title, could not be induced to interfere. The result was that the tenant of the adjoining farm, or the farm but one, could not interfere himself, and his land therefore became waterlogged. That kind of area is too small to form a board, the expense would be too great; and I do not quite understand that the question of expense can be effectively dealt with under the proposal made in Clause 12. Unless I am very much mistaken, the expense will be considerably too high for any tenant under these circumstances to make an appeal to the Board for their interference. I make this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, that the power now vested in the War executive committees—in any event in these individual cases, and I speak of individual farms, where the area, consequently, is very, very small—should be vested in the county council, to enforce the same authority and insist on the same drainage in the fields and districts. If that were done a very great deal could be dealt with at once, because there is also the danger, when the War is over and things resume their normal course in this country, of the same opposition and objection to expenditure, to which we have been so well accustomed, especially on the county councils, in past years. I am afraid that with the usual flow of imports of food into this country the tendency will be once again to forget the absolute necessity for

  1503
  drainage. That will be particularly so with regard to these small areas. There is many a farm, owned sometimes by the cultivator, and no doubt forming part of a very small estate, which could and would have been properly cultivated had they been able to insist upon the opening of the river a little lower down. With this criticism, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not resent, I wish to thank him on behalf of the Committee with which I am connected for this Bill.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I am quite sure every Member of the House will generally be in entire agreement with the object of the right hon. Gentleman has in view in bringing the Bill before us. If a million acres of cultivable land can be added to the present cultivable area in this country, much of which, as he suggested, being of very good productive quality, that would be a potential addition to the opportunities for food supply, which would be a very great service at the present time. In so far as his Bill secures that object I am sure he will have entire support and agreement, but I am bound to say that I share the regret of the two hon. Members who have just spoken, that the measure is not somewhat more drastic in its provisions, and that it does not make a little more certain that the objects which he has in view will be attained. I should like to ask him whether any estimate has been formed as to the amount of land which will absolutely be reclaimed as the result of this measure. As I understand it, he does not expect to reclaim a million acres, but that these million acres are, however, reclaimable, if in every case the provisions of the Bill are fully taken advantage of, and nobody objects. That is as I understand it. I should like to ask whether any estimate has been formed as to the proportion of the million acres which it is expected to secure under the provisions of this Bill.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I hope it will be all.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I wish to put my point in a plain way. Of course, obviously if any owner of derelict or water-logged land should happen to own one-third of the whole area which it is proposed to deal with in any district, he can, by merely saying that he objects, and without being required to submit to any tribunal any reason for objecting, thwart the whole scheme. I understand that is so, and I am afraid that past experience of the
  1504
  attitude taken up by sections of those who own the land of this country does not justify the anticipation of the right hon. Gentleman that he will be able to do all he hopes with these obstacles in his path. I suggest it ought not to be possible for one individual acting in this way to be able to thwart a whole scheme. It ought, at any rate, to be required that a majority of the landowners—at least 50 per cent.—shall state that they object to the scheme, and I agree, of course, that they should have an opportunity later on of being heard if they have reasonable objection. But to stop a scheme I do suggest it shall be necessary for at least 50 per cent. of the owners to raise the objection.
  10.0 P.M.
  I think much unnecessary delay is likely to arise from the provision which, as I understand it, enables one occupier with a very slight interest to insist on a Provisional Order with all the expenses of Parliamentary procedure. One contentious individual could in this way not only cause considerable inconvenience and considerable expense, but, what is much more vital from the point of view of food production, it could cause very great delay. Here again I suggest it ought not to be possible for this consent of Parliament—by means of a Provisional Order—to be insisted upon unless a reasonable proportion of those affected so desire. I would put it that the desire should be expressed by 25 per cent. of the owners. It certainly should not be in the power of one or two individuals to put these great obstacles in the way of attaining that object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view. I know the views which I am expressing are entertained in other sections of the House. I think that in this matter one carries with him not only the whole House but public opinion throughout the country as well, in declining to deal tenderly with anyone who out of sheer obstinacy or sheer self-will stands in the way of the full utilisation of the land, and if the right hon. Gentleman will take his courage into both hands and claim power to deal drastically with those who interpose obstacles to that utilisation, I am sure he will have behind him both the House and the country. I should like now to put a point which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman expects to come from me. He will not be surprised to learn that those who think with me view Clause 5 with a

  1505
  considerable amount of suspicion. I do not intend to trouble the House with a long historical statement of how the landowners of this country have tried to pass the burdens which should fall upon them on to the general population. It is true that in the course of a generation that has gone a very long way, and we are naturally apprehensive of any change in the law under which it may be possible that a considerable portion of the cost of this new scheme may be transferred from those who will benefit by the increase in the value of their land as a result of the drainage operations and imposed on the local authority as representing the whole community. I do not suggest at the moment that we shall propose to delete Clause 5 entirely, but we think it should be made clear beyond doubt that for any contribution made by the local authority, that authority shall get an absolute equivalent in the form of better conditions which make for the health of the district, and I would like to suggest that before either the local sanitary authority or the highway authority are called upon to contribute towards the expense of the scheme there ought to be some valuation taken as to how far the result of the operation has tended to increase the value of the land affected, and if the value of that land has been increased by the whole sum expended, then the owners and occupiers should in the first instance be called upon to meet the whole expenditure before any contribution is asked for from the local authorities. I am glad to understand that to some extent, at any rate, I have the assent of the right hon. Gentleman to that view and that he will be willing in Committee to consider favourably some such proposal.
  With regard to Clause 12, I do not so much offer opposition to it as ask for information upon it. I understand that the cases referred to by the hon. Member for Barkston-Ash (Major Lane-Fox), where the occupier is saddled with the whole cost, are cases which are dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act.
  Mr. PROTHERO: That is so.
  Mr. RAFFAN:I should like an assurance that there is full power under this Section to call for a contribution towards the cost from the owners of the land in proportion to the benefit which they receive from the improvement. That is a point which I and those who think with me regard as fundamental. We, indeed, would carry it very
  1506
  much further than this Bill proposes to do. I do not profess to have mastered the phraseology of Clause 12, but I hope it does continue the provision of the original Act, which throws the whole cost on the owner who benefits, and, if he does not pay, the occupier can be charged; but then the occupier is entitled to deduct from his rent any payment he may be called on to make. I hope that that provision is continued here. I hope also that any rate which is imposed will not be a rate which has no regard to the value of the improvement as it affects different proprietors. It must be obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that one property which may at present be entirely water-logged may benefit to a very great extent, while another property may benefit only to a, slight extent, and, therefore, the contribution ought to be in proportion to the benefit which the owner receives. I should like some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman either that that is so or that he will favourably consider in Committee any Amendment to the Clause which may be proposed with a view to carrying out that object.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS

    LUXURY DUTY.
    Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report what articles and places ought respectively to be classed as articles of luxury and places of luxury for the purpose of the provisions of any Act of the present Session which may impose a duty on payments made in respect of the purchase or supply of articles of luxury or on payments made in respect of goods sold or supplied, accommodation supplied, or services rendered, at any place of luxury:
    Mr. Acland, Sir John Harmood-Banner, Mr. Brookes, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Davison Dalziel, Sir Henry Dalziel, Mr. Timothy Davies, Sir Edward Goulding, Mr. Hinds, Mr. Kennedy Jones, Mr. Kiley, Mr. Partington, and Mr. Tyson Wilson nominated members of the Select Committee.
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee, in preparing the list of articles of luxury, to divide it into two parts, the one of which shall contain those

    1507
    articles which are intrinsically articles of luxury and the other of which shall contain those articles which ought to be treated as articles of luxury if sold at or above any specified price.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to appoint from outside its own body such additional persons as it may think fit to serve on any Sub-committees which it may appoint, with a view to the preparation of lists of articles of luxury of any particular classes, or lists of places of luxury of any particular classes or in any particular localities.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That five be the quorum.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

  LAND DRAINAGE [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under any Act of the present Session to amend the Land Drainage Act, 1861, and to make further provision for the drain age of agricultural land—(King's Recommendation signified).—To-morrow.—[Lord E. Talbot.]

  HORSE BREEDING [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under any Act of the present Session to regulate the use to stallions for stud purposes—(King's Recommendation signified).—To-morrow.—[Lord E. Talbot.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  BERKELEY ESTATE (NOTICES TO TENANTS).
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. RENDALL: I desire to call the attention of the House for a very few moments to a matter which seems to
  1508
  me to be of rather more than local importance, and I do so in pursuance of the notice I gave the President of the Board of Agriculture last week. I then asked a question with regard to certain events which have taken place on the Berkeley Estate in Gloucestershire. The particular events were these: Two or three weeks ago the landlord of the Berkeley Estate of 23,000 acres gave, through his agents, notices to quit to all the tenants farming the 23,000 acres. They are to quit in April of next year. The question I put was as to whether the right hon. Gentleman thought, in the circumstances of the time, it was a justifiable thing to do, whether it was likely to produce peace, quiet, and harmony among the farmers and agriculturists generally in this county, and, if not, whether he proposed to take any course to try to obviate any results that might accrue? The answers the right hon. Gentleman gave, I think I may say without undue prejudice, showed rather more sympathy for the landlord than for the farmer. He told me that the reasons which were given, and which I have no doubt are true, for proposing to return to the rents which were paid for these farms some twenty-five years ago were on account of the very heavy Estate Duties on the incoming landlord, and largely increased taxes. But the right hon. Gentleman left out another item mentioned in the notice, namely, "Other capital charges." Those three words which are contained in the letter that accompanies the notice to quit may mean anything and may mean nothing. It may be that there are heavy mortgages on reversion which the new comer has to pay on coming into the property. They may, of course, be camouflage of a desire to get a little more rent from the tenants. I do not wish to judge the matter in any way because I have no knowledge of the reasons, but I have a communication from the chairman of the executive committee of the Farmers' Union of Gloucestershire, and those words have very much concerned the tenants, who feel they are being made to pay something for reasons which are not made clear.
  Further, the right hon. Gentleman told me that the tenants will be able to continue at the rent which they paid a quarter of a century ago. That is not what the tenants say. It is quite true they are offered to be allowed to remain, with no fixity of tenure and no guarantee of

  1509
  security, and there is a great sense of insecurity and uncertainty. At the present moment, as we all know, the President of the Board of Agriculture, the Food Controller, and everybody all over the country, are making the farmer plough up land and do his utmost to increase food. Then comes an apple of discord like this thrown among a large body of farmers, and I think that sort of thing—certainly it is thought by many to be likely—will cause a great deal of unrest, dissatisfaction, and feeling that the future is very uncertain for these men. One has to realise that this increase of rent proposed in regard to these farms amounts to anything from 40 to 60 per cent. That is a very big increase. After all, only three or four years ago, according to the legislation which existed in this country, a farmer's income was supposed to be one-third of his rent, because it was on that amount that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day, and for many years before that day, taxed him. Until recently it has been supposed to be equal to his rent—that is, the amount on which the farmer has been taxed. Consequently, if that is accurate—and certainly it was thought to be accurate by the Government until a few weeks ago—it means that you are calling on the farmer by this proposal, by asking him to pay 60 per cent. extra rent, for more than half his income in increased rent. Let us look at what a 60 per cent. increase means. It means that a rent of £600 will be raised to £960, and that a rent of £300 will be raised to £480. Those are rather large figures, and if you have regard to the fact that rates and taxes have largely increased, it is probably true to say that a 60 per cent. increase in rent will probably amount to an 80 per cent. increase by the time everything else has been added. That means that amongst these tenants a man who has been paying £600 a year will pay something like £1,080, and that a tenant who has been paying £300 will pay £540. It is not surprising, having regard to the circumstances, that the farmers in Gloucestershire should feel very strongly about this matter, and they have passed the resolution, which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman has seen, to this effect:
  "That the Gloucestershire Farmers' Union expresses its surprise and regret at the serving of notices to quit on the agricultural tenants of the Berkeley Estate in this time of national crisis, and also at the request made to them to pay very largely increased rents, seeing the great
  1510
  demands now being made upon farmers, and strongly advises tenants not to sign the suggested new agreements, and pledges itself to support them in every possible way."
  That shows the spirit in which these notices have been received. Into the general merits of the question as to whether there is good ground from a purely economic point of view for raising the rents I have no intention of entering, as I do not think it germane to the subject. We are at war, and these farmers are asked to produce food at a time when, if starvation is not likely, it is undoubtedly possible, when meat is rationed, when bread is likely to be rationed—both things expected to be produced by the farmer—when everything the farmer sells is under control, and his profits are limited by order of the State, and when every speaker and every paper calls upon him to do all he can to produce food—and none more eloquently than the President of the Board of Agriculture himself—when all this is going on how can you defend, in the fourth year of the War, this sudden notice to the tenants that they must pay an increased rent. It seems to me to be striking a blow in the face of the pilot steering the ship to land in the middle of a raging storm. For a thing of that kind to happen—and they look to the President of the Board of Agriculture for support at a time like this—is most serious. It seems to me that there must be some limit put somewhere, for there seems to be no limit at all upon the landlords in the country. The landlord in the town, even under the Bill we have been discussing this afternoon, in regard to the great majority of property, is forbidden to increase rents or to eject the tenants. The reason for that is that the State must be served, and the Defence of the Realm Act requires that these conditions and limitations of the power of the landlord should be made by law. It seems to me rather hard, therefore, that persons like farmers who are being asked to make such sacrifices, and who are asked to produce food which is so very important to us, should not have under the Defence of the Realm Act any protection. This demand for increased rent is merely a term for profiteering. If you look at the definition of profiteering, you find that this increase of rent which is asked for, in so far as it exceeds increase of outlay or increase in the cost of repairs, is profiteering. Profiteering is so much extra profit obtained in war time over what

  1511
  could be obtained in peace time, and not caused by any increase in the price of materials or labour. If that be a correct definition, it seems to me that the whole of the rent demanded as a result of war conditions, but does not arise from any extra cost of labour and material, is profiteering. The only defence for profiteering—and it is a bad one—is that the person who makes the profit works very hard, and does something very important and advantageous to the State. I do not think that is a defence, but it is the only one that it is possible to make. The landlords, however, cannot make that defence.
  The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the farmers have introduced in another place a measure relating to war restrictions on agriculture, and it gives security of tenure during the War. That Bill has been brought in as the result of the work of the Farmers' Union, of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and of the Federation of County War Agricultural Committees. The right hon. Gentleman has been urging, and rightly urging, those Committees to turn out farmers who were not farming well and who were not doing their duty on their farms. I am sure we all support him in his effort to get the War Agricultural Committees to act up to their duties, but while he is urging them to turn out the farmer who is not farming properly, surely he must do something to protect the farmer who is farming properly? I think that is a duty which devolves upon him during the War, and while the present strain on the farmer continues. While such claims are being placed upon the farmer, no farmer should be at the mercy of a landlord who finds that he has to pay capital charges. I must add this sentence from a letter sent me by the chairman of the Gloucester Farmers' Union. He says "that the service of these notices and the demands governing them have caused consternation, that the tenants are placed in a position of insecurity and uncertainty which cannot but have a prejudicial effect on the food production of this estate and throughout the country." These notices and the facts connected with them have become national property in the last few weeks, and they will become still more known throughout the length and breadth of the country. The result must be that if the Board of Agriculture and Parliament looks upon these notices quite calmly as
  1512
  the perfectly natural thing to be done during the War, other landlords will feel that it is good form and not unpatriotic to give similar notices, and we shall have practically the whole farming community having to face an enormously-increased rent, amounting to over 50 per cent. That cannot be for the good of the country, and, quite apart from the economic merits of the case, as to which I express no opinion, I do say that at a time like this it is altogether against national interests. So I appeal most sincerely to the right hon. Gentleman not only to say something which will alleviate the fear of farmers, but to do something which will effectively deal with the situation.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I am obliged to the hon. Member for bringing this matter forward, and I should like to state it from the landowner's point of view as he has stated it from the farmer's point of view. Does he realise this, that the President of the Board of Agriculture represents the relations of the State to agriculture, and not only the interests of the farmer, and that he has also to consider all sides of the question, the interests of the landowner as well as the farmer? The case, as I understand it, is this: Lord Berkeley is the owner of 23,000 acres, of which some 3,000 acres are woodland and cottage property, the remaining 20,000 acres being let in farms to his tenants. He has recently succeeded to the estate, and he finds himself called upon to pay immediately a sum which is nearer a million than three-quarters of a million.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Is that for Death Duties?
  Mr. PROTHERO: If I may tell the story in my own way, I shall be much obliged. The money representing this call is mortgages which are called up and Death and Estate Duties. Lord Berkeley has no choice. He is not a willing seller; he is most reluctant to sell. He is not certain that he is going to sell this property. The terms in which his agent wrote to the tenants show that on the face of it. He said that, in consequence of the heavy Death Duties and other capital charges for which Lord Berkeley had to provide, it might become necessary that some portions of the estate should be sold, and also that the agricultural tenants of the parts of the estate not sold should revert to the rents which prevailed before the agricultural depression. It is uncertain, then, whether the estates are going to be sold

  1513
  at all. Lord Berkeley owns, as the House is probably well aware, London property as well. It is a question whether he is going to sell parts of his country estate and parts of his London estate, or whether he will be able to meet these heavy charges by the sale of one property alone. But the mortgagees are pressing him for payment, and the Government is pressing him. What is he to do? What can he do? He has got to sell something in order to meet these enormous, these crushing calls. Twenty thousand acres is grazing land. During the War there have been added 750 acres of grass.
  Now farmers who have made the most profit during the War, apart from potato farmers, are the tenants of grazing districts. Their expenses have risen far less than those on agricultural land, and these tenants of the grazing land on the Berkeley Estate are tenants of some of the richest grazing land in the whole of England. They, therefore, would have been, under any circumstances, making very large profits. But when you remember that they are holding at rents lower than in the 'nineties, I confess I do not believe that my hon. Friend is representing in any sense the feeling of the farmers of England if he represents to this House that these Berkeley tenants do not know perfectly well that they ought to pay, as they have paid, very much higher rents to their landlord, and that in these circumstances, considering the position in which their landlord is placed, that they will not be prepared to pay them. I do not believe that any body of British farmers would back up the Berkeley Estate tenants with those facts before them if the Berkeley Estate tenants refused. Let us consider what I have said about the difference of prices. I am sorry to say I have only here the prices of 1893, and I give you at once the fact that those are lowest in the years round about, but, in any case, remember these men are holding under rents calculated upon this basis; they have received abatements to meet these prices. The price of wheat in 1893 was 26s. 4d.; in 1917, 75s. 9d. The price of barley in 1913 was 25s. 7d.; now it is 64s. 9d. The price of oats in 1913 was 18s. 9d.; now it is 49s. 10d. You may say, "All that is perfectly true, but these men are grass farmers; those prices do not touch them." That may be. But take now the price of meat. In 1893 beef was 4¾d. per 1b. and mutton 5d.; in 1917 the price of beef was 12⅜d. per lb. and mutton 13¾d.
  Mr. RENDALL: Wages have gone up.
  Mr. PROTHERO: The wages-bills of grass farmers are lower than those of the arable farmer. If these men were extensive arable farmers there would be something to be said for them. One man is employed on 100 acres of grass to four on arable land. Therefore, the wages question is the least important. The hon. Member says that he is told by his constituents that food production will be prejudiced if anything happens to these farmers. I very much doubt it. Will anybody in this House pretend that if these men are given notice to quit they are not going to overstock their grass land than understock it in the last year. Therefore, you will get more food production, and not less.
  Mr. RENDALL: Will you get better tenants?
  Mr. PROTHERO: I do not say that, but what I have said is common sense.
  Mr. RENDALL: Also what I said.
  Mr. PROTHERO: It does not apply to arable land. Are you going to tell me that a man is not going to stock his land, that he is going to see his grass growing and let it waste by under stocking it because he has notice to quit? If a man is a good farmer he will, supposing he has got an arable farm say to himself: "I will get the last ounce out of that land in the last year I am there." I do not say it is good for the arable land. It may damage it, but for actual food production possibly the result will be that he will get more. If he is a bad farmer, what he will do will possibly be to put some fertiliser upon it that will give it a stimulus for a short time. Neither of them will damage the land in a year's time more than it will recover. Yet whether he is a good farmer or a bad one the chances are he will get just as much produce and rather more off the arable land in consequence of the notice to quit. In the old days what happened was that the farmer went in for a heavy outgoing valuation by fallowing. If he was going out he had an additional amount of fallow land for which he was compensated by the incoming tenant. But I ask, with the pries of wheat at 75s., is the arable farmer going to indulge largely, in the production of fallowing? I do not think he is. Although I willingly admit that if there were any circumstances which showed that giving notice to quit necessarily reduced production, I think

  1515
  the Government would be bound to interfere, but I very much doubt whether any such effects can be proved. I have read pretty carefully the arguments on which the resolution of the Central Chamber of Commerce proceeds. They all assume that the farmer would be so disturbed by a notice to quit that he would not put his back into it and raise the amount of produce. The argument is that that is not as a fact the result. Therefore I cannot say, and while I am willing and ready to advise that if food production is seriously prejudiced some abnormal measure should be passed, I am not prepared, on the evidence that has been given, to advise the Government to give security of tenure even during the War. I have to consider the case of the landowner as well as the farmer. Every restriction you impose upon the free sale of land—a principle which many hon. Members have always advocated—that is, the principle of free trade in land—ought not to be lightly interrupted. Every security you give diminishes the selling value of the landowner's land. The landowner, I was going to say, has been hammered, but at any rate he has suffered as much as any other class, and therefore I am reluctant to restrict the selling value of his land. I dare say what I am saying quite frankly and straightforwardly may not be popular. I have been asked at agricultural meetings whether I am disposed to grant this security of tenure, and I have always said "No." What I do think is a real grievance is the land speculator, and anything I can do to stop him I shall be glad to do.
  There is one other thing. If a farmer has ploughed up grass land he has done it at the sacrifice of his immediate profits. I hope the House realises that this great effort which farmers have made in ploughing up their grass land is a sacrifice of their prospects of profits in the immediate future. The first year they lose money, and the second year they get it back. Supposing a tenant, after ploughing up grass in the first year, gets notice to quit. He is a sufferer if he is turned out before the second year, and if any measure can be devised to help him I am prepared to consider it.
  Mr. RENDALL: The Chairmen of the Gloucestershire Farmers' Union say that they have to plough 10 per cent. They have ploughed 5 per cent., and are now
  1516
  ploughing the other 5 per cent., and they are in the position of not reaping the profit.
  Mr. PROTHERO: If that were the case, they would come under the principle which I was trying to enunciate; but, as far as that goes, they have got a real grievance, and one which ought to be redressed, and I am quite prepared to do my best to do it. Let me, in conclusion, point out what is the position which is taken up, inadvisable as I think, by the Berkeley tenants. They will not apparently buy themselves—
  Mr. RENDALL: They have not been asked to do so.
  Mr. PROTHERO: As to that, let me say that Lord Berkeley is only too glad to let his tenants have an opportunity of buying their holdings and doing it outside the auction. But, as you are aware, there are mortgagees to be consulted, and he has got to make a proper price for his land. The tenants must not expect that they are going to buy on the basis of rents calculated on the prices of the 'nineties. But they will have an opportunity of buying—
  Mr. RENDALL: Upon war prices?
  Mr. PROTHERO: Upon war prices for land.
  Mr. RENDALL: Upon war prices of the produce of the land?
  Mr. PROTHERO: No, I do not think so. As I understand, it is the old arrangement.
  Mr. RENDALL: The War has forced prices up.
  Mr. PROTHERO: But are they not to go back to the old rates? Why do you keep harping on war prices?
  Mr. RENDALL: Well, I do not like to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again.
  Mr. PROTHERO: I think I must go on. The position which the Berkeley tenants seem to me to take up is this: "We will not buy the land, and we will not let anyone else buy it. We want to go on exactly with the old rents, and we will not allow Lord Berkeley, who, mind you, has got to pay in every case enormously increased amounts for the upkeep of the estate, to get our help to pay those extra charges." I do not think it is fair, and I believe, if the Berkeley case were stated to any body of British farmers, that they would say, "In the first place, wait until you know

  1517
  whether you have to go; in the second place, if you are going and you have a chance of buying, buy; and, in the third alternative, submit like men to a rise in your rents." I hope that I have not spoken too warmly. I meant to tell the House exactly the truth as it seems to me and to express my view that the security asked for at the present moment—that is to say, making notice to quit inoperative during the War—is not a wise thing. I think the farmers of this country who at the present time are raising the cry of food production and endeavouring to appeal to townsmen on that question in order to obtain for themselves the privilege of sitting at their low rents are playing with fire, and are steering a course which will be disastrous to British agriculture.
  Mr. E. DAVIES: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has adopted the attitude he has taken up to-night. I feel sure that his speech will be read to-morrow with great concern by all the farmers of the country. It would not be wise on my part, not being a farmer, to enter upon a discussion as between the right hon. Gentleman and the National Farmers' Union. We have been told that insecurity of tenure does not detrimentally affect the cultivation of land. I remember that some eight years ago the Government appointed a Committee of Members of both Houses, which sat under Lord Feversham, to consider the position of the tenants of landed estates, in view of the sales which had taken place, and the whole of the evidence given by the farmers was to the effect that the insecurity experienced by tenants was producing a detrimental effect upon the cultivation of the land. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to go so far as the unanimous recommendation of that Committee, which was that the tenants should be entitled in any event to two years' notice on the sale of the land, so that they could make some arrangements for the future.
  1518
  The right hon. Gentleman in discussing this case to-night forgets that the tenant has some interest in the land over and above renting it during the notice to quit. For instance, he is entitled to compensation for the improvements he has effected upon the land, and also for the manurial value. It is generally admitted that at present the compensation given by the Act of Parliament is insufficient, and for that reason to deprive the tenant of possession of his farm is a rather more serious matter than the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think. More than that, the evil is much more widespread than the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. It is not by any means confined to the Berkeley Estate; it is prevalent all over the country. It is to be found, for instance, in Shropshire, from where I had a letter the other day stating that a small estate had been put up for sale no less than three times in two years. In Anglesey notice to quit was given to the tenants on three estates, in each case not with the object of realising the land for the payment of any duties or mortgages, but with the sole object of raising the rents. Every war agricultural committee in the country will agree that the insecurity which has been caused by these notices has undoubtedly hindered the cultivation of land. The evil is now being dealt with by some of these committees, by the committees themselves taking over possession of the land and cultivating it through their own agents. That is rather an unwise course to take. I would appeal again to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot, at all events during the War, put into operation the suggestion made by Lord Feversham's Committee and provide that tenants shall not be dispossessed without obtaining from the landlord at least two years' notice.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes before Eleven o'clock.