Commons Sitting of 22 January 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (WAR CONTRIBUTIONS).
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 31st December, 1917, directing that Contributions by certain Colonies and Protectorates towards the cost of the War should be paid into the Exchequer as cellaneous Revenue [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CONSOLIDATED FUND.
Abstract Account presented, showing the Issues made from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in the financial year ended 31st March, 1917, for the Interest, and Management of the Debt, for the Civil List, and for all other Issues in the financial year for services charged directly on the said Fund, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 177.]
NATIONAL RELIEF FUND.
Copy presented of Report to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales by the Executive Committee of the National Relief Fund on the Administration of the Fund up to the 30th September, 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table
MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copy presented of Raw Coffee (Returns) Order, 1917, Oils and Fats (Requisition) Order, 1917, Bacon and Ham Curers (Returns) Order, 1917, Refined Vegetable Oils (Requisition) Order, 1917, Committees (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1918, Sugar Order, 1917 (General Licence), Bread (Use of Potatoes) Order, 1918 (General Notice), Flour and Bread (Prices) Order, 1917 (General Licence), made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
      Colonel BURNasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the potato ration issued to the German prisoners in this country has been increased from 2 oz. to 20 oz. per diem?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): Yes, Sir; the change was made on the recommendation of the medical authorities. The extra potatoes are, of course, in substitution for other articles of food, which are less easily obtainable.
      Colonel BURN: Does not my hon. Friend think that this increase in the ration is abnormally great and entirely out of proportion to the rations our people are getting in Germany?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: As I have pointed out, there is no real increase in the general ration; it is merely substitution for other articles of food which are not so easily obtained.
      Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: How do these rations compare with what the Food Controller advises the ordinary person to take?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have not gone into that question.

      WHEAT (UNITED KINGDOM).
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture the acreage of wheat grown in the United Kingdom for 1916–17, specifying the acreage of winter- and spring-sown wheat respectively; and the acreage of winter wheat sown in 1917 and the estimated amount to be sown in the spring of 1918?
      Sir R. WINFREY (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture): Wheat was grown in the United Kingdom in 1916–17 on 2,106,000 acres. In Great Britain the total was 1,979,000 acres, of which 200,000 acres were returned as spring-sown. The returns for Ireland do not distinguish winter-sown from spring-sown. No trustworthy figures can yet be

      781
      given of the acreage of wheat sown, or intended to be sown, this season, but there is reason to believe that satisfactory progress is being made.

      SUGAR PRODUCTION (BRITISH EMPIRE).
      General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has been arrived at to safeguard the production of sugar in the British Empire after the War; and whether British producers will receive an undertaking that Empire-grown sugar will be given a preference over sugar from Germany and Austria at the conclusion of hostilities?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Stanley): I am not yet in a position to make a statement as to the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to this matter.
      General CROFT: Is not this a question which obviously requires a decision immediately, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great feeling that exists right through the British Empire on the subject, and that the Government have not yet stated whether or not British Empire sugar is going to have advantages over German or Austrian sugar after the War?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I am fully aware of the importance of the matter, but I cannot give an answer to-day.
      General CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a year ago since I first asked the question?

      LIVE STOCK (IRELAND).
      Mr. FIELDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, in view of the exportation of live stock from Ireland, he will consider the advisability of having a census taken of cattle, sheep, pigs, and horses; and whether he can state the Regulations made and enforced to safeguard the average numbers of live stock for breeding purposes so as to keep up the supply?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The Department of Agriculture do not consider it necessary or advisable at present to put farmers and the police to the trouble of taking a special live stock census, as suggested. Sufficient statistics are being obtained by the Department under existing arrangements to enable the changes in the numbers of live stock in Ireland to be carefully observed.
      782
      By Orders under the Maintenance of Live Stock Act, 1915, the Department have prohibited, or restricted, the slaughter or exportation of the following classes of live stock, with a view to the future requirements of the country: Young calves of either sex, young heifers up to a certain stage of development, mulch cows, in-calf cows and heifers, and breeding sows. The Orders are still in force, and the whole question is receiving careful attention.

      SUGAR CANDY (BEE-KEEPING).
      General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the price of sugar candy for bee-keeping; and whether he will consider the advisability of fixing the price of such sugar so as to encourage the production of honey and prevent the decrease of this food?
      Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The answer to this question was printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT of Thursday, 17th instant.
      Mr. MOLTENO: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the price is so very high—more than double the price of ordinary sugar—and what there is in this sugar candy which makes it so costly?
      Mr. PARKER: I can only say that the answer to the question shows that the candy is sold practically without profit.

      RACE MEETINGS (CORN RATIONS).
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the number of race meetings advertised to take place in the coming months; that such meetings are causing misgiving in the public mind that corn rations used for race-horses may be needed for human food; whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I cannot usefully add anything to the reply which was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food to a similar question by my right hon. Friend on the 16th of January, and to the various answers which I gave to the supplementary questions following.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Is it not the intention of the Government to reconsider this matter?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The subject has not been brought before the Cabinet in any way. I shall bring what has been said by my right hon. Friend and others to the notice of the Cabinet.

      SUGAR.
      General CROFTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether ships homeward bound from the West Indies in the last year have sailed light; and whether there is any scarcity of sugar for export in the West Indies?
      Mr. PARKER: The information asked for in the first part of the question should be obtained from the Ministry of Shipping. As the bulk of the new crop is not yet available for export the quantity of sugar awaiting shipment in the West Indies is at present small.
      Mr. BILLING: Are we to understand that the Ministry of Food cannot get information from the Ministry of Shipping?
      General CROFTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the passengers on board a homeward-bound steamer from East and South Africa when arriving at Plymouth were compelled to throw all supplies of sugar in their possession overboard; whether any instructions exist to enforce this order; and what action he proposes to take?
      Mr. PARKER: The Customs Regulations, which are framed to carry out the wishes of the Sugar Commission, require that sugar imported by passengers without licence in quantities exceeding 1 lb. is to be seized and sold for the benefit of the community at large. I hesitate to believe, on the strength of the newspaper extract with which my hon. and gallant Friend has furnished me, that passengers on any ship have thrown considerable supplies of sugar overboard. There is certainly no ground for the suggestion that-they were compelled to do so.
      General CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the case if I send him the name and address?
      Mr. PARKER: I understand inquiries have been made.
      General CROFT: Is there any result of the inquiries?
      Mr. PARKER: The result is contained in the answer I have read out.
      Mr. ALDEN: Is it the case that members of the mercantile marine who have brought in small quantities of sugar have had it taken away, and what is the object of it?
      Mr. PARKER: I suppose the object is to carry out the decision of the Food Controller that no one shall have more than a certain quantity of sugar.
      Mr. ALDEN: Do we not need sugar in this country?
      Mr. PARKER: The answer I have given states that the sugar so seized shall be distributed over the general community.

      PRISONERS OF WAR AND CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether contracts for the supply of provisions to German prisoners of war and British conscientious objectors, and the like persons under restraint, are en-forcible, though they entail the supply of food to such prisoners and objectors at prices below ruling market or officially fixed rates to the prejudice of loyal British subjects, or whether any steps can be taken under the Defence of the Realm Act to render void any stipulation as to price contained in such contracts?
      Mr. PARKER: Contracts for supplies for the purposes mentioned in the question are in the same category as other contracts. In Orders relating to prices the Food Controller does not interfere with contracts where the price is less than the maximum price.
      Sir J. D. REES: In that case would it not be possible for persons of this category to lie receiving stores—food and beef—at far lower prices than the public who are paying?
      Mr. PARKER: In so far as the public pay for these supplies it is clearly to their advantage that prices should be as low as possible.
      Sir J. D. REES: On the other hand, is it not distinctly in favour of these people?

      COST OF LIVING.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will take immediate steps to make generally known throughout the

      785
      United Kingdom the fact that the Board of Trade's calculation that the cost of living has increased 105 per cent, since the War began is subject to such drastic qualifications that the figure might with equal accuracy be given as 59 per cent.; and whether the Ministry of Food intends to await the result of an examination of the figures by a Special Committee not yet appointed before correcting or explaining the true signification of figures upon which action of high financial and economic significance has in no small measure been based?
      Mr. PARKER: The article in the "Labour Gazette" which contains the estimate as to a rise in retail prices stated at 105 per cent. contains also the qualifying paragraph which was quoted in my answer of 16th January. Moreover, I would point out that the article in question is not headed "Cost of Living," but "Course of Retail Prices of Food," and that the paragraph in which considerations affecting changes in the cost of food expenditure are introduced is that in which the rise of 59 per cent. is referred to. It is to be regretted that so little attention has been given to this important paragraph, but I do not see what further publicity can be given.

      BUTTER (PROHIBITION OF IRISH EXPORTS).
      Colonel GRETTONasked upon what ascertained facts the Ministry decided to prohibit the export of butter from Ireland to Great Britain; and, particularly, if it is considered there is a shortage of butter in Ireland, what is the extent of the estimated shortage and by what means has it been estimated?
      Mr. PARKER: It has been necessary, in order to effect economies in transport, to arrange that Ireland should not receive supplies of foreign and colonial butter, but should satisfy her requirements from her own production. At the same time, the output of Irish home made butter, as has been ascertained by means of returns received from creameries, falls short by 30 per cent. of the normal supplies in winter months. An Order prohibiting for the present the export of butter from Ireland has, therefore, been issued by the Food Controller on the advice of the Food Control Committee for Ireland, after consultation with,the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.
      Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman mot aware that a considerable amount of
      786
      butter is being sent from Ireland by parcel post, and are any steps being taken to deal with that?
      Mr. PARKER: The answer I have given shown that the Food Controller has prohibited the export of butter from Ireland, and I presume that the point raised by the hon. Member will be dealt with.
      Sir J. D. REES: Will this matter be reconsidered, in view of the fact that the shortage in England is so much greater than in Ireland?
      General M'CALMONT: Is the hon. Member aware of the serious effect which this Order will have upon the most important butter industry in Ireland? Is he aware that many firms have had to give up their trade, and will not get it back, and is he satisfied that the Irish people can afford to pay the price of this butter?
      Mr. PARKER: I presume that the Ministry of Food is acting in consultation with the Irish Food Controller, and is endeavouring to see that the Irish population shall not go short of a necessary article of food simply because the English population are richer than the Irish population.
      Mr. ARCHDALE: Would it not be possible to release butter from private dairies in Ireland the owners of whom and their families are in England doing war work, and have been in the habit of getting it over, neither butter nor milk being sold in Ireland from those dairies?
      Mr. PARKER: My answer must stand; but I will convey what the hon. Member says to the Ministry of Food.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: The answer is quite right.

      MEAT CONSUMPTION (UNITED KINGDOM).
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the amount of meat per head consumed in the United Kingdom for the six months ending 31st December; whether it was in excess of the recommended ration and, if so, by how much and what is the estimated amount of meat per head available from Home sources for the first six months of 1918?
      Mr. PARKER: The estimated consumption of meat of all kinds by the civilian population of the United Kingdom for the six months ended 31st December was 2 lbs. per head per week. This was about 8 per cent. in excess of the maximum quantity based on the voluntary ration of 2 lbs.

      787
      per week for adults, with smaller quantities for children. In reply to the last part of the question it may be stated that any estimate of the meat supplies available for the first half of the Present year must be very tentative, but the information available indicates a considerable reduction On the rate of consumption in the second half of last year.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Can the Food Controller give us some idea of the amount of meat in this country—home-produced meat—for consumption during the next six months?
      Mr. PARKER: I have not the figures before me, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will endeavour to obtain the information.
      Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence with the newspapers to stop their panic headlines, which do much to encourage the enemy?
      Mr. PARKER: I am afraid I cannot influence the newspapers in this country, but I am sure that Lord Rhondda is doing all he can to get the newspapers to support him in his arduous task.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      WOMEN AND MILITARY LAW.
      Mr. ARNOLD WARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether women who are engaged in work in France connected with the Army are subject to military law; whether, when charges are made by the military authorities against a woman that woman has any right to demand an investigation corresponding to the right and duty imposed upon officers under paragraph 446 of the King's Regulations; and whether he will consider the desirability of according this privilege to women working for the Army in France?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The conditions under which camp followers may be dealt with under military law will be found by reference to Sections 176 (10) and 184 (1) of the Army Act. No such right exists as is mentioned by my hon. Friend, and there is no intention of granting any such privilege to camp followers, who are merely permitted to accompany an army in the field at the will of the Commander-in-Chief.
      788
      I do not, of course, refer to enrolled members of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps serving in the field, whose conditions are totally different, and to whom are accorded privileges and advantages which officers and men of the British Army now possess.

      TIME-EXPIRED MEN (DISCHARGE).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he observed a decision given by the Lambeth Tribunal on 28th December, in which it was agreed that a discharged man who had served overseas could not be compulsorily posted under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act; and whether he now proposes to discharge all time-expired men recalled on the basis of service irrespective of wounds?
      Mr. MACPHERSON:I am not aware of the decision referred to. Perhaps my hon. Friend would consult the Minister of National Service, but I know of no recent alteration in the conditions of discharge.

      FIGHTING UNITS (WINTER AT HOME).
      Mr. HOGGEasked whether it is proposed to give all fighting units who went through the 1914–15 winter at the front the opportunity of spending the present winter at home?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that this is not possible, in view of the present state of the man-power question.
      Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give no consideration whatsoever to the men who have been serving?

      LIVE-STOCK COMMISSIONER (SCOTLAND).
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) for what reason Mr. P. M'Dougall was exempted from military service; whether the reason was that his services were urgently required on his farm; if so, since he has subsequently been given a Government appointment as commissioner for live-stock in Scotland at £1,000 a year, and is therefore not required for his farm, his exemption will be cancelled; whether the War Office was a party at any stage to the grant of such exemption; (2) if he is aware that five out of the six sub-commissioners for live-stock in Scotland, who are paid £500 a year, are of military age; will he say why such as are of that age have been exempted; whether other persons not of military age and capable of

      789
      performing their duties cannot be found in Scotland; whether such live-stock sub-commissioners as are of military Age will be forthwith drafted into the Army; and whether the War Office was A party at any stage to the exemptions granted?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): The appointments apparently referred to by the hon. Member are proposed by the Ministry of Food in connection with the Live-stock Scheme, and, as they affect men of military age, they have been referred for the concurrence of the Ministry of National Service, which has not yet been given. I understand that the men selected already hold tribunal exemptions as farmers, and that these are still current. I have suggested to the Ministry of Food that, before the appointments are confirmed, further inquiries should be made and, in particular, that the local agricultural committees should be consulted, if this has not already been done, in order to ascertain whether suitable men over military age cannot be found to fill these appointments.
      Sir J. D. REES: Am I to understand that the exemptions of these gentlemen are at present under suspense, and that the Ministry of Food, so far as it is concerned, will not ask that they shall be confirmed?
      Mr. BECK: I do not think the hon. Member quite understands the position. These men have been exempted as individuals by the tribunals, and those exemptions are still current. It is now proposed to employ them by the Ministry of Food in an official capacity, and such applications must come to the Ministry of National Service, and they are being considered.
      Mr. G. FABER: Were these men not exempted because they had some agricultural value, and as soon as that value ceases should not these exemptions be cancelled?
      Sir J. D. REES: Does the hon. Member not see that a man who cannot leave his farm to go and fight, but can leave it to draw £1,000 a year is a man whose exemption should be at once cancelled?
      Mr. BECK: If my hon. Friend will read my answer he will see that those facts are being fully borne in mind, and at the present moment the Minister of National Service has not given the necessary authority to employ these men as Government officials.
      Sir JOHN JARDLNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a farmer with £15,000 capital has had all his labourers taken away, the sole man left having got up to colour-sergeant after serving seven years, while other men have been refused exemption after years of service?
      Mr. WING: Has not the gentleman mentioned in the question already been employed for very many months?
      Mr. BECK: He is certainly not employed by the Ministry of National Service, and we have written asking if he cannot be replaced by a man who is not of military age.
      Mr. WATT: Does the Ministry of Food not advise in these matters?
      Mr. BILLING: Has the Minister of National Service to ask for permission or does he order a man from another Department?
      Mr. BECK: The hon. Member cannot really have been listening to what I have said. I said that no man could be employed in the Government service of military age without the consent of the Ministry of National Service.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary for Scotland Whether he was consulted at any stage regarding the exemptions granted to Mr. P. M'Dougall, Commissioner of Live-stock for Scotland, and to his six sub-commissioners, of whom five are believed to be, like himself, of military age; and whether he was a party in any way to the appointment of these gentlemen of military age to the offices they now hold it salaries of £1,000 and £500 a year respectively?
      The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. For the facts as to Mr. M'Dougall's exemption I beg to refer my hon. Friend to the answers given him by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food on the 16th instant, and also. by the Minister of National Service of to-day.
      Sir J. D. REES: Does it not fall within the right hon. Gentleman's duties as Secretary for Scotland to terminate what is practically a scandal and a rock of offence in and out of Scotland?
      Mr. MUNRO: I have informed my hon. Friend that my Department has no responsibility in this matter.
      Mr. W. WATSON: Was it not stated in a previous answer given by the Ministry of Food that the Board of Agriculture in Scotland was consulted about these appointments before they were made; and, if so, is the right hon. Gentleman's answer to-day consistent with that fact?
      Mr. MUNRO: I think my hon. and learned Friend is mistaken. I made special inquiry, and the Board of Agriculture, according to my information, were not consulted.
      Mr. WATSON: Is it correct, then, to say that they were not consulted in any way before the appointments were made?
      Mr. MUNRO: The question put to me was whether I was consulted regarding -the exemptions, and the answer to that question is in the negative. The answer with regard to the Board of Agriculture on that point is also in the negative.
      Mr. WATSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the -question relating to the appointments and not to the exemptions—that is the part to which I am referring?
      Mr. MUNRO: According to my information, the Board of Agriculture was not consulted, and certainly I was not consulted.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary what information he has of the state of health of a conscientious objector named Eagle, now detained in Maidstone Prison; whether this man has been on work strike for a considerable period; whether he is in a dying condition owing to disciplinary and dietetic punishments; and whether he will be released before fatal consequences ensue?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): This man is in good health, and there appears to be no ground whatever for the suggestion that his health has been injured by disciplinary and dietetic punishments. He has been punished on four occasions during the last two months for refusing to work, but the punishments awarded were of a very moderate kind.
      Mr. KING: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that we often get the statement that men are in good health and subsequently we find that they have collapsed and even died?
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Home Secretary on whose authority the conscientious objectors at Princetown have been allowed to hire a cottage for use as a kind of club; whether this hostel, as the conscientious objectors call it, is a hotbed of revolutionary propaganda; and will he cause inquiries to be made with a view to the closing down of this establishment?
      Mr. BRACE: I understand that a building in Princetown called "The Friends? Hostel" is rented by a committee of the Society of Friends, and is open to conscientious objectors while out on leave. No meetings of any political organisation have been held on the premises, and no literature other than books or magazines of general interest is sold or distributed. A meeting for worship is held every Sunday evening. As at present advised, I see no ground for interference.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a rule of the Home Office that no propaganda whatever shall take place in Princetown, and that no rooms shall be used for the purpose; and, if so, why is this room used?
      Mr. BRACE: I have explained to the hon. Member in my answer that this room is not being used for propaganda purposes.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Home Secretary why the programme used by the conscientious objectors at Prince town at the concert they gave on the Thursday after Christmas Day in the Wesleyan church bore no printer's name; and, having regard to the statutory provisions in such matter, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
      Mr. BRACE: I am advised that the statutory provisions do not apply to a document of this kind.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that there were several pamphlets printed and that they had no printer's name upon them; is it to be supposed that these things are printed in the prison; and will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the conscientious objectors have free access to the prison press?
      Mr. BRACE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice of some of those questions.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I will.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Home Secretary whether several hundred-

      793
      weights of dried fruit were supplied to the conscientious objectors at Princetown for Christmas, while other people in the vicinity and elsewhere had to go short; that 150 tons of coal a month are provided for consumption in the private gas plant in the prison, and this when ordinary citizens have to ration themselves to meet the calls of patriotism; why these men who have refused to defend their country against the enemy, and have left that task to their neighbours, are allowed to receive this preferential treatment; and why numbers of turkeys and geese were permitted to be consumed by these men at Christmas, seeing that food was and is so scarce a commodity that many people had and still have to go without?
      Mr. BRACE: Dried fruit is part of the regular dietary at Princetown, but the amount consumed in the last three months of 1917 was less than 1 lb. per head. The consumption of coal for gas is 105 tons a month, which furnishes the supply not only of the prison building, with 1,200 inmates, but also of other Government buildings in Princetown. No turkeys or geese were supplied to or eaten by the men in the work centre, but possibly some of them dined at Christmas with their friends outside. The Committee is consulting the Ministry of Food on the question of the purchase of food by these men outside their rations.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that several hundredweight of dried fruit were taken into the prison during Christmas week?
      Mr. BRACE: The facts are as I have stated them in the answer.

      CONSCRIPTED MEN, MAIDSTONE.
      Mr. KINGasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that a married man with five children, J. Dloogatz, R.D.R., Maidstone, who has for years suffered from tuberculosis, been in two sanatoria, and was recently a patient at Victoria Park Chest Hospital, where he was warned against sleeping in the same room as other persons, has been taken into the Army, and has for two weeks been sleeping on a cement floor with a crowd of men at Maidstone; and whether, to prevent the spread of tuberculosis, this man will be immediately discharged?
      Mr. BECK: I am having inquiries made into the matters referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's question. I
      794
      think that the points raised in the remainder of the question should be addressed by my hon. Friend to the Under-Secretary of State for War.
      Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there are a great number of scandals and that there has been a great deal of newspaper comment on the conditions at that place?
      Mr. BECK: I have no knowledge of the hon. Member's scandals.

      WOMEN'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS (INSURANCE).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why members of the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps serving abroad are suspended from insurance and have to make good their arrears on resuming work in the United Kingdom?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): It has been decided to make good these arrears in future.

    AIR RAIDS IN GERMANY.

      BRITISH AND FRENCH PRISONERS OF WAR.
      Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to the effect that hundreds of British and French officers, prisoners of war, have been sent to Stuttgart or other places in order to be subjected to air raids; and whether he will consider the desirability of sending German officers, prisoners of war, from Donington Hall and elsewhere to London or other places where they will be subject to the risk of German air raids on noncombatants and women and children, and of utilising Donington Hall as a hospital for our wounded soldiers?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries are being made as to the establishment of camps for prisoners of war in Germany in places particularly liable to air raids.
      Mr. BUTCHER: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that inquiries are being made as to prisoners of war in this country?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No; I did not intend to convey that. I do not think my hon. Friend can take any other than the answer I?have given. We are trying to

      795
      substantiate certain rumours which have reached us as to the placing of our prisoners of war in air-raided parts of Germany.
      Mr. BILLING: Can the hon. Gentleman state now that, if we discover this to be so, we shall act by way of reprisals?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I think the Air Minister has already made a definite statement upon that point.

      EAST AFRICA (OPERATIONS).
      Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, considering that the dispatches of General Smuts and General Hoskins regarding the operations in East Africa have been published, the time has now arrived when the dispatches of General Tighe regarding the operations during the preceding year can also be published?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: There are three reports by General Tighe, which are presumably those alluded to. Each deals with a brief and minor phase of the earlier operations in East Africa, and, as such, were not regarded by the late Lord Kitchener, when Secretary of State for War, as suitable for publication. In view of the subsequent scope of the campaign—which has been described fully in the dispatches of General Smuts and General Hoskins—there seems no reason to revise this decision. All recommendations for honours and awards contained in General Tighe's reports, and in the many similar reports relating to these early phases of the War in Africa, have long since been considered and suitably treated. No officer or man, therefore, suffers by their non-publication. To select General Tighe's reports for publication would involve an invidious distinction between them and the numerous other reports mentioned. The good preparatory work done in East Africa by General Tighe has been cordially acknowledged in General Smuts? first published dispatch.
      Colonel YATE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that officers and men who were engaged in all these operations during the first two years feel aggrieved that there has been no account of the operations published? Will he kindly issue a dispatch describing them?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer I have given. The matter has been carefully considered.

      LADY ANGELA FORBES.
      Mr. ARNOLD WARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Lady Angela Forbes at the beginning of the War established a canteen at Etaples; that she has since that date laboured unremittingly for the benefit of British soldiers in France; and that she has recently received orders to close her canteen; whether the military authorities make any charges against Lady Angela Forbes; and, if so, whether she will be given an opportunity of being heard in her own defence?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Lady Angela Forbes established a canteen at Etaples at the beginning of the War, and did useful work. Complaints were made from various sources, and the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief decided that it was inadvisable that she should continue her work there. This decision has been upheld by the Army Council.
      Mr. WARD: Is my hon. Friend aware that on 11th October the Secretary of State for War gave a promise in writing to Lady Angela Forbes that she should be heard in her own defence? Is he aware that this opportunity has not been given to her; that she has been given no opportunity of hearing the evidence against her, of giving evidence herself, or of calling witnesses on her own behalf; and what is the explanation that the promise of the Secretary of Stat3 has not been carried out?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: From the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the House might be led to assume that Lady Angela Forbes was promised a Court of Inquiry which has not been granted even to soldiers. The Secretary of State promised no such thing. He said that she would be heard in her own defence As a matter of fact, Lady Angela Forbes had an opportunity of being heard in her own defence in the sense in which the Secretary of State meant. She had an interview, on the Secretary of State's instructions, with the Adjutant-General in France, when certain complaints, not formulated

      797
      into charges, were made against her. She had then the opportunity of stating her defence, if she wished to do so.
      Mr. WARD: Arising out of that reply, is my lion. Friend aware that this interview—if it was considered to be an investigation—was an absolute farce, and a traversty of justice; that no evidence was produced against Lady Angela Forbes, that she was not asked what was her defence, and that she has had no opportunity up till now of stating her own case?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: As I have pointed out, she had the opportunity of saying what she had to say in her own defence. The Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief asked the Adjutant-General to make all inquiries and a thorough investigation. It was after this investigation that the interview promised to Lady Angela Forbes took place. It was only after he was satisfied that that investigation had been held that the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief made up his mind—and the Army Council subsequently agreed with him—that Lady Angela Forbes should no longer continue in her work.
      Mr. KING: As to these complaints—
      HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
      Mr. SPEAKER: Sir C. Nicholson.
      Sir C. NICHOLSON: May we assume that there have been no complaints from soldiers themselves as to the conduct of this canteen?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Not necessarily. If my hon. Friend presses me, there are other complaints.

      SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
      Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that soldiers home on leave reaching Exeter after seven o'clock on Saturday night cannot, owing to lack of train accommodation, reach their homes in North Devon until Monday morning unless conveyed by motor vehicles; whether he is aware that free petrol for this purpose has been refused by the military authorities and a request to have petrol supplied by payment has been ignored, consequently men home for a short respite from France will have to hang about Exeter for thirty-six to forty hours unless petrol is obtainable; and will petrol therefore be made available for the purpose of getting men to their homes at the earliest moment?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: In view of the drastic restrictions on petrol I am afraid that it is not possible to grant this concession without raising similar claims all over the country. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that a solution might be found in the fitting of some of the vehicles to consume gas.
      Mr. LAMBERT: Is the lion. Gentleman aware that these soldiers offered voluntarily to pay for the petrol, and surely the military authorities should be allowed to provide petrol under those circumstances?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Similar cases have occurred in that part of Scotland with which I am connected.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the awkward position these men find themselves in constitutes a very good reason why an extension of leave should be made in their case?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: In all reasonable cases of delay the War Office is always anxious to give further leave if possible.
      Mr. DAVIES: Is the hon. Member aware that soldiers on leave in Bangor cannot stay until Monday morning without their leave being extended by two days?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: We usually try in all cases to make up for lost time.

      WELSH DIVISION (COMMAND).
      Mr. E. DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can say if any and, if so, how many of those in command of battalions in the Welsh Division are Welshmen; and whether the officers recently appointed have during the last three years had actual experience of leading troops in battle?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: This information can only be obtained from the military authorities in France, and I am reluctant to add to their labours by inquiring, unless my right hon. Friend presses the matter.
      Mr. DAVIES: May I ask for an answer to the second part of my question?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I covered that point in my answer, but if the hon. Member insists upon adding to the already heavy labours of the people at the front in France I will inquire again.
      Mr. DAVIES: Does he not think these questions are suggested by those who know what is going on at the front, and surely this is a matter of some consequence not only to the men themselves, but also to the country?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend is not now seeking information, but he is supplying it.
      Mr. BILLING: With regard to the percentage of Welshmen, will the hon. Gentlemen supply the figures?

      VENEREAL POISONS (BRITISH TROOPS).
      Mr. PETOasked whether it is proposed to take any further steps to stop the spread of infection by venereal poisons among British troops; whether there is any Army Order which forbids or discourages the necessary prophylactic medical measures; and whether it is proposed to issue an Army Order instructing Army medical officers of superior rank to take the necessary action as a part of their regular medical duties?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: There is no Army Order authorising the use of such preventives or forbidding them. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
      Mr. PETO: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the time has arrived when the prejudices of purists in morality should no longer be allowed to diminish the effective man-power of the Army?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my hon. Friend would be the first to recognise that this is really a national question and not so much a military question.

      BRIGADIERS (SENIORITY).
      General CROFTasked whether a brigadier appointed to command a brigade in 1917 or 1918 becomes senior in the field to a brigadier whose appointment dates from 1914, 1915, or 1916, if the former was senior to the latter in the Army List prior to the War; and, if not, when the alteration was made in the Regulation affecting such seniority?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: Brigadiers rank according to their substantive rank, and
      800
      not according to the date of their appointment. This Regulation was in force several years before the outbreak of war.
      General CROFT: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the time has come to reconsider this question?
      Brigadier-General M'CALMONT: Is it not a fact that if brigadiers did not rank according to their substantive rank, those who come home wounded would lose their seniority on receiving fresh appointments?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: That is so. With regard to my hon. and gallant Friend's question, this subject has been considered quite recently.

      ARMY ORDNANCE WORKERS (DUBLIN).
      Mr. BYRNEasked when the Army Ordnance workers in Dublin may expect an increase in wages?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am waiting for further information from the Irish Command, and I hope to be able to announce a decision shortly.

      COLONIAL TROOPS (GALLIPOLI).
      Colonel L. WILSONasked whether any decision has yet been arrived at with reference to the issue of a medal or decoration to Imperial or Colonial troops in connection with the operations in Gallipoli?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: This matter is receiving sympathetic consideration by the Imperial and Dominion Governments, but no conclusion has been reached.
      Colonel WILSON: Is it not a fact that a month ago I was informed that this matter was receiving sympathetic consideration, and could he say when a decision is likely to be arrived at?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: That is perfectly true, but it is an extremely difficult question, involving a good deal of interviews and correspondence with the various Governments concerned. It also raises a very delicate point. I promise my hon. and gallant Friend that I will communicate with him when I get the information.
      Mr. TENNANT: Is there any precedent for the issue of a decoration or medal for a campaign of this kind, which cannot be said to have resulted in victory?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not sure about that.

      SOLDIERS (PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked whether soldiers serving with the Colours are allowed to belong to a political party or to attend political meetings; whether a soldier if adopted as a Parliamentary candidate would be allowed to take any steps to further his candidature; and, in view of the entirely changed character of the present Army, whether the War Office intend to take steps to modify or abolish the old restrictions?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: The War Cabinet, as I stated in an answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs on 8th August last, have decided that paragraph 451 of the King's Regulations is to be strictly and impartially enforced; but if an election is pending and a soldier is adopted as a candidate, special furlough would be granted to him to promote his candidature.
      General CROFT: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that his answer means that no officer or man at present serving in the Army can be adopted as a prospective candidate; cannot some exceptions be made?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: That is not the case; because there is an officer at the present moment who has been adopted as a candidate for one of the divisions of Lancashire (Prestwich) represented by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
      Mr. BILLING: Is it possible for the Secretary for War to stand as a candidate, while if a man wishes to stand as an independent candidate to oppose a Government nominee he cannot get permission?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I hope my hon. Friend will do me the honour of reading to-morrow the answer which I have given.
      Sir C. WARNER: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when an election is pending?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: An election may be pending at any moment. There is one pending now in which an officer is a candidate.
      Mr. BILLING: Does the hon. Member mean adopted by a political party or by a constituency?
      General CROFT: In the event of it being desired to adopt an officer or a soldier as a prospective candidate, will he be permitted, when on leave, to go before an association?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I think that point is covered by the answer which I have given: I am assuming that an officer or a man would not seek to take part in polities unless it were absolutely necessary, and I think the fairest of all ways of getting out of a very difficult situation is to say that an officer or a man, if an election is pending, shall be allowed to get the necessary leave and facilities for pursuing his candidature.

      CHELSEA BARRACKS (DEATH OF PRIVATE DAVEY).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has obtained the report as to the circumstances in which Private Charles Francis Davey, Reserve Battalion, Grenadier Guards, was found with his throat cut at Chelsea Barracks on 28th December; whether he is aware that this soldier, on complaining to the medical officer of illness, was charged with malingering, given two days' C.B., including, in breach of the King's Regulations, two hours at a stretch punishment drill; whether he is aware that Dr. Spilsbury certified at the inquest that this soldier suffered from disease of the heart muscle, fatty degeneration, and atrophy; why, in view of this verdict, the man was punished for pleading illness; and what action it is intended to take in respect of the medical officer in charge of Chelsea Barracks who signed the order for the man's punishment?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: I have just received a report from the commanding officer, which is now being considered.

      NATIONAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
      Mr. CURRIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War to what practical extent, in view of the limitations in its operation announced by the Government and assuming that the National Registration (Amendment) Bill now before the House passes into law, soldiers holding discharge papers ex facie final are liable to be medically re-examined and recalled to active service?
      Mr. BECK: My hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The National Registration (Amendment) Bill does not in any way affect the liability of discharged soldiers to be medically re-examined or recalled to active service. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service stated in his speech to this House on the 14th January:
      "This is not designed to make them more available for Military Service, to make it easier to provide them with work of National Importance."
      As regards men who have served in the Navy or Army and who have been discharged on the ground of disablement or ill-health, I would refer my hon. Friend to the important answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.

      RECEIVING DEPOT, DUBLIN.
      Mr. FIELDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what progress has been made towards establishing the temporary examining and receiving depot in Dublin; and whether he has received a resolution from the St. Patrick's Division United Irish League executive asking that the depot shall be put into operation at once?
      Mr. FORSTER: The premises of the Dunlop Rubber Company have been selected, and the necessary steps are being taken to adapt them as a receiving depot. I have not received the resolution to which the hon. Member refers.

      NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
      Mr. O'GRADYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in the event of the death of a soldier who has not received his increased pay, his representatives will be entitled to get it?
      Mr. FORSTER: The answer is in the affirmative.
      Colonel L. WILSON: If a man who has not declared that he desires to reduce his allotment by the amount of the concession becomes a casualty, mill the separation allowance for twenty-six weeks after his death be increased by the amount of the concession?
      Mr. FORSTER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper
      Colonel L. WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is to be understood that no alterations will be made in any grants already allocated by the Civil Liabilities Committee to officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, and thus minimise the value of the recent concessions in pay and allowances?
      Mr. FORSTER: I hope that an announcement on this subject will shortly be made.

      KUT-AL-AMARAH (COMPENSATION FOR OFFICERS' LOSSES).
      Colonel YATEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether compensation to officers for chargers slaughtered for food and kit lost or destroyed during the siege of Kut-al-Amarah, in Mesopotamia, will be paid by the War Office or the Government of India?
      Mr. FORSTER: This is a matter for the India Office.

      ARMY PAY (COMPULSORY REDUCTIONS).
      Colonel L. WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the recent increases of pay and allowances to the Army, he will now bring forward such amendments to Section 145 of the Army Act as will enable an adequate sum to be compulsorily deducted for the support of deserted wives and illegitimate children?
      Mr. FORSTER: The answer is in the negative.
      Colonel WILSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that 6d. a day is enough in these times for a wife to live on?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am asked whether or not I will bring forward an amendment of Section 145 of the Army Act, and I say the answer is in the negative.
      Colonel WILSON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Section allows only 6d. a day to be deducted from a man's pay in order to support a wife, and is not the Government prepared to take any steps in the matter?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am not prepared to bring forward amendments to that Section.

      SCHOOL TEACHERS (SCOTLAND).
      Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland whether payment has yet been made to all the school teachers under the school boards, and also in the voluntary schools in Scotland, of the increases in salary allocated under the recent Grant?
      Mr. MUNRO: I have no precise information at present as to the number of cases in which the increases of salary have been paid to teachers. It may, however, be assumed that payment has been made or will be made forthwith wherever the scheme for the allocation of the Grant has received the approval of the Scotch Education Department. Such approval has been given to the proposals of nearly 700 bodies of managers and the outstanding schemes are being dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
      Mr. WATT: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the school board teachers and the voluntary school teachers are to be treated in precisely the same way so far as this increase is concerned?
      Mr. MUNRO: Speaking from recollection, I think that is so.

      GOVERNMENT ORDNANCE WORKERS (IRELAND).
      Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Government ordnance workers in Ireland receive 29s. per week whilst men in Woolwich are paid 47s.; whether he will have this inequality remedied; and whether it is intended to have the Ordnance Survey of Ireland placed under the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland?
      Sir R. WINFREY: The civil assistants and labourers of the Ordnance Survey are employed in the production of the national maps and are not concerned in the manufacture of ordnance. Their work is of a totally different nature from that of the workmen in the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich. There is only one man now working on the Ordnance Survey in Ireland whose nominal six-day pay is less than 30s. He is a night watchman, who receives 27s. a week for six days, plus 4s. 6d. for each Sunday, plus 14s. war bonus. His total weekly pay is thus 45s. 6d. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

      BRITISH TRADE OVERSEAS.
      Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Joint Committee for Furtherance of British Trade Overseas will consider the advisability of adding to its number a representative or representatives of the commercial travellers of Great Britain and Ireland, also co-opting representative commercial travellers in His Majesty's Dominions and Dependencies Overseas, whose expert knowledge of the art of salesmanship would add greatly to the usefulness of the Committee in question; if so, when this will be done; and, if not, will he state the reason?
      Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I presume that the question asked by my hon. Friend relates to the Advisory Committee to the new Joint Department of Overseas Trade (Development of Intelligence). It is intended that this Committee shall represent as fully as possible the various British industrial, commercial, and financial interests concerned with overseas trade. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, recognise that the number of members of the Committee must be limited, so as to secure efficient and practical working, and. in view of the numerous interests to be taken into account, it is impossible at the present time to give any definite undertaking as to the separate representation of any particular class.
      Mr. WING: Surely there should be some better reason for the exclusion of a class so closely related to trade than mere numbers. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question whether the Committee will consider the advisability of including some representation of commercial travellers?
      Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Certainly we will consider the advisability, and, in any case, the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we would be delighted to keep in touch with them, so as to get the best possible benefit from their experience and knowledge of conditions.

      COLOURED TROOPS.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Minister of National Service whether he will urge upon the War Office the need to employ coloured men in the fighting line and so release skilled workmen from the Army

      807
      for employment in the shipbuilding yards, engine shops, and mercantile marine; whether, as there are many coloured men from Africa in the Labour Battalions in France, it has been proved that they can stand the climate; and whether many coloured men are anxious to fight for the British flag, but have not been permitted to do so?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend has pressed this question on more than one occasion, and I can assure him that the question of the employment of coloured men in the fighting line has received, and is now receiving, the most careful consideration. Every possible use is being made of their services in the various theatres of war.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that I have been pressing this question on the notice of the War Office since October, 1914, and that if my suggestion had been adopted, and the great reservoir of fighting men in South Africa had been drawn upon—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a statement with regard to his own action, and is not asking a question.
      Mr. HOUSTON: May I ask whether, if the great reservoir of fighting men in South Africa had been drawn upon, it would not have been of very great effect and have had a beneficial bearing on the question of man-power in this country?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is purely hypothetical.
      Mr. WATT: Is it the case that the recruiting of black men from South Africa has been stopped by the order of the hon. Gentleman's Department?
      Mr. MACPHERSON: No; it is not true.

      COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS (RAILWAY FARES).
      Mr. WINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether week-end railway tickets at the pre-war fares are still being issued to commercial travellers in Ireland; and, if so, why these tickets are not granted to commercial travellers in Great Britain, seeing that the railways are under the same national control?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I am aware that week-end railway tickets are still issued at pre-war fares to commercial travellers in Ireland, but the difficulties which led to the withdrawal of this privilege in Great Britain do not exist in Ireland to the same extent.
      Mr. BUTCHER: Is there any reason why commercial travellers in Ireland should be granted more favourable consideration than commercial travellers in Great Britain?
      Sir A. STANLEY: Yes; I have explained that the railway conditions are different.

      DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to take any steps to overcome the difficulty of discharged disabled men securing employment owing to the reluctance of employers to employ them under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and whether any changes are proposed in that legislation?
      Mr. BRACE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The matter referred to is under consideration between the Home Office and the Ministry of Pensions, and I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

      TITLES DEPRIVATION ACT.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Titles Deprivation Bill having received the Royal Assent on 8th November, 1917, and the pledge given by the Home Secretary on the Third Reading he will inform the House what action is to be taken under the powers conferred by the Act?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The reply given to the hon. Member for South Donegal on the 6th December last on this subject covers all the information now asked for by the hon. Member.
      Mr. LYNCH: Do these gentlemen still retain their titles?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the Act, and he will see from the answer I gave that the Act is being carried out.
      Mr. LYNCH: Is being?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Is being.

      LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.
      Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the present salary of the Lord Chief Justice is £8,000 per annum, and the salary of Ambassador to the United States is £10,000 per annum, with allowance for clerk hire £475; whether the Lord Chief Justice will receive both of these salaries during the period when he represents Great Britain in the United States of America; if not, which salary he will receive; and whether the other or any portion of it will be paid for the performance of his judicial duties during his absence from the Kingdom?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 17th instant to the hon. Member for North Somerset. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

      GOVERNMENT OFFICES (INCREASED ACCOMMODATION).
      Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the list of demands for increased accommodation which the First Commissioner of Works has stated he has received from Ministers; and whether the Government will delay the commandeering of any further buildings and the erection of any new temporary buildings on the open spaces of London until the Committee of business men who are to inquire into the staffing of Government offices has made its Report, in view of the fact that these demands for increased accommodation are chiefly due to increases in clerical staff?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. It is impossible to delay the provision of the accommodation stated by responsible Ministers to be necessary for the work of their Departments
      Captain CARR-GOMM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the universal horror at what has been going on, and the example set to the public; cannot he to
      810
      some extent reconsider his answer and delay some of the least important increases asked for?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government quite recognise the importance of having this matter gone into, and are taking what steps they can, but meantime my right hon. Friend himself takes care that a good case is made out before increased accommodation is given.

      RUSSIA.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether Russia is still allied with us in the War; and, if not, whether he is prepared to make any statement as to the position of the Military Convention for mutual Conscription?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which he received to a similar question yesterday. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

    PREMIUM BONDS.

      GOVERNMENT DECISION.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the Report of the Select Committee on Premium Bonds; whether he is aware that legislation to authorise any issue of such bonds would be strongly opposed; and whether he will announce that the Government have no present intention to introduce a Bill?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have carefully considered the Report of the Select Committee, and, in view of the terms of that Report, the Government have decided not to proceed with an issue of Premium Bonds.

      FARM RENTS.
      Mr. RENDALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, owing to the alleged patriotic conduct of landlords in not raising farming rents, great loss accrues to the Exchequer, because Income Tax payable by farmers is in most cases being levied on rents fixed before post-war days of prosperity, and Income Tax and Super-tax payable by landlords is consequentially reduced; and can he contrive means to correct this?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no information which bears out the hon. Member's suggestion that there is any considerable loss of revenue through the causes mentioned in the question, and I do not see that any action can be taken in the matter.

      CANAL TRAFFIC (RAILWAY CONGESTION).
      Colonel YATEasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by the Canal Committee in the development of inland waterway traffic; what extra percentage of coal and other heavy traffic is now being carried by canal boats; and to what extent the congestion on the railways has been thus relieved?
      Sir A. STANLEY: As explained in reply to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the 22nd October last, it is not possible to state the proportion of coal and other heavy traffic which has been diverted to the canals so as to relieve the congestion on the railways. A considerable quantity of coal, grain, and sugar has, however, been thus diverted, and the amount of traffic conveyed over the controlled canals in November last was more than 1,700,000 tons. The number of boats on the canals which were idle has also been considerably reduced.
      Colonel YATE: When will they be fully employed?
      Sir A. STANLEY: It is entirely a question of man-power. I could not answer.

      RAILWAY MANAGEMENT (MR. GATTIE'S SCHEME).
      Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a letter has been circulated among the Members of the House of Commons, addressed to Lord Headley by Mr. Balfour Browne, K.C., stating that some such scheme as that advocated by Mr. Gattie is essential if in the future the railway shareholders are to have any dividend, the traders the expedition and cheapness of carriage which they must have, and labour receive an adequate wage; and whether, in view of this statement, he will institute an inquiry into the matter?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I have seen a copy of the letter referred to. I explained to a deputation in November last, when the hon. Member was present, my views as to the impracticability of any useful inquiry into Mr. Gattie's main scheme in present circumstances.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: I asked as to the advisability of making inquiries and not of carrying out the programme. Is there any objection to making inquiries, so that when the War ends something may be done?
      Sir A. STANLEY: There is no objection to making inquiries of that kind.
      Mr. BILLING: Is it not the fact that the only reason why inquiry is not made is on account of the influence which vested interests have on the Government?
      Mr. PETO: Is the Board of Trade investigating this problem of transport for the reconstruction of trade after the War?
      Sir A. STANLEY: Yes, we are.
      Mr. KING: Cannot the Reconstruction Minister be given a free hand to consider the matter?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I have no objection at all.

      GOVERNMENT COMMITTEES.
      Colonel GRETTONasked the Minister of Reconstruction when the White Paper will be laid which is to give the members of the various Committees of the Ministry their references and functions; and if he is aware that this Paper was promised at an early date on several occasions last year?
      The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): The list has been in the hands of the printers for some time. It is hoped that it will be ready for issue at the end of the week.
      Mr. MacVEAGH: Is the right. hon. Gentleman aware that it has taken the Government no less than ten months to get a list of the number of members of the Government and Government Departments, and does he think ten months not enough to enumerate the whole list?
      Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid the hon. Member is referring to something else and not to this question.

    MUNITIONS.

      WORKERS (RAILWAY FACILITIES).
      Mr. E. DAVIESasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that the men employed at Queensferry were refused cheap railway facilities at Christmas; why they were not granted the same facilities as on previous holidays; and whether in future their former privileges will be granted them to enable them to visit their families?
      Mr. KELLAWAY (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): I am advised that cheap railway facilities were granted to men employed at Queens-ferry, both at Christmas and at the New Year. On both these occasions the Department provided all the vouchers applied for in respect of married men. As regards single men, all the vouchers applied for at the New Year holiday were provided. At Christmas it was found possible to provide only a proportion of the total requirements of the single men, owing to the enormous demand and to the limited railway facilities.
      Mr. DAVIES: Were 900 workmen supplied with tickets for the holidays?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: My hon. Friend's figures do not correspond with the figures given me this morning. I shall be glad if he will let me have the incident he has in mind.

      HUT ERECTION, CLEVELAND.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of Munitions whether Messrs. M'Alpine secured an advantageous contract for the erection of the hutments in Cleveland because a member of the firm is a relative to a Cabinet Minister; and whether he is in a position to make any statement on the subject?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: The huts at Cleveland were erected by Messrs. MacAlpine on a basis of profit on cost. The total cost of the huts was £75,000 and the gross fee paid to the firm by the Government for their work in connection with the contract was £2,600. But the whole of this sum was subject to Excess Profit, Income Tax and Super-tax, the net benefit to the firm for managing the work being less than £300. As to the suggestion that the placing of this contract was influenced by some relationship between a member of the firm and a member of the Government, I have ascertained that no member
      814
      of the firm was even acquainted with the Cabinet Minister in question, or with any member of his family at the time the contract was made, under which the Ministry exercised this option to have the huts erected.
      Mr. ROCH: Is it usual for the Minister of Munitions to make contracts on the basis of profit on the cost price?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: No, it is not usual; but there are exceptional circumstances in which it is justifiable.
      Mr. ROCH: Will my hon. Friend discontinue is in future?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: Not in the exceptional circumstances.

      HOUSING ACCOMMODATION, LANARKSHIRE.
      Mr. MILLARasked the Minister of Munitions whether repeated representations have been received by him from the Scottish Office as to the need for providing additional housing accommodation for the munition and other war workers in the Middle Ward of Lanarkshire; whether the Local Government Board for Scotland have expressed the view that immediate effect should be given to the local demand for such additional housing; and whether, having regard to the period of time which has now elapsed since the matter was first brought to the notice of his Department and to the growing industrial unrest created in the district owing to the existing shortage of houses, he is now prepared to sanction a building scheme and to release the necessary building materials?
      Mr. MUNRO: I have been asked to reply to this question. The first two parts of the question are in general accordance with the facts. It must, however, be borne in mind that the position, involving as it does pre-war questions of housing, presented special difficulties from the point of view of the Ministry of Munitions. In regard to the third part, as a result of the correspondence which has passed and of conferences that have taken place between the Departments concerned I am hopeful that, subject to the necessary financial sanctions being obtained, a scheme for the immediate erection of a limited number of houses may shortly be put in operation.
      Mr. MILLAR: When is it expected that this scheme will be approved and carried into operation, having regard to the long period of time which has elapsed since representations were first made?
      Mr. MUNRO: As I have said, it is necessary first of all to have Treasury sanction. Once that is obtained, if it is obtained, there will be no delay at all.
      Mr. MILLAR: Has the sanction of the Ministry of Munitions been obtained to the release of the necessary materials?
      Mr. MUNRO: My answer to my hon. Friend implied that.

      ENEMY SUBMARINES.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty what steps, if any, he intends to take to provide convoys for ships trading to and from Ireland and Great Britain; and if he will take steps to secure protection for all ships?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It is not in the public interest to state the measures adopted for the protection of shipping.
      Mr. LYNCH: Although the exact measures cannot be stated, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that efficient protection is being given?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: As far as our means permit, the utmost protection is given.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, if his attention has been drawn to the defence of the crew of a steamship of Dublin when attacked by a submarine in the Irish Sea on the 2nd January, 1918; and if he is aware that it is claimed by the crew that owing to their encounter the submarine has been captured; and if he will say whether the Government or the owners propose to reward these seamen?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: Reports have been received of the encounter of this vessel with an enemy submarine on 2nd January. The submarine was not captured but continued operating. Further inquiry into the circumstances of the encounter is being made.

      GERMAN BANKS (LIQUIDATION).
      Colonel GRETTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the recent Report by Sir William Plender on the liquidation of the German banks may be taken as the expression of the present
      816
      policy of the Government or if any further instructions have been issued; and, if so, will he state them?
      Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The recent Report of Sir William Plender may be taken to be in accordance with the present policy of the Government, the continuance of which policy was recommended by Mr. Walter Leaf and Sir R. V. Vassar Smith in their Report to the Treasury dated the 12th January, 1917. No further instructions have been issued in variance with this policy, and Sir William Plender is in. constant communication with the Treasury as to the course of events.
      Colonel GRETTON: Does the Treasury consider that if the present dilatory method of winding up enemy banks continues, they will have finished the work by the end of the War?
      Mr. BUTCHER: Would it not be possible to shut up these enemy businesses at once, and leave the outstanding questions until after the War?
      Mr. BALDWIN: I think my hon. and learned Friend might read the Paper I have referred to in my answer.

      CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMITTEE.
      Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the practice of the Civil Liabilities Commissioners to refer cases in which grants are asked for to any local authority which might be in possession of, or might inquire into, the circumstances of each case?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Yes, Sir. The Civil Liabilities Commissioners have been instructed in suitable cases to refer to the local war pensions committees for information which is in the possession of, or could readily be obtained by, those committees.

      POST OFFICE WORK.
      Mr. HOUSTONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the state of chaos and confusion existing in his Department, entailing inconvenience upon the public; whether he is aware that letters posted in one district of London

      817
      sometimes occupy two and three days to reach the addressee in another adjoining district of London; whether he is aware that letters from Liverpool on which an extra charge has been paid for express delivery and to ensure certain delivery are sometimes not delivered for many hours after letters posted at the same time in Liverpool to the same address by ordinary postage have been delivered; whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to the public by the inattention of telephone operators in not responding to calls made upon their exchange, connecting subscribers with wrong numbers, saying numbers are engaged when they are not engaged, that they can get no answer, whilst the person rung up is waiting at his telephone for a communication, ringing up subscribers when they are not wanted, sometimes in the middle of the night, and various other annoyances; and whether he will take steps to remedy these defects in his Department?
      The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): Everything possible is being done to prevent delays in the post, but I fear they are sometimes inevitable under existing conditions. They are often due to causes over which the Post Office has no control. With regard to the hon. Member's complaint of defective telephone operating, the service is being carried on under great difficulties, and occasional inconvenience must occur.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that sometimes as much as one and two hours per day are lost by heads of businesses, largely engaged in work of national importance, through the causes mentioned in the question? In time of war is not greater efficiency required than in time of peace?
      Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I think my reply covers all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman's question.
      Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving the telephone operators a number, so that in the event of complaint they can give the number, instead of changing their voice and speaking as the clerk in charge?

      RECRUITING OFFICES.
      Major WHELERasked the Minister of National Service if he will state the
      818
      amount of money allocated for the hiring and equipment of the recruiting offices taken under the new recruiting system?
      Mr. BECK: In connection with the transfer of recruiting to the Ministry of National Service from the War Office, the premises in use as recruiting offices were taken over as at 1st January, 1918. The amount of money allocated for rent, in respect of such premises, was £29,724 per annum, but this does not include the compensation in respect of premises taken over subsequently to transfer. The equipment of recruiting offices is in the hands of the Office of Works, and inasmuch as the preparation of a return to enable me to give the figures would involve a very great amount of time and labour, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press for the figures to be obtained now. A full statement will be available in the ordinary course.

      MAN-POWER.
      Colonel GRETTONasked the Minister of National Service if the 420,000 to 450,000 men now in civil employment to be enlisted under the provisions of the Military Service Bill will be men of Class I. available for the fighting services of the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force?
      Mr. BECK: The minimum number of 420,000 to 450,000 men to be withdrawn from among those now in civil life includes men of all grades, but the greater proportion will consist of men in Grade I.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

      BRITISH SOCIALIST PARTY.
      Mr. TREVELYAN (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the premises of the British Socialist party were raided by agents of Scotland Yard on Thursday night, and a supply of leaflets taken away which were intended for distribution to the delegates at the Labour Conference in Nottingham, containing the views of the British Socialist party as to the policy which Labour ought to pursue at this juncture, and also a message from M. Litvinoff, representative of the Russian Government, to the workers of Great Britain; whether be will promptly return these leaflets, in order that a

      819
      section of British Labour may not be deprived of its ordinary right of putting its views before colleagues in print, and in order that the Russian representative may be allowed to address the British working class in what words he pleases without the interference of the Government?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): It is a fact that the premises of the British Socialist party were entered by the police on the date named, and a number of copies of a leaflet of the nature described were seized. I am advised that the publication of this leaflet, which contains gross misrepresentations of the attitude of the British Government towards the Russian people, and incitements calculated to lead to civil strife and the defeat of our arms, is a clear breach of the Regulations for the Defence of the Realm, and the question of prosecution is being considered. In the meanwhile I cannot direct the return of the documents seized. I may add that I do not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member that a person who claims to be the representative of a foreign Government is at liberty to engage in propaganda in this country as he pleases without the interference of His Majesty's Government. No such liberty is allowed either to the authorised representative of a foreign Government or to an alien resident here and not occupying that position.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the Home Secretary reconsider his decision, and will he place the British Labour party on the same footing as the smaller body? The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that he had decided not to take any action against the Labour party for having broken Regulation 27 c. Will he put these two parties on one footing in regard to this matter, or does he differentiate between them because he is afraid of one and he is not afraid of the other?
      Sir G. CAVE: No. The hon. Gentleman does not represent me fairly. I said that the manifesto of the British Labour party was a technical breach of Regulation 27 c, but not of substantial Regulations like 37 and 42. The leaflet in question is a serious breach of a substantial Regulation.
      Mr. CHANCELLOR: Has not there been a definite breach of the law, and is
      820
      the law to be broken by some people without a prosecution, while other people are to be prosecuted?
      Sir G. CAVE: I said very carefully yesterday that I thought there had been a breach of 27 c. There was the same breach in this case, and if there had been nothing more I would not have taken the serious steps which I have taken.
      Mr. D. MASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the contents?

      BISHOPRICS OF BRADFORD AND COVENTRY BILL [Lords].
      Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the National Registration (Amendment) Bill, if under discussion at Eleven of the clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

  NATIONAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  NATIONAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of Classes of Persons to be Registered.)
    The register formed under the National Registration Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), shall, in addition to the persons mentioned in Section 1 of that Act, include the following persons:

    (a) All male persons who, not having been liable on the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifteen, to register themselves under the principal Act by reason that on that day they were under the age of fifteen years, or were members of some part of His Majesty's naval forces or of His Majesty's Regular or Territorial Forces, have, before the passing of this Act, attained the said age, or ceased to be members of any of His Majesty's Forces, or thereafter attain that age or cease to be members of His Majesty's Forces;

    (b) All male persons who, having been registered under the principal Act, have subsequently joined any of His Majesty's forces, and who before the passing of this Act have ceased or thereafter cease to be members of any such forces,

    and all such persons shall be deemed to be persons required to register themselves under the principal Act, and when registered shall be deemed to be registered under the principal Act.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEhad given notice to move at the beginning of the Clause to insert the words "During the existence
    830
    of the present War," and to insert the same words after the word "shall" ["shall in addition"].
    The CHAIRMAN: The first two Amendments are not required. If the hon. Member looks at Section 16 of the original Act he will see that what he proposes has already been dealt with.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I have examined. the original Act. The Section is limited to the continuance of the War, but no such provision appears in the amending Bill, and I submit that this is necessary because the principal Act took a census. and compiled a register of ages, and. therefore the Act substantially was complete in its operation so far as registering the people was concerned the moment that that register was taken on that date. The amending Bill does not take the census but provides that all persons who have reached the age of fifteen before the passing of this Bill or who may attain the age of fifteen after the passing of this Bill shall be registered. The words in the Clause are, "or thereafter attain that. age." Therefore the liability imposed by this Bill appears to me to be a continuing liability. I would also call attention to the course taken with regard to the several Bills dealing with military service where in each case it was provided that it should be for the continuance of the War.
    The CHAIRMAN: In any case, the period for which an Act is to operate must be contained in the last. Clause, and not in the first Clause of the Bill. If, before we reach that point, the hon. Member will again look at the last Section of the principal Act, and the last. Section of this Bill, he will find, I think, that the point has been amply covered.
    Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word "male."
    4.0 P.M.
    This Amendment has two purposes. First, I want to ascertain the policy of the Government, and second, I want to register a protest which I registered before against legislation by Orders in Council. Clause 7 gives powers to His Majesty's Government by Order in Council to extend this particular Bill to female persons. There is hardly a member of this Committee who has not been approached by persons, not Members of this House, who ask about a. particular enactment and how it came to

    831
    be passed through Parliament, and Members have had to say, "That was passed not by us in Parliament, but by Order in Council." Then the public are inclined to say, "If that is done, what are you sent to the House of Commons for?" Undoubtedly there is a strong feeling, which is growing, against legislation by Orders in Council. We have this particular Clause in this important Bill which gives the Minister of National Service power, if he thinks fit, by Order in Council, to extend this Bill to female persons. It ought not to be done in this way. Better, if necessary, for us to sit longer hours and to do the legislation ourselves than to leave it to Orders in Council. I say, with all deference to the President of the Local Government Board, that it is perfectly obvious that the word "male" is put into the Bill, and that then, in Clause 7, he seeks to minimise the position in regard to females. The hon. Member (Mr. Whitehouse), I see from the OFFICIAL REPORT, suggested that there would be persecution of girls by the police.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I never used the word "persecution," or suggested persecution.
    Major NEWMAN: I apologise to the hon. Member. Reading the OFFICIAL REPORT, I gathered the impression that a girl of fifteen, whom he described as a child, would be compelled to register, and to show her certificate of registration to the police. Supposing this particular Bill applied to what the hon. Member described as a child, a female of over fifteen and up to seventeen and a half years of age, I submit that it would only make my case stronger for the Amendment. The hon. Member referred to a child of fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen to eighteen being asked by a policeman to stand and deliver and show her certificate but I suggest that this Bill is made applicable to male persons in order to minimise a certain amount of opposition to the measure. First of all, I would ask the hon. Member whether he really wishes to describe a young lady of seventeen and a half years of age as a child?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to review a Debate which has already taken place. His business is to advance arguments in support of his Amendment.
    Major NEWMAN: I apologise, and I go on to submit that surely a female of about seventeen years of age should be registered She can do work. I think I may say that a girl of seventeen is equal to a young man of nineteen or twenty in regard to working capacity, and therefore she ought to be registered. There are thousands of cases in which young women now walking up and down the streets could do a lot of work. We see a good many conductresses on the omnibuses who are under eighteen years of age, and I suggest that girls between fifteen and eighteen ought to be registered and brought within the Bill. Then, suppose we leave it to an Order in Council, I still say that there is a real grievance against the Bill, which does entail the obligation of registration on boys of over fifteen, these boys having to go to the Post Office to get forms to fill up. If they fail to do that, they will make themselves liable to a penalty under the Bill when it becomes an Act. When it does become an Act, it will be noticed in the newspapers, and a certain number of people will see that their boys of fifteen have got to be registered, and the matter will be talked about and brought to light. But suppose, in six months after the Bill has become an Act, the Minister of National Service decides to apply the Bill to females of between fifteen and eighteen, it will be done by Order in Council. In that event, there will be great possibility of people incurring fines through their not having noticed the Order in Council. I therefore suggest that the Government might well consider the dropping of Clause 7, and leaving the words "all persons."
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. and gallant Member really proposes to bring a million girls between fifteen and seventeen and a half years of age under the provisions of the Bill. That would entail upon those who are still children at school, at the age of fifteen years and over, the duty of themselves seeing that they get registration forms, and fill them up. But, what is much more serious than that, it would subject these children to a definite penalty provided by the Bill. A child of fifteen who, through ignorance, fails to carry out the provisions of the Bill, would he subject, as the measure is now drawn, to a fine of £5, and to certain continuing penalties. It would also place this million of girls in a position where it would be a policeman's duty to demand from a girl

    833
    her registration certificate or require her to give an account of herself. I suggest that such provisions are unsuitable, and that our legislation would be searched in vain for any parallel proposal. I very much hope that the President of the Local Government Board in charge of the Bill will not extend provisions of this arbitrary form to girls of fifteen, as suggested by the Amendment.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Let me remind the Committee what the Bill is actually for. Under the Act which we are seeking to amend, every person, either male or female, between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five, was compelled to register. Therefore we have upon the register now, or ought to have upon the register, all females as well as males over fifteen and under sixty-five. This amending Bill mainly desires to get upon the register those males who have become fifteen since the War in 1915, and who are now sixteen and a-half or seventeen and a-half years of age. We are now asked why we do not get on to the register females who have approached those ages, and bring them all under one process. We have chosen to deal with males first, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service thinks that it is far more important to him that he should have an accurate record of young males between the ages fifteen and seventeen and a half years. It is a matter largely of convenience to the registration officer. As it is, we shall be dealing with anything from three-quarters of a million to 1,000,000, if we confine it to these young men. At present we do not want to put more work upon the registration officer than we can possibly avoid, and, therefore, we apply this Bill only, in the first instance, to males, and take power to apply it to females by Order in Council. When we come to discuss Clause 7, it proposes to give the power to apply the Bill to females by Order in Council. My hon. and gallant Friend (Major Newman) objects to Orders in Council; he has a very rooted objection to them; for my own part, I think they ought to be very strictly limited. But there are purposes for which the Order in Council can be most profitably and conveniently used, where the House passes an Act which contains a general principle which it is desirable should be applied at once either to the whole of the United Kingdom, or to a part of the United
    834
    Kingdom, or to a particular area. That is admitted by the House to be convenient. Therefore, the whole of the classes and categories which are included in the Act of Parliament come under the application of the general principle, so that it is convenient that the Government should have it in their power to increase the ages or classes of those who come within the principle of the Bill. After all, if the females were not put into this particular Clause, and even though they had to wait until some Order in Council was passed there is nothing to prevent girls of seventeen from being made equally useful with boys of seventeen, eighteen, or nineteen. We all know what wonderful work girls are doing at the present tune—work of great national importance in various national industries. But the mere fact of their not being included in this Clause would not in the least prevent their being employed. It is suggested that if we reserve the application of this Bill to females for an Order in Council, then they would not have any notification that the measure was to be applied to them. I admit that they will not have quite the same notification, but we must recollect that the National Registration Act was passed two and a half years ago, and people have become accustomed to the fact that girls of over fifteen have been put upon the register. That is a matter which has been very much discussed, and parents have gradually got to know that the measure applies to boys over fifteen. When the Order in Council is promulgated there is not the slightest doubt it will be noticed by the newspapers, and a very large amount of local knowledge will be gathered about these matters. For obvious reasons I cannot accept the Amendment, and the Government fully expect that the day will come when an Order in Council will apply the Bill to females.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words "said age," and to insert instead thereof the words "age of sixteen."
    This is an Amendment of substance, and in justification for it may I remind the Committee that the original Act provided that a census should be taken of all persons between the ages of sixteen and sixty-five, but there was no provision in that Act for taking a census of persons as they became fifteen. My Amendment is that the registration should not take place

    835
    until the boys reach sixteen. If the present Bill proceeded on the same principle as the original Bill my Amendment would not be necessary because you would simply take a register of all the persons who have now reached the age of fifteen, while the proposal of the Bill is to take a continuous register of all who reach the age of fifteen during the War. That means that however long the War goes on right up to the last you will have a register of persons who are no less than three years away from the date upon which they would be liable to military service. I suggest that that is quite unnecessary. I think my proposal would mitigate some of the objections made to the other Clauses of the Bill as it would be more reasonable to expect young persons of sixteen to carry out the duties imposed by this Act than persons of the age of fifteen. The right hon. Gentleman will see that there is no substantial objection to this Amendment so far as realising the declared objects of the Bill are concerned by beginning the system at sixteen instead of fifteen.
    Mr. FISHER: The ages in the original Act are fifteen and sixty-five, and there is no reason so far as I can see for altering the age of fifteen to sixteen. It is quite impossible to enter into speculations as to when the War will end, but I think that the age of fifteen is a very good age to begin, and as that is the age mentioned in the principal Act I think it would be exceedingly undesirable to put a different age in the amending Bill.
    Mr. KING: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's reply is quite sufficient. The matter is a little more important than the Local Government Board seems to think. In the first place this Amendment would relieve the Board of a good deal of work, and registration officers throughout the country instead of having two and a-half years' growth of boys since the original Act would only have one and a-half years, and instead of having to register something like 1,000,000 or 1,200,000 you would only have to register from 700,000 to 800,000. Do you really want information about boys of from fifteen to sixteen 2 As the boy gets older information about him becomes more valuable, and I think sixteen is quite time enough to begin. I think the Amendment has been treated by the right hon. Gentleman in a somewhat cavalier way, though I
    836
    know that is not his nature really, and I simply mention the matter as a warning on the subsequent Clauses.
    Mr. MORRELL: I think the right hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood the argument of the Mover of the Amendment. This Bill and the original Act are on a different basis. The original Act relied on only one registration, whereas that, under this Bill, is to be continuous, and I submit it is a waste of time and public money and labour to begin registering people so long before they are required for military service at eighteen. Why do you want to know all about these boys two or three years before they will be required for military service unless it is really your object to continue this Bill after the War? We ought to have some reply given as to why we should spend an amount of public money and take up the time of all these public officials compiling a register of boys of fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen. I should have thought that the Amendment was a very moderate one, and if I had the drawing of it I should have been inclined to put the age at seventeen, which would be a, year before they would be required, a period which I think would for all practical purposes be sufficient. On what possible grounds do the Government want to know about these young men at the age of fifteen, and what advantage can it have for the purposes of the War or towards winning the War? I think we should have a better answer than the mere parrot cry that because these were the ages in the original Act they should be mantained here.
    Mr. FISHER: I stated on the Second Reading that this Bill is not required really for military purposes, or to obtain a record of those who will in a year or two become of military age. That is not the real object of this Bill. I stated on Second Reading that this Bill is wanted very much more in order that we may know the occupations and capacity of these boys of fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen. My right hon. Friend the Director of National Service wants to obtain an accurate and systematic record of all the labour power of this country, both male and female. He thinks it is of extreme value that he should know what these million or so of boys of from fifteen to seventeen and a half are working at now and what they are capable of. We are looking forward to make provision for this year or next

    837
    year, should it be necessary. Some Governments have been accused of being too late in making adequate preparations beforehand, and we desire to take full stock and make an accurate survey of the labour forces and occupations in this country. I went further the other day and said that the statistics we are likely to get may be exceedingly useful to the Food Controller, and that a record of discharged soldiers might be exceedingly useful towards obtaining employment for them. I might have gone further and said that, although this Bill and the Act of which it is an auxiliary are for the period of the War only, yet I think it is very likely that when the War terminates the House, with full and general accord, will desire to obtain some form of national vital statistics. If this register is to be of any value it ought to be complete and accurate, and it is because we desire it to be as complete and as accurate as possible from the point of view of the Director of National Service that I mantain that it is valuable to us to know what these boys of fifteen and sixteen are doing. Boys of fifteen and sixteen may be performing labour of great national importance, and it is important that we should know. The Amendment would exempt from registration all those under the age of sixteen, and we desire that all those above the age of fifteen should be registered, as under the original Act of which this Bill is the complement.
    Mr. KILEY: If I understood the right hon. Gentleman rightly, the object is to conscript boys from fifteen for the purpose of labour.
    Mr. FISHER: I never used the word "conscript." I said the other day that there is no compulsion.
    Mr. KILEY: What is the object of this information unless there is some definite, practical purpose; and why, if there is not that, spend time, money, and energy in obtaining it? If there is no immediate purpose of using this information, why not alter the age and start at fourteen? I can see a good many reasons in favour of starting at fourteen, at the time when boys are leaving school. You fix the age at fifteen, when the boy has probably got no settled mind, or is not, in my judgment, of much value to the State, and unless it is desired to conscript these lads, I can see no advantage in having the age at fifteen. I prefer either fourteen or sixteen, and if this Amendment is not accepted, I would like to move an Amendment that the age be fourteen, and that the schoolmasters or the educational authorities should be called upon to supply the information.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I only want to say one word more in explanation before I press this Amendment to a Division. I think the right hon. Gentleman must realise by this time that when an Amendment is presented to him with serious objects, it is scarcely treating the Committee with courtesy when he dismisses the whole argument with a reply in a cavalier way, and speaks about our indulging in idle speculations as to how old we shall be at the end of the War. I said nothing of the kind. I presented to him a very serious argument which called for serious reply. That is why on this Amendment, my case not having been met in any way, and having received so much support from other members of the Committee, I feel bound to carry it to a Division.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 15.

    Division No. 145.]

    AYES.

    [4.32 p.m.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Grifflth-

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

    Croft, Brig.-Gen, Henry Page

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Currie, George W.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Broughton, Urban Hanlon

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

    Bull, Sir William James

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

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Barnett, Capt. R. W.

    Caniile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

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

    Cator, John

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Du Pre, Major W. Baring

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Beckett. Hon. Gervase

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfrey

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

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

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

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

    Fleming, Sir John (Aberdeen, S.)

    Gelder, Sir W. A,

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

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

    Shaw, Hon. A.

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

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

    Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Spear, Sir John Ward

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

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Stewart, Gershon

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Meysey-Thompson, Colonel E. C.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

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

    Millar, James Duncan

    Sykes, Col. Sir Alan John (Knutsford)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morgan, George Hay

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

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Tickler, T. G.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

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

    Newman, Major John R. P.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    O'Malley, William

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Hinds, John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Waring, Major Walter

    Hope, Hary (Bute)

    Parkes, Sir Edward E.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. H. Pike (Darlington)

    Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)

    Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Midlothian)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Watson, J. B. (Stockton)

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Weston, J. W.

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

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

    White, Col. G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Whiteley, Sir H. J.

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Wills, Major Sir Gilbert

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Rawlinsen, John Frederick Peel

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

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

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

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

    Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Worthington Evans, Major Sir L

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Younger, Sir George

    M'Calmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Rowlands, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

    Edmund Talbot and Capt. F. Guest.

    Macleod, John Macintosh

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (Norwood)

    NOES.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Partington, Hon. Oswald

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Bliss, Joseph

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Whitehouse and Mr. King.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Morrell, Philip

    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words "or ceased to be members of any of His Majesty's Forces."
    This is a most important Amendment from my point of view. Whether I have got it in quite the best form, I am not sure, but the point is this: You propose under this Clause to cause men who have been in the Army to register. I contend that that is quite unnecessary. First of all, it is duplicating information which you have already obtained. We know perfectly well that the Government more than a year ago took over the National Liberal Club for the purpose of having a complete card index of every man in the Army and Navy, and every man who had come out of the Army and Navy. That was done at great expense with elaborate organisation, and I am told by people who have visited the institution and seen it that it is extremely ably clone and
    840
    extremely complete, extraordinarily well arranged, most accessible and convenient. Now, you have the whole of this information already about the men in the Army and Navy. I venture to say that in a great number of cases, if you are going to insist upon registration of the very same men for the National Register, you are going to cause friction and difficulty, because a great number of men all over the country will not be quite sure whether they have registered or not, the original registration was so long ago. Then you have got a large number of men discharged as ill, or invalided, or crippled, and the most vital thing about these men and their use for national service at the present time is, not what their address or their employment is, but the very fact that they are crippled, invalided, and discharged for one purpose or another, and the information which is most important in the case of men discharged

    841
    from the Army you are not going to collect under this register at all. Information about a discharged man is the nature of the illness or physical incapacity owing to which he is discharged, and that is not going to be in the National Register at all. Therefore, when you have got the National Register, in order to put it into force, you have got to go to the War Office and the big emporium of information at the National Liberal Club, and yet, so ready are these Government Departments at the present time to heap work upon themselves and others, to add piles of paper and red tape to piles already existing and never used, that they are going to include in this National Register a large amount of registration of information which they have already got, and they are going to do it in a much more incomplete and inefficient way than the information which is already accessible. I therefore do protest that the whole of this subsequent part of paragraph (a) of Clause 1 is quite unnecessary. It ought to be cut out altogether, I think, but I am quite open to suggestions as to the amount that ought to be left out. Of this, however, I am quite certain, that in collecting incomplete information about soldiers who have left the Army you are giving yourself a lot of labour to absolutely no purpose.
    Mr. FISHER: If I accepted my hon. Friend's Amendment it would have to be altered, but I do not propose to accept it, because we really want a complete register, and in that register we want all the workers. Although some may not be able to do any more fighting for their country, they are always willing to take part in industrial life so far as they are able, and do much good work of a very useful character for their country. The effect of the omission of these words would, I think, be to produce a defective register of those who are capable of doing admirable work. Personally, I think that this register may be exceedingly useful for many other purposes. There is nothing we want more than a very careful accurate local register of all discharged soldiers, many of whom have suffered severely in fighting for us, and everyone in this House and outside will admit that these men have a first claim on this country so far as employment is concerned. Therefore this register may be of great use from their point of view. It will provide a list of those who have
    842
    given their services to the country, and who are capable of industrial employment, and even if they have such employment now it may be that it is not suitable employment or that which is best for them, and this register would enable them to get better employment. What we want is an accurate and systematic register of all the available industrial forces of this country, and from that point of view it would be very inadvisable to have a register which did not include the hundreds and thousands of soldiers who have been discharged from the Army. This Amendment cuts at the very root of the Bill, and the Government cannot possibly accept it.
    Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will clearly define what is required of these discharged soldiers and sailors? They are very unwilling to be included in this Bill at all, and some of them have written to me to ask what is the object of including them As I understand from the right hon. Gentleman, it is only for statistical purposes. If a soldier fails for any reason to register under this Bill, is he to be subjected to the same penalties as the ordinary man? Men who feel that they have done fairly by their country do not think that they ought to be followed up in this way.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I sympathise with what has just fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesbrough (Colonel Williams). What it is proposed to do by the words we are asking this Committee to omit is to place an obligation on every discharged soldier to get himself registered when he leaves the Army, and if he does not do it he will be made liable to certain penalties, although he may never have been told that it is his duty to register. There is nothing in the Bill which requires any authority to inform a discharged soldier that he must register himself. I do not suppose that there is one soldier in every 100,000 in the Army to-day who is aware that this Bill is before Parliament, and not one person in every 10,000 in the country knows anything about it. The Army certainly knows nothing about it. These soldiers will come back in total ignorance of the fact that they have got to be registered, and there are no provisions laid down for informing them of their duty and of their liability to punishment for neglect of it. That

    843
    seems to be a wholly improper state of things, and later on I am going, unless some arrangement is made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, to raise this point in connection with everybody who is to be registered. Is it not a wrong thing in the case of boys of fifteen years of age that they should be expected to know the law in this regard? It is ridiculous, absurd, and monstrous, and, in the case of the discharged soldier it is more than that: it is a grossly ungrateful act on the part of this country to subject him to penalties for failure to register without some provision being included in the Bill for informing them that they have to register. Much as I dislike this Bill, I am not going to oppose it, but if we are to pass it let it contain full and reasonable provision which will make it likely that the possible 500,000 of soldiers to whom it may apply will know what their duty is under the law. If the Government can give us some kind of indication that they are ready to meet this point, I shall not press my hon. Friend to go forward with his Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: There are two Amendments on the Paper dealing with that particular point which the Committee will reach shortly.
    Mr. CURRIE: Perhaps it will be convenient for the right hon. Gentleman if I ask him at this stage to redeem his promise to make a reasoned statement as to the small extent to which the Review of Exceptions Act is still really operative. A great deal of trouble in the country would be saved if he would do so.
    Mr. MORRELL: I confess that, as I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill, I could not help asking myself whether he was really aware that a War is going on at the present time. What is it he is asking the House to do? If we pass this Bill and reject this Amendment there are hundreds of thousands of soldiers, who have served their country, who have been discharged from the Army, and are really useless for any further military purpose, and these are to be registered at a great expense and great labour, and for what? The right hon. Gentleman could not give us any adequate explanation of any kind as to the real object with which these
    844
    hundreds of thousands of men are to be compelled, under a penalty, to register themselves under this Bill. What did he suggest were the objects? In the first place, he hinted that it would be useful to the Food Controller, and that the possession of this information might enable him to look after the food of the country a little better—it could hardly be worse than now! But what good is the registration of hundreds of thousands of soldiers going to do? How is it going to help the Food Controller? The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to explain that. Then he went on to say it might be useful for the purposes of vital statistics. But this is a Bill for the duration of the War, and for what conceivable object could the right hon. Gentleman require vital statistics affecting the men who have served their country and have been discharged? He also said it was a matter of benevolence; that it might be possible by this means to find the men jobs if their names were included in the register. He told us that it would be an advantage to the soldiers themselves. I should like to consult some of those soldiers who are going to be put to all this trouble to fill up registration forms under a penalty—a continuing penalty of £l per day. It is putting them to an immense amount of trouble, and it is involving the country in great expense for no conceivable object which the right hon. Gentleman can explain.
    Of course, if underneath it all there is an intention to what is called conscript labour, to carry it from one industry to another, we can well understand why it is desired that this extremely drastic measure should be passed. If it is the intention to carry bodies of men from one place of industry by force or pressure to another place, then I can understand why the right hon. Gentleman wants to have a complete register. But he has told us that he has no such object in view—that he does not wish to conscript labour. I thought the Bill was for the purpose, which I can quite well understand, of enabling the Government to carry out the Military Service Acts. When you have a system of Conscription you desire to have young men registered so that you may know where they are when you want them and when their turn comes to serve their country in either the Army or the Navy. But as regards soldiers who have already served their

    845
    country what conceivable object can there be, except to increase the machinery, in placing them on a register? The real fact is the Government have gone mad in its bureaucracy. It has but one idea for indexes, names, offices, clerks, hotels and endless expense, in the hope that it may be possible to Prussianise the country and make it as much like Germany as it can. The right hon. Gentleman, in an earlier speech, let fall the hope that this is going to be a permanent measure. We are, therefore, going to have a National Register, and policemen always ready to accost everybody after the War, asking them if they are properly registered and whether they have put down their occupations. You are not only going to make boys of fifteen put down their occupations, but a discharged soldier, the moment he comes out of the Army, is also to do so. He is further to be asked what is his age, and where he is living, and failure to give all this information correctly is to render him subject to a penalty. In the name of common sense, I invite this Committee, at this crisis of the country's history, to reject such a silly provision as this, and to accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. There is no conceivable reason for including these men in the register. It will be a waste of time and of money, and the right hon. Gentleman, so far as I can see, has shown no sort of justification for it.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): My hon. Friend who spoke last was a little severe in his criticism. It is not really a question of taking hotels or any of those other processes which he imagined. Yesterday, in the House, I gave an important answer on this point, and I am rather surprised it should have escaped my hon. Friend's attention. As I understand it, my hon. Friend wants to know what classes of discharged men there are who are not liable to be called up for military service?
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. CURRIE: I rather wish my hon. Friend to put the matter the other way round, and to say what classes under the Review of Exceptions Act remain liable to be called up in this way. The case I put was that of a man who was offered a permanent job in Scotland, and who had great difficulty in securing it, because he was under this sort of shadow. That is the objection.
    Mr. BECK: There are three classes of men who are protected. One is those who are protected by the statutory Clauses in the Review of Exceptions Act. The second comprises the men who have served overseas and who are protected under the concession given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War. They are not liable to be called up. They certainly have not statutory protection, but I think they have full administrative protection. As I announced yesterday, recently the Minister for National Service has extended the concession for the men who have served in campaigns overseas to the discharged and invalided men who have served at home. That is a thing that they -have very strongly pressed for, that these men should be protected in the same way as the men who have served overseas. If the House will allow me, perhaps the quickest way would be for me to read again the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) yesterday:
    "Mr. Hogge asked the Prime Minister whether, before the House goes into Committee on the Military Service Bill, he can announce the decision of the Government with regard to discharged men now subject to reexamination and recall under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, and whether it has been agreed that such men shall be given the alternative of engaging in work of national importance, and so long as they remain engaged in the same shall not he subjected to recall unless and until a national emergency warrants it?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1918 col. 662.]
    We must, of course, always prepare ourselves for a great national emergency. That has always been behind all the pledges. This was my reply:
    "My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The Government propose to make the following farther concession with regard to men at present in civil life who have served in His Majesty's Forces and have been discharged in consequence of disablement or ill-health, and who are now, or who may become, subject to re-examination and recall for service under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act, 1917…"
    Of course, the concessions alluded to up to there are the concessions made by the War Office, in response to the demand of this House. This is the new concession:
    "It is proposed that any such man who has served in the forces, and who is not for the time being engaged on work of national importance, shall have an opportunity which it is proposed to fix as a standard at the period of one mouth bat for good cause shown in any individual case this will be extended, in which he may engage in work of national importance. The period would run from the coming into force of this arrangement in the case of men already discharged, and from the date of discharge in the case of men who may he discharged hereafter. The work of national importance would he in an industry contained in a list to be settled and revised from time to time such as shipbuilding·, iron-ore mines, munitions, agriculture, public utility undertakings and the like Each man himself mist take steps to apply for employment, but

    847
    every facility will be given through existing Government machinery to enable him to obtain such employment. Special arrangements are already in force to enable soldiers now being discharged to obtain civil employment."
    That machinery, I do not know whether it is understood, is of quite an elaborate character. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War, and the Secretary of State, have established certain big discharge centres. I think they are seven in number, and at these discharge centres the Ministry of National Service has established machinery which places before the men being discharged a review of all the jobs in the country. Thanks to arrangements into which the War Office have entered, these men are given leave to go and look at the work, and if they are satisfied they are engaged and taken back to the discharge centre and discharged. It is a little cumbersome, but it is better than a man going to a job that does not suit him, and having to walk about looking for other work. The class we had to deal with was that of the men who have already been discharged from the Army, and that is what this question goes on to deal with:
    "Special arrangements are already in force to enable soldiers now being discharged to obtain civil employment. The arrangement will apply to men already engaged on work of rational importance. These will, on application, be given a protection certificate to show that they are rightfully continuing in civil life."
    That covers, I think, all the classes.
    "In order to secure—"
    this is partly an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell), and is the great difficulty—
    "the smooth working of these administrative arrangements it is absolutely essential that all the discharged sailors and soldiers should keep the local officials of the Ministry of National Service fully informed as to their whereabouts and the nature of their employment, and I venture to express the hope that all associations interested in their welfare will cooperate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1918, col 662–63.]
    I hope that is clear to the Committee, and I hope it will dispel the suspicion which my hon. Friend feels, because, of course, the great difficulty of dealing with these men and giving them a preference in finding employment is to know where they are. If you arc reinforcing the shipyards, if you are building aerodromes, or if you are reinforcing agriculture it is impossible to consider the discharged soldier if you do not know where he is. A man capable of doing that sort of work may be out of work, eating his heart out, and a civilian who is already in good work may be taken out of that work
    848
    because it is not essential and used to reinforce the work of national importance when there is a soldier who could do the work quite well. There is a gap in the National Register, and it is essential that these men should come into it, but the Minister for National Service, in his speech on the First Reading of the Military Service Bill, gave a most definite assurance that the extension of this registration to these men was not for the purpose in any way of adding to, or removing, for that matter, their liability for any military service, but was solely for the purpose of knowing where they are in order to reinforce the essential industries of this country.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him this question in order to clear up the important point of which he last spoke? He said the object was to have a register of these soldiers, to know where they were in order that the Ministry could put their hands on them, and arrange for their re-entry into industry. When the register was compiled under the original Act, however, only certain questions could be asked, and those are unaltered by the amending Bill. The questions that may be asked do not include any question about the past occupation of the person to be registered. A discharged soldier could not be asked whether he was a discharged soldier, or whether he had served in the Army or not. Consequently, when you have carried out this provision you will not know whether you have registered one discharged soldier or 1,000,000 discharged soldiers. I think the President of the Local Government Board will see that this is a question of the very greatest importance, and I will be very glad if he will give me a reply to this point.
    Mr. CURRIE: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the full restatement of the position he has made. May we now put it in this way: That the Review of Exceptions Act is a dead letter except for the purpose of obtaining industrial employment for soldiers in the way to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and that they will not under that Act be called back to the Colours? Is that so?
    Colonel P. WILLIAMS: It seems, after the explanation of the hon. Member (Mr. Beck), that the fears of the discharged soldiers and sailors are very well founded.

    849
    You are not going to put them in a preferential position, but in a position much inferior to that of the ordinary civilian.
    Mr. BECK: I can only say that this concession has been given in response to the most violent pressure by the associations, such as that in which my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) is interested, and which particularly deal with the discharged sailors and soldiers. They have asked for this concession time after time, they have at last got it, and they are very grateful for it.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: It may be a concession, but what is the position of these men? A man has either to engage in work of national importance or to come under the Review of Exceptions Act and be liable to military service again. If the work he is engaged on is not, in the opinion of the authorities, of national importance, he is liable again to be called up for the Army. He is in a worse position than the civilian; and the man who has been broken in the War and wants to go home and rest is entitled to do so. I have never opposed this Bill, but unless I get some explanation on this point I shall vote against it on every possible occasion.
    Mr. WATT: I sympathise entirely with the observations that have just been made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams). There is no doubt that this Amendment is of much more importance than the attendance in the House would lead one to believe. Had the House been better filled I believe the Government would not have the easy run which they no doubt expect, and probably will get. This particular Amendment, which has the effect of leaving out the discharged soldiers from this measure, is, as I say, most important, and these men no doubt, as my hon. Friend has just said, will be harassed by this measure. They will be worried by being asked to register under it, and they will not clearly understand that it is to be in any way beneficial to them. They are already working up horrors at the prospect that this measure is to take them again to the Colours, and there is disturbance in the country among these men. From the military point of view, why should these men be so harassed? Have they not done their bit? Do they not deserve to be left alone by the Government in the matter of
    850
    registration and threatened penalties if they do not register right? How much the country is indebted to these men I do not know it will ever realise. They have fought their fight, and have kept back the Germans—
    Mr. BECK: We are talking at the moment about the men who have not been overseas.
    Mr. WATT: I do not see that that is so. The words are "who have ceased to be members of any of His Majesty's Forces."
    Mr. BECK: The particular point we were on was that of the men who have not been overseas.
    Mr. WATT: Well, what I was saying when my hon. Friend interrupted me was that the country is much indebted to these men who have kept the Germans from our shores, who have done their bit at the various fronts and on the North Sea in that respect, and who, having done that, have been discharged from those forces, and are now seeking a quiet life, undisturbed by any of those blue papers that arrive asking them to register again. As the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) pointed out, the case made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service was not a good one. When these men fill up this paper they will not indicate that they are discharged soldiers; they will not be asked whether they are or whether they are not. The register will not show that they have served their time, and the case of the Parliamentary Secretary that they will be given a preference in industrial pursuits because they have served is a weak one, and will not work at all. Altogether, as I said earlier, the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough are well worthy of the consideration of the House. Is it wise that this registration measure should be extended to soldiers and sailors who have done their bit and who have been discharged from these Services? Not only would the questions to which I have alluded come in, but the question of the expense of this measure would be infinitely more. Seeing that it is to be an expense for the country in these trying financial times, is it right that these men should, at great expense to the country, be harassed and worried, and asked to fill up papers under fear of being penalised if they do not fill them up satisfactorily?
    Sir H. ELVERSTON: May I ask a question on one point? Supposing, for the sake of argument, a discharged soldier is working in a printing office, will it be within the power of the Department to tell that man to leave that printing office and to go into a munition factory or a shipbuilding yard? Am I correct in the suggestion of that question?
    Mr. BECK: I do not know of such a case. I do not know the exact technical point as to whether a printing office would be considered to be work of national importance. These men will have a choice of occupation. Any man so circumstanced would hold a card which would free him from all pressure whatsoever of the military authorities, as in the case of other citizens.
    The CHAIRMAN: We are really not here discussing that point. The only point before us is as to registration for one purpose. The Amendment is to leave out certain words. Of course, I understand that the last speech was related to a pledge by the Government.
    Sir H. ELVERSTON: I should like to say that I do not think it is wise on the part of the Government to press this upon discharged soldiers and sailors, because there is great uneasiness in my own Constituency, as well as doubtless in many others.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It is not quite clear what the effect of this would be. Would it be in order to ask whether, if the Amendment is rejected, it would be within the power of the Government to compel discharged soldiers to do certain work to which they object?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to that point?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Is there any power to compel a discharged soldier, who has registered, to enter, against his will, upon certain work which may be described as of national importance?
    Mr. BECK: There is no power.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There is not!
    Sir H. ELVERSTON: I think a discharged soldier cannot be removed from work which is not of national importance to work of national importance at the bidding of his Department?
    Mr. BECK: No. I do not want to go over the ground again; the matter is so-plain. These men are men who are liable for military service. They are men who have been in the Army and, under the Military Service (Review of Exceptions) Act can be called kip again, examined, and taken back into the Army. I hope we will carry one another together so far. But in order to protect these men a variety of pledges have been given, under which such men, having served, are not called back. This is an extension to a very large number of these men of absolute protection under the word of the Government and a series of administrative orders protecting them against being called up for re-examination in the Army so long as they are doing certain work of national importance. That is really the whole thing. The men are put in a better position. I hope that is plain. It really is a concession to the men, and is a thing they have been begging the Government for ever since the Review of Exceptions Act was placed on the Statute Book.
    Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us as to the calling back of these men when further information is wanted from them?
    Mr. BECK: The Army have the information before them; as a matter of fact we have not.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: Cannot the Army, then, give you the information?
    Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am bound to say, with regard to the explanation of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for National Service, that it has made what was not clear more clouded. As I understand it, this Sub-section deals with all members of His Majesty's forces who at the time this Bill becomes law have ceased to be members of any of those forces. That includes hundreds of thousands of men. Every one, or nearly every one, of these men who has been discharged by reason of ill-health and who has served abroad is now protected by an Army Council Instruction from being called up under the Review of Exceptions Act. That is clear. So it is not accurate, as I understood my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for National Service to say, that these men are liable to be recalled to the Colours. They are not.
    Mr. KILEY: If they have served abroad.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I said that—if they are men who have been serving abroad and have been discharged from the Army on the grounds of ill-health. There is another class of man who has been in His Majesty's forces and who has not served abroad and who has been discharged. That man was liable and may be still—though I think there is an Order dealing with it—to be recalled to the Colours. I understand, however, that under the various Bills and Orders that are now going through in connection, with the Military Service Bill, which passed its Committee stage yesterday, and under this Bill, that unless those. men are of Class 1 they are to be left in their civil employment, and those men who are of Class 1, on subsequent re-examination, are to be sent to employment of national importance. That clears out all the sailors and soldiers who have been discharged on the ground of ill-health. I understand that is the legal position at the moment. Therefore, this registration by itself cannot in any way affect or recall men to the Colours. And the Government itself cannot recall any of these men to the Colours unless they go back upon all their pledges, unless they cancel the Army Council Instruction, and unless they break the last pledge made by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for National Service, given on Monday last in the course of the First Reading of the. Military Service Bill—namely, that the object of this Bill that we are now discussing in reference to discharged and disabled soldiers is to register them in order to give them a preference for employment. Does the Government stick to that pledge? If the Government does not stick to that pledge, I, for one, will vote against them, and although—
    Mr. BECK: May I interrupt my hon. Friend, who is concerned in this matter? I made a long speech, and I said as clearly as I could what he has been saying, and dealing with exactly the same points as those with which he has just dealt.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Well, on the understanding that every discharged soldier, according to the speech of the Minister of National Service, is registered for the specific purpose of giving him a preference in employment—and I see the Government agrees with that—
    Mr. BECKindicated assent.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: On that agreement I support this Bill. But I do impress upon the Government this fact—and I do it now from intimate personal knowledge of the grievances, and the just grievances of these men who have done their share in the War—the worst-paid and the worst-pensioned soldiers in the British Empire, remember!—if the Government attempts to interfere with these discharged soldiers and sailors other than to give them preference of employment in the future I, for one, will help them to harass the Government in the most violent way possible—
    Sir R. ADKINS:I quite agree with what has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I only want to know, seeing that under this Bill the discharged soldier is required to register, whether the. Bill does require some machinery by which the fact of his being a discharged soldier is to be made known, and inserted, beyond the other questions? I fully accept the statement of my lion. Friend on the Treasury Bench that it is the object of this Bill to give industrial preferences to discharged soldiers, but to do that you must know that they are discharged soldiers. To know that they are discharged soldiers, would it not be convenient to have some addition to the questions asked under the principal Act, or in some other way to make it perfectly clear that those with whom you are dealing are discharged soldiers, and that only on that footing you are dealing with them? May I ask the right, hon. Gentleman to dispose of that point which I have tried to put?
    Colonel WILLOUGHBY: This question, I think, does want settling. Let it be cleared up to the advantage of the soldier and not to his disadvantage. It ought to be stated in the paper whether or not a man is a discharged soldier; nor should he be penalised in the way suggested. I hope the Government will pay attention to this point, as it ought to be made an advantage and not a disadvantage to the man who has served his country. If I do not get a satisfactory answer I shall oppose the Government.
    Colonel G. WHITE: It is perfectly true that discharged soldiers on the whole will look with grave suspicion upon this legislation, accompanied as it is by heavy fines. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was partly a case of philanthropy—philanthropy and fines do not go very well together. Either it ought to be voluntary registration or the Government ought to

    855
    give some form of pledge on the lines laid down by the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland to give discharged soldiers preferential treatment. If this is not done, I am afraid I shall not see my way to vote.
    Mr. FISHER: Perhaps it is desirable to clear the air in regard to the position of the discharged soldier? I have stated more than once that, so far as discharged soldiers are concerned, there is no intention on the part of the Government to use this Bill to bring them back again to the Colours. I have stated more than once that this Bill could not possibly be used for this purpose, or even to facilitate the operations of a Government in bringing these men back to the Colours.
    Mr. WATT: They think the Bill will be so used.
    Mr. FISHER: If the Government can by any means bring any portion of these men back to the Colours, they have already, as I understand from my hon. Friend who represents the Ministry of National Service, sufficient information in their possession. As far as the Government are concerned, the whole object of making this Bill apply to discharged soldiers and sailors is that we shall have a complete and accurate register for several useful purposes in order to enable us to utilise all the industrial power of the country. It would be a positive misfortune if you did not take this opportunity of linking up your local register so as to embrace the names and the other particulars given in the original Act as regards the occupations of all those who have served their country either by sea or by land. If you do that, you will find that you have a much greater opportunity afforded you of obtaining employment for these men than you have at the present moment. As regards preference to discharged soldiers, that is a matter for the Ministry of National Service. So far as the Government is concerned, their object in making this measure applicable to discharged soldiers is for the benefit of those soldiers, and it is not intended to utilise this Bill to bring these men again into the Army.
    I know there is a suspicion amongst discharged soldiers that there is some intention to use their services again in the Army and Navy, although they are entitled to rest from their labours by reason of
    856
    the admirable services they have given, and for which we are all deeply grateful. May I point out that I cannot remove that suspicion altogether without putting them outside the Bill? This will mean that hundreds of thousands will not be on the register, and therefore you will make the registration singularly incomplete if you leave them out. You will not get a complete and reliable stocktaking of the men and muscle of the country, and all your available resources for all purposes, if you place the discharged soldier outside the scope of this Bill. As regards the penalty, obviously if you have a register, and if you want to make it complete and accurate, you must have some penalty attaching to those who neglect to comply with the provisions of the Act. Nobody supposes that any magistrate would think of convicting a soldier or sailor who claimed that he did not know about the Act, and was not aware that he had to be registered under it. [An HON. MEMBER: "He must carry out the law!"]
    Mr. TREVELYAN: Will you put that in the Bill?
    Mr. FISHER: I do not think that any man would convict a soldier who said he had no knowledge of this particular Act of Parliament, and who stated that he was perfectly willing to register. I am asked to put something of that kind in the Bill. Hon. Members who are accustomed to deal with Acts of Parliament I think will agree with me when I say that there are very few precedents for an Act. which enjoins and commands certain things to be done by the population, and which does not enforce those things by some penalty. There are Acts which have been passed for very similar purposes in which there are penalties. I have peen thinking over this matter since I heard the Debate, and I will most carefully consider in the interval between this and the Report stage the points which have been raised in the Debate. I will see whether I can safeguard the position of the discharged soldier or sailor in this respect, so that we may prevent any hardship being imposed upon any man who has good reasons for saying that he really did not know that such a duty was placed upon him, and that he was willing to register. There is no intention to enforce a single man back to the Army by this measure; in fact, I do not believe that this Bill would facilitate that operation. On the contrary, I feel it is a measure which will be an advantage

    857
    to our soldiers and sailors, because we shall obtain a complete and accurate local record of all those who have given their services to the country.
    General M'CALMONT: While I entirely support the right hon. Gentleman in his effort to make this register a success, I do not agree that you should do away with all penalties. I support what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend on the subject of some distinction being made in the case of the soldier and sailor. The Government have pledged themselves that there shall be a preference shown to soldiers and sailors in getting employment, and I can see no objection to some mark or distinguishing word being put to the names of these men in order to identify them. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has given no pledge upon this particular point, but I hope he will do so before this Amendment is disposed of.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend has told us if this Bill becomes law and a soldier does not register, and if he is taken before the local magistrate and says that he did not know what the law was, that the magistrate will not convict him. Now if there is one thing which is common knowledge to everyone who has to sit upon the magisterial bench, it is that ignorance of the law is no defence. I venture to say that instead of there being no magistrate who would convict under such circumstances, I do not believe there is any magistrate who would not convict. Probably a small fine would be imposed, but the soldier would be convicted beyond doubt. I have listened to the whole of this Debate, and as far as I can make out there are two classes who would Le affected by this Clause. The first is the class of soldiers who have been discharged, and the second is those who have been allowed to go to the Army, but who can be called back under certain circumstances. The Government said they do not intend to call back those who can be dealt with under another Act if they are required in some other direction. That is open to the objection that it is all very well for a right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Treasury Bench and saying he does not intend to do this or that, but he cannot bind the Government which succeeds him, and I understand that this Bill is for all time.
    Mr. FISHER: It is limited to the duration of the War.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I thought the right hon. Gentleman said he hoped this Act would be continued after the War.
    Mr. FISHER: I did not say that. I expressed the belief that something of this kind might be exceedingly useful in the future.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Then I understand now that this Bill only applies to the War, but that does not alter the objection which has occurred to me. These particular men have done great service to the country, and my right hon. Friend says, and it has also been said by hon. Members below the Gangway, that there is already a register which furnishes the names and particulars of all these men and the War Office have got all this information. The proposal of this Bill may mean more than it seems to convey. There is a dislike which I confess I share myself to having to be continually filling up forms. Why should these people who deserve well of their country and who will not, as I understand, be subject to anything unpleasant under this Bill, and who are to be given the option of having preferential employment, be compelled to fill up forms of this character when the War Office knows all about these men. This will give rise to discontent among the discharged soldiers. There is a desire prevailing in most Government Departments that everybody should fill up some kind of form and be subject to some inquisitorial questions, but in this case there is no object to be gained, because it is the Government's own statement, and they have already got the names and particulars.
    Mr. BECK: They have not got them.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Under these circumstances might I suggest that if it is impossible for the Government to leave out soldiers and sailors altogether they might make this registration voluntary. Why inflict any penalty at all? If soldiers and sailors like to register themselves let them do so, but do not inflict a penalty and then you will make some distinction between those who have fought for their country and those who have not.
    Colonel GREIG: I really think the House has misapprehended the effect of the Section which imposes a penalty under this Bill. If hon. Members will turn to the old National Registration Act they will find unless there is something in this Bill which I have failed to find, that the infliction of the penalty is restricted in two very

    859
    important particulars, one of which meets the point put forward at an earlier period of the Debate by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, and the other meets the point of the discharged soldier. Section 13 of the National Registration Act, 1915, imposes a penalty upon anybody for not filling up the form. It provides that
    "If any person over eighteen years of age required to register himself under this Act,
    (a) Refuses, or without lawful excuse neglects to fill up—"
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: But that is cancelled by this Bill.
    Colonel GREIG: That may be so, but it is just possible that something of that kind might be inserted in this Bill to place it en a safe footing. My own impression is that the penalty is not provided for in the present Bill, but only in the old Act. You find nowhere in this Bill provision for a penalty except upon another point altogether.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The lion. and gallant Gentleman will find that the effect of Clause 6 is that anyone who neglects to carry out the provisions of the Act—that is, when called upon to produce his form or to fill up the form—incurs all these liabilities.
    Colonel GREIG: That is another point altogether. I think it will be found that it is this old Section that imposes the penalty. I may be mistaken, and, assuming that I am, it might be possible to adjust the Section in the old Act to the point that we are at present discussing. Until now it has only applied, in regard to the community at large, to persons over eighteen years of age, although everybody at fifteen years of age was required to register. If an ordinary civilian came before the magistrates and said, "Although I am by law supposed to know Acts of Parliament passed by the Legislature, still I am not aware of the existence of this Act, and it is not on account of any wilful action or neglect on my part that I have done this," the. magistrates would certainly not inflict a! penalty. That seems to me to meet the whole point raised. If the Committee will turn to Section 4 of the old Act, they will find the particulars which anyone, coming under it has to register. I believe that I shall myself have to register under
    860
    this Bill. When the original Act was passed I was serving, but I am not now serving. I do not want to deprive myself of the opportunity of having an industrial occupation if the duties of a Parliamentary Secretary become too hard by reason of the action of Members of this House. Let us presume that a person has got to register. What has he to disclose about himself? Surely it is in the interests of all discharged soldiers that these particulars should be known, for the very purpose of giving them an opportunity of getting work—
    "Name; address; age; whether single, married, or widowed; number of dependants (if any), distinguishing wife, children, and other dependants; profession or occupation (if any)."
    I think a man, if he got a form, would probably say, "I have served," but that could easily be amended in the present Bill by adding the words, "Whether he has served in any of His Majesty's Forces, and, if so, which?"
    "Name and business address of employer (if any)—"
    Is there any harm in asking a discharged soldier that—
    "and nature of employer's business; and (in the case of a person born abroad) nationality, if not British."
    That is very useful information in many respects—
    "and whether the work on which he is employed is work for or under any Government Department."
    There is no harm in that—
    "Whether he is skilled in and able and willing to perform any work other than the work (if any) at which he is at the time employed, and, if so, the nature thereof."
    What hardship is there in asking any discharged soldier the same questions as every other citizen in the country was asked at the time of the passing of that Act? Has it been any burden on the community at, large other than those people—and there have been cases—who have tried to evade it? There has been no cry against the Bill. People registered quite willingly, and it provided quite useful information.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. Member has really missed the point of the criticism that has been addressed from every part of the House with regard to the registra-

    861
    tion of discharged soldiers. I can put the case in a sentence. The Government claim that it is necessary for the soldiers' own good that they should be able to register after they have been discharged from the Army or the Navy in order that the Government may assist them to reenter industrial life. Our reply is that you have no power, either under this Bill or the original Act, to ask a man whether he is a discharged soldier or whether he has served with the forces. If you wish to get a register including soldiers, and to know who are the discharged soldiers, you must alter the particulars which the first Act requires you to ask of every person who fills up this form. That is the question to which I again beg that a reply may be given.
    Mr. KILEY: The question that the Committee has to consider is the effect on the man himself. Let us consider the position of a soldier who has served in this War and who has resumed his former occupation. He is liable under the Review of Exceptions Act to be called up for reexamination. Such a man in my own employ has been called up and found incapable of military service. He has got six months' exemption. Under this Bill he will have to register, and, if the Minister of National Service wants a hundred men to run the tramways in Glasgow, he may call upon him to go to Glasgow for that purpose. The man may not want to leave his present occupation, but, if he does not do what the Minister of National Service wants him to do, I presume that the Minister will at once report him to the War Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If that is not the object and intention, then why put it in the Bill? Why give this power to the Minister of National Service to order a man to do work of national importance? If he does not do what the Minister of National Service desires him to do, then he can be called up for reexamination, and, if found suitable, he can be sent into the Army again. If the Minister in charge of the Bill will put into it some words that will prevent that being done, then I shall be quite satisfied. I know that the Minister of National Service, perhaps, may not do that, but I speak with a good deal of feeling and, knowledge, because I have had to deal with some of the officials at the Ministry.
    Mr. BECK: This is not a National Service Bill, but a National Registration Bill.
    Mr. KILEY: I know; but the Minister of National Service has the right to order these men to do certain things, and that is why they are to be registered. If that is not the object, then I have no more to say.
    Mr. MORRELL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Greig) said that the provisions with which these discharged soldiers have to comply are of no importance whatever, and that they are not going to be harassed or subjected to unpleasant penalties. I am in the recollection of the Committee, and I say that was the whole point of his speech. I do not know what other object his speech could have had. He read out paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the original Act. I will read what this Clause 13 says, so that the Committee may see what are the penalties to which these men will be subjected:
    "If any person over eighteen years of age required to register himself under this Act—

    (a) refuses, or without lawful excuse neglects, to fill up or cause to be filled up a form to the best of his knowledge and belief, or to sign it as by this Act required; or

    (b) refuses, or without lawful excuse neglects, to attend at any place or time at which his attendance is required under this Act; or

    (c) wilfully makes or signs, or causes to be made or signed, any false return of any matter specified in the form; or

    (d) refuses to answer, or wilfully gives a false answer to, any question necessary for obtaining the information required to be obtained under this Act; or

    (e) refuses, or without lawful excuse neglects, to perform any other duty imposed on him by or under this Act;

    he shall for each offence be liable, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of a continuing offence to a further fine not exceeding one pound for each day during which the offence continues."
    Colonel GREIG: Has the hon. Member himself found any difficulty in complying with any of those provisions?
    Mr. MORRELL: I understand the hon. and gallant. Member to ask me—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean): I must ask the hon. and learned Member to refrain from such an unusual method of addressing the Committee. I hope that it will not be repeated.
    Mr. MORRELL: I understood the hon. and gallant Member to ask if I had found any difficulty in complying with these provisions. Fortunately, I have had a better education than some of these men, and therefore it is not so difficult for me to fill up these forms. I confess, when I was asked what other forms of National Service I should be prepared to engage upon beyond the occupation in which I was engaged, I began to think it was a tiresome thing to be asked by a Government Department. I know that a good many people had a good deal of hesitation in putting anything down. I was fortunate enough not to be asked to attend "at any place or time." It is quite plain that these men will be liable to very disagreeable penalties and that they will have all kinds of obligations put upon them under this Bill. They will be liable to be accosted by any policeman and asked to produce their registration form at any time. They will have to fill up all kinds of forms. My hon. Friend who represents the Minister of National Service says that it is entirely for the benefit of these men. If the benefit of these men is the only thing in view, I would suggest to the Government that they have a perfectly easy means of proceeding. In the first place, the War Office can quite well collect all the information about these discharged men, if they have not got it already. There is no reason why the whole thing should not be arranged by some voluntary society which would enable them to get the employment they require. You are harassing men who deserve well of their country, and it is a very unfortunate matter. You are collecting at great expense and trouble information which will be of no useful purpose for the War, and for that reason I hope that my hon. Friend will carry his Amendment to a Division.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I have listened to the greater part of this Debate, but up to the present time I have heard no adequate reason given for the inclusion of this provision in this particular Section. I always understood that it was the intention of the Government to make a register of all the men discharged from the Army, and that they were able to do it without any
    864
    additional power and without any Amendment of the National Registration Act. I have some recollection, indeed, when the National Liberal Club was commandeered, about eight months ago, that assurances were given that the building was to be used for the purposes of demobilisation—for the pigeon-holing, as it w ere, of the whole of the men as they were discharged or demobilised from the Army. It was obviously the view of the Government at that time that they were in a position to make an adequate and complete register of all the men discharged from the Army without any harassing statutory provisions in relation to the men at all. We naturally want to know what has occurred to change the view of the Government, and why it should be necessary to include the discharged men in this Bill and to make them liable to all the serious penalties which are included in this Bill by reference to the original Act. The answer of my hon. learned and gallant Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Colonel Greig) is quite inadequate. We all know that he is quite willing to be registered, and that with his legal acumen he would find it very easy to answer all these somewhat difficult questions included in the catechism issued by the National Service Department. For example, he would have no difficulty in informing the national registration officials what other work of national importance he was competent to undertake, but the ordinary discharged man is not in quite so favourable a position as my hon. Friend, and may have some doubt as to the risk of the penalties which he incurs. My hon. Friend says that those penalties will only be incurred in the event of failure or default without lawful excuse, and he gave a somewhat novel legal interpretation of the words "without lawful excuse." He said that if a discharged man came forward and said that he did not know of the existence of this Act, that would be a lawful excuse. That is a very novel doctrine. I always thought that ignorance of the law was in no case admitted as a lawful excuse. Up to the present time there has only been one exception to that maxim of law, and that was made by Statute in favour of the Attorney-General, when he, in ignorance of the law, retained his office in this House, and thereby incurred penalties amounting to thousands of pounds. A special Statute was passed to relieve him of those penalties on the

    865
    ground that ignorance of the law excused the Attorney-General. Apart from the Attorney-General ignorance of the law has never been held to be a lawful excuse for anybody. I hope that my hon. Friend will at once save his legal reputation by withdrawing his novel and heterodox contention with which he has endeavoured to mislead the Committee.
    The real point of this discussion arises from the experience of the past. Many of the discharged men up to the present have been quite willing to register themselves. What has been the result? In every case where a discharged man has registered himself he has been penalised, he has been called up as if he were a man who was not registered, and he has been harassed by the Government. It is because of this persistent unfair treatment of discharged then in the past that we object to their inclusion in this Clause. That is a perfectly fair reason for objecting to it. But that is not all. We are told that they are to be perfectly safe in the future. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service yesterday read out an answer which, indeed, so far as Ministerial assurances go, is a fairly adequate protection for these discharged men. But I do not think that their protection should depend upon Ministerial assurances. If the Government had wished to give adequate protection, they should have repealed the Review of Exceptions Act so far as it affected discharged men. A Ministerial assurance is totally inadequate. For one thing, it only binds the Ministers who happen to be for the time being on the Treasury Bench. These gentlemen, much as we esteem and admire them, may not be long there. They may pass away as
    "The remembrance of a guest tarrieth but for a day,
    and how will their pledges bind their successors? Indeed, they are already in process of disintegration. The right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) has gone. He has been followed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who used to efficiently whip the majority of this House and who represents an Ulster constituency. They are already disappearing like spring snow. If that is the situation of the Government, why should we rely merely on declarations made from the Treasury Bench? No, Sir, let us make the position clear. Let us see that there is no possibility of these men being harassed in any way. They have already rendered good service which their
    866
    country has asked of them, the great majority of them voluntarily and without any compulsion, and after they have done that and they are discharged on grounds of disability, surely the least that can be done for them is to save them from any harassing persecution such as that to which they have been subjected.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: I sympathise to a certain extent with the desire of the President of the Local Government Board to have a complete register, and I can imagine there being circumstances in which to know the total number of employés in the various industries in an area might be of advantage, but in his speech the right hon. Gentleman omitted to reply to the suggestion made to him that the register should contain some record of the man who is a discharged soldier. He told us that the register would be to the advantage of these men, but he entirely failed to convey to me in what way it would be to their advantage to have their names on a list. How could it be to the advantage of any discharged soldier to be on this register? It is proposed that he should be registered as discharged? It is not proposed in the Bill at present. The hon. Member for West Renfrew shire (Colonel Greig) said it could be easily amended. We want to know whether it is going to be amended, and, if it is, is there to be a register of discharged soldiers? For many things connected with pensions and otherwise it would be of great advantage to an area to have a list there of all the discharged soldiers, but let us know how this Bill is going to advantage them now. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service has just told us that he is worried, but that he is not worried about this Amendment. He says he is worried about the past. This Amendment refers to the future, to those who cease to be soldiers, not to those who have ceased to be soldiers. He tells us that the machinery has been already arranged for everything that will happen in the future. Then are we to understand that the machinery they had has broken down? Is it because the War Office machinery has broken down that the hon. Member is worried? Apparently, so far as he is concerned, the Government could accept this Amendment. What would have great influence with me would be to know whether you are going to make this register of discharged soldiers or whether you are not. Are they simply to be put

    867
    in for the general purposes of this Bill? That is a point with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal when he addressed the House previously.
    Mr. FISHER: I promised my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins) that I would answer a question he put to me as to whether we would be willing to make some provision in this Bill, which amends the National Registration Act, 1915, by which it could be made perfectly plain by any person recent War, or, at all events, that he was a discharged soldier, that he was one who had done service to the country in the recent War, or at all events, that he was a discharged soldier or sailor. That was a most reasonable request. It facilitates my own desire, which I have expressed in the House on two or three occasions, that there should be a local record, not a central register at the War Office only, of all discharged soldiers and sailors who have done, as most of them have done, excellent service to their country. My attention was properly called to the fact that under Section 4 of the original National Registration Act all that the form enjoined is the entry of the name, place of residence, age, whether single, married or widowed, the number of dependants (if any), distinguishing wife, children, and other dependants, and then profession or occupation (if any), the name and business address of the employer, the nature of the employer's business, and, in the case of a person born abroad, nationality if not British. The mere fact of stating your profession or occupation would not give any adequate indication that you were a discharged soldier.
    On that question I reply that I am most willing to put in words and shall propose words to the Committee, either this evening or on the Report stage, by which it will be made perfectly plain to any discharged soldier or sailor that he can add to that form some words and particulars as to whether he is or is not a person who has been discharged from His Majesty's Forces. I will undertake to make it quite plain that so far as the discharged soldier or sailor is concerned he will be able to notify to the registration officer that he is a discharged soldier or sailor, so that anyone desiring to make use of that local register, say, a municipality which desires to give employment to thirty or forty men, or some local employer who desires to do
    868
    the same, may be able to search the register and, in a very simple way, discover that there are so many living in that locality who were discharged soldiers or sailors, so that they may, if they choose, be able to give some preference to the soldiers or sailors when they desire to fill up the ranks of labour. I have all along expressed my desire — the Committee knows how much I desire it—and my belief that the inclusion of soldiers and sailors in this list will be beneficial to them. It cannot be detrimental to them. It could not in any way strengthen the desire or purpose, if it existed, of the Government to make use of that soldier or sailor in a military way, or for the purposes of industrial conscription.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: Will you put that pledge in the Bill?
    Mr. FISHER: There is no desire or intention on the part of the Government to make use of this Bill for any industrial conscription. I have stated that already.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: Will you put that in the Bill?
    Mr. FISHER: I will even consider that, but I do not think it would be possible to put what is called "that" in the Bill. However, I will give consideration to it. There is neither the desire or the intention to make use of this Bill for the purpose of industrial conscription, nor do I believe that this Bill will afford any opportunities for doing that. I hope, after all the assurances I have given of my own desire that the Bill should not be made use of to the detriment of soldiers and sailors that they will not be left out of the Bill. If they were the Bill would be deprived of an enormous amount of its value as an accurate and systematic record of all the available resources in this country. I hope, after the three speeches I have made giving these assurances the Committee will agree with the Government that soldiers and sailors ought to be included and that it will be for their benefit and not in any way to their detriment to include them.
    Mr. HOGGE: I have not heard the whole of the Debate, but one or two points have been communicated to me which I want to be certain about before we proceed to a Division. I understand that the Secretary to the National Service Department stated that there was an express desire on the part of federations or organisations of discharged men to have themselves included in this register.
    Mr. BECK: No, no! I said nothing of the kind. When an hon. Member opposite, in referring to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend yesterday, said it would be a great shame to force these men into work of national importance, I said that so far from forcing them into work of national importance my hon. Friend and others had been urging that those men who want to engage in work of national importance should be protected from being harassed by the military authorities.
    Mr. HOGG E: That is not what we asked at all. If my hon. Friend thinks that the answer to me yesterday was a reply to what we asked he is still really ignorant of the position. What we asked when we got the answer which was given yesterday was not that a man should be protected from doing work of national importance, but should not be called up for re-examination for service, which is a very different point. We were not concerned at all as to what he should do afterwards. That was within the volition of the man himself. What we secured yesterday was that these men shall not be called up under certain circumstances. It was the repeal of the Review of Exceptions Act except with regard to medically rejected men. I should like to say as one who has probably been in touch with as many discharged soldiers' organisations as most Members of the House that the exact contrary is the case. None of these men desire to be put upon this register. They are very suspicious as to the designs of the Government in putting them upon the register. They are more tired of registering themselves than they are of fighting. My hon. Friend must know that there is in existence already a complete register of discharged men, because attached to the Records Office of the unit to which every man belongs there is the name and address and previous service and everything else of the soldier. There is also a register, or there ought to be, of these men at the Pensions Ministry, because no man is discharged to-day, with very few exceptions, who is not at the same time a disabled man. Also, in the Pay Office Department of the War Office,
    you have an absolutely complete register of every serving soldier that you have had from the beginning of the War down to now, and you have the same record in the Accountant-General's Office at the Admiralty. So that already in three or four separate Departments you have the very thing on which, by a further expense of public money, the great economist who presides over the Local Government Board is proposing to further squander the money of this country. That is a point we never touched. I notice over and over again in the Press the right hon. Gentleman is continually urging economy. Now here he is bringing in a Bill to spend more money, to engage more people, and presumably to get more offices, in order to do that which he must know is already done in four other separate Departments of State. Will he get up and deny that there is a complete register in existence?
    Mr. FISHER: I will get up and deny that there is any register whatever of a complete character of discharged soldiers and sailors in the localities. There is no such register.
    Mr. HOGGE: There are the records of every regiment, and the pay offices are all over the Kingdom, and the name and addresses are there. That is not a sufficient answer to my question. The right hon. Gentleman knows the soldiers and sailors as well as most people in this House, and he has done a, great deal for them in the course of his public life, and I am certain he has a geographical and specific knowledge of where those pay offices are, and it is really camouflage to say there is not a local register when there are the local pay offices. I think I have made it plain that there ix no desire on the part of these men, and there is no necessity for this. It is a reduplication—a quadra-duplication, if such a word can be used—and I think the Committee would be very well advised to resist the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, and to support the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 57.

    Division No. 146.]

    AYES.

    [6.22 p.m.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Bird, Alfred

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

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

    Blair, Reginald

    Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Boyton, Sir James

    Barnett, Capt. R. W.

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Brassey, H. L. C.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Perkins, Waller Frank

    Bull, Sir William James

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester)

    Burn, Col. C. R.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Butcher, John George

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Pratt, J. W.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Cator, John

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Randles, Sir John

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arton)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Edin., Midlothian)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Horne, E.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Collins, Major Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

    Robinson, Sidney

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

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

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

    Shaw, Hon. A.

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement

    Shortt, Edward

    Davies, Ellis William (Eition)

    Knight, Capt. E. A

    Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

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

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

    Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-col. H.

    Du Pre, Major W. Baring

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Stewart, Gershom

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Swift, Rigby

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfrey

    Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Fell, Sir Arthur

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

    Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

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

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Fleming, Sir J. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Macleod, John Mackintosh

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.)

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

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

    Weston, Col. J. W.

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Whiteley, Sir H. J.

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Mallalleu, Frederick William

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Marriott, J. A. R.

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon Claud

    Greig, Col. James William

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wills, Major Sir Gilbert

    Gretton, Col. John

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

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

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis J.

    Newman, Major John R. P.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Nield, Sir Herbert

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

    O'Neill, Capt. Hon. H. (Antrim, Mid.)

    Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

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

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

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Parkes, Sir Edward E.

    Younger, Sir George

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Partington, Hon. Oswald

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

    F. Guest and Lord Edmund Talbot.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Peonefather, De Fonblanque

    NOES.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rondall, Athelstan

    Armitage, Robert

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Rowlands, James

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Smallwood, Edward

    Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)

    King, Joseph

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Northampton)

    Bliss, Joseph

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Collins, Sir William (Derby)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Moltene, Percy Alport

    Watt, Henry A.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Morrell, Philip

    White, Col. G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    O'Malley, William

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Parrott, Sir James Edward

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Hinds, John

    Pringle, William M. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel

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

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Penry Williams and Mr. Hogge.

    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move to leave out the words "or thereafter attain that age or cease to be members of His Majesty's Forces."
    The original Act was not continuing Act. It took a census of those who were
    872
    certain ages on a certain day. The Amendment which the Committee has been discussing dealt, with the registration of persons who before this amending Bill bad attained a certain age. The words I propose to leave out are the words which

    873
    make liable to registration persons who become fifteen after the passing of this amending Bill, and members of the Army and Navy who are discharged after the passing of this Bill. This Amendment raises, therefore, the whole question of the departure in method and in principle from those followed in the original Registration Act. I submit that it is unnecessary to do more for the right hon. Gentleman's purpose than add to the original register those persons who to-day have arrived at the age of fifteen years. As this is primary a military register that will give him three years before any persons of fifteen who are registered become liable for military service, I suggest that he is not entitled, without better reason than has been given, to put the country to the very great expense which is involved in this continuing system of registration, and also to place upon a number of persons, which will run into millions, the duty of causing themselves to be registered.
    There is another consideration. This is a new point, and one of very great importance in regard to discharged soldiers. The right hon. Gentleman has again and again insisted that the register should contain the names of discharged soldiers in order that they may be assisted to re-enter industrial life in this country. My Amendment omits from the liability to get themselves registered, subject to heavy penalties, those soldiers who are discharged from the Army after the passing of this amending Bill. It is not necessary to include those soldiers. You have first of all a military register. One of the speakers on behalf of the Government has stated that there is a military register. I cannot believe that soldiers are discharged from the Army without a single record being kept of the soldiers so discharged, as well as the local record at the local pay office, as described by one of the hon. Members for Edinburgh. The Bill as it stands, whilst it will make liable to registration soldiers discharged from the Army after the passing of this Act, does not make liable to registration and will not register the soldiers who will be discharged from the Army at the conclusion of the War. Surely if there is to be a register compiled in order to assist registration after the War and to enable men who have fought in our Armies to be cared for in the future and to be helped in getting back to industrial life, it will be of fundamental importance that the soldiers who are in the Army at the
    874
    end of the War shall be so helped. I say, therefore, that the words in the Bill are useless for the purpose for which the President of the Local Government Board has said they are necessary, because whilst it requires, under heavy penalties, soldiers who are discharged after the passing of the Act to be registered, it takes no steps to register those soldiers who will be disbanded at the end of the War. This Amendment is essentially a part of the Amendment already discussed, therefore I will not again cover the ground.
    Mr. FISHER: Already we have had a very full discussion on the last Amendment as to the benefit to be derived by discharged soldiers from registration under this Bill. The Amendment now proposed would deprive the Clause of its continuing effect, and it would mean that while those who have attained the age of fifteen immediately upon this Bill coming into operation would have to be registered, those who attain the age of fifteen after that date would not have to be registered. When you add to that the fact that very large numbers of His Majesty's forces would not have to be registered, this Amendment would defeat the main purpose of the Bill, which is to obtain an accurate record of all those, from now until this Bill ceases to operate—namely, until the termination of the War—who attain the age of fifteen, and who, for all I know and for all the House knows, may be nineteen before the War closes. It has been said that the primary object of this Bill is for military purposes. I hope I shall not have to repeat it again, that the primary object is not for military purposes, but to ascertain accurately and to record systematically necessary information regarding the available industrial forces in this country, both male and female. This Bill is an auxiliary to the Man-Power Bill introduced by the Minister of National Service.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I supported the Government in the last Division and I oppose this Amendment on the same grounds, that we have a pledge from the Government that all this registration of discharged sailors and soldiers is to enable the Director of National Service to give a preference to these discharged sailors and soldiers. Those who register must receive preferential treatment, and I cannot understand those who have the interests of these sailors and soldiers at heart who wish to exclude them from a great national

    875
    registration scheme which is essential to the best use of the man-power of the country and essential to the preferential treatment of discharged sailors and soldiers. The President of the Local Government Board made reference to the length of the War. No one who has the slightest conception of the state of the War now can see the end of it, and it is much more likely to last four years than one. [HON. MEMBERS dissented.] I know many hon. Members prophesied that the end of the War would come by Christmas, 1914, and they have continued to prophesy that each succeeding month, so that they will ultimately be right if they live long enough, or if the senility of their intellect enables them to go on prophesying. The number of men who will cease to be members of His Majesty's Forces between the passing of this Act and the conclusion of the War will be much greater, probably, than that at which it now stands. Therefore, I support this Amendment on behalf of those sailors and soldiers who are discharged between now and the end of the War.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am glad to hear the hon. and gallant Member pleading the cause which he always supports by his voice and his vote in this House—that of the discharged men. I understand that he wishes to give a reason for his voting on the last occasion and the vote which he is going to give now. His reason is the interesting one that this provision is going to give preferential treatment for the discharged men. There is no need to impose a penalty upon the discharged man to make him take advantage of the benefit that he is going to get under this Bill. You are imposing a penalty upon him if he does not rush in and get registered in order to get the preferential treatment of which the hon. and gallant Member speaks. It is really asking too much, even of the intelligence of the present House of Commons, to ask us to accept that as a reason. if you are going to give preferential treatment for these men and you announce it honestly in public, they will come forward voluntarily and register. Everybody knows that, and everybody knows that if it were only a question of preferential employment there would be no difficulty. It is because the Government desire to have a grip upon them for further purposes, and only for that, that this registration is now brought forward, and to
    876
    have a grip upon them for military service purposes under the Review of Exceptions Act. They got the men to register under the old Act and the men know from their experience that it was not preferential employment, but preferential Conscription.
    It is because there is a risk of preferential Conscription once more under this Bill that some of us who are interested in these men, and have some knowledge of what they think, are going to vote for this Amendment as we voted for the last. This register is quite unnecessary. A register is in existence already in the hands of the War Office. They have already had a large staff engaged upon it in one of the big clubs in the West End for nearly two years, and it is simply throwing dust in the eyes of the House of Commons to allege that this register is required for any other purpose than for the purpose of getting a hold on these men locally and making the information available for the National Service authorities. I do not think that is the way in which the discharged men ought to be treated. They have not deserved it. Of course this Clause will be inserted in the Bill and will continue, and the discharged men will get to know the reality. Then we shall have the hon. and gallant Member (Sir H. Greenwood) sending out apologetic circulars to the organisation which he represents, as he has done in regard to his vote on the Review of Exceptions Act.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: No; I have never apologised for my vote on the Review of Exceptions Act. I voted for it on the pledge of the Government that it was essential to reinforce the men in the trenches—an attitude of mind which has never characterised the hon. Member for Lanarkshire.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am quite willing to leave my attitude of mind in this matter to the judgment of my Constituents, and I expect that I shall be back here when the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not. But that is an irrelevant consideration because the hon. and gallant Baronet, on the introduction of the new Military Service Bill in this House, actually apologised in face of the House, and I do not know how he can now get up and say that he did not apologise. His words are in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Read them.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I have not got them here, but his second apology will stand him in as little stead as the first, and it will be known that in this case, as in that, he has betrayed the interest of those for whom he professes to speak.
    Mr. MORRELL: I will not take part in the dispute between the hon. Member for Lanarkshire and the hon. Baronet the Member for Sunderland, but I will state very shortly why even those who refused to support the last Amendment should have no hesitation in supporting this Amendment if they really care for the soldiers and sailors, as I am sure we all do. On the last Amendment it was open to the Government to say, though I do not think there would be any justification for doing so, "The register of these men hitherto kept by the War Office has been defective, and the War Office does not know their addresses"; but, as regards the present Amendment, it cannot be said that they do not know the names and addresses of the men who will be discharged in future. It is perfectly open to the War Office, without imposing any penalty on these men, to get themselves all the information which they would otherwise get, with penalties under this Bill. Therefore, if the Government only wish to benefit these men, they could do so without having all these harassing obligations and subjecting them to the very severe penalties imposed by this Bill. If the hon. Baronet really means, as I am sure he does, that his object in supporting this Bill is to benefit discharged soldiers and sailors, I cannot help thinking that he is mistaken in his view. There is no justification for asking these men to fill up these elaborate forms, and subjecting them to penalties if they do not fill them up. It is perfectly open to the Government to give all the industrial preferential treatment which is possible without imposing these penalties. Therefore, if my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him. Though I with to do all that is possible for these men, I do not wish to subject them to the harassing obligations of filling up unnecessary forms, and being liable to be accosted by policemen, taken before a bench of magistrates, and fined £5 if they fail to comply with the provisions of the new Act of Parliament.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Duties of Persons to Register.)
    (2) It shall be the duty of every male person who, by virtue of this Act, is liable to register himself under the principal Act, or who was liable to register himself under the principal Act but has failed so to do before the passing of this Act, to cause himself to be registered, and for that purpose before the appointed date to obtain, fill up, sign, and send or deliver to the local registration authority, by post or otherwise, a form containing the particulars mentioned in Section four of the principal Act or such of those particulars as may be prescribed.
    The appointed date for the purpose of this Section shall, as respects persons who come within the operation of this Section on the date of the passing of this Act, or within fourteen days thereafter, be the twenty-eighth day after that date, and in the case of any other persons be the fourteenth day after the date on which they come within the operation of this Secion.
    (2) Sections five, six, and thirteen of the principal Act (which relate respectively to the completion and correction of forms, to the right to certificates of registration and to penalties) shall have effect as if references therein to forms included a reference to forms under this Act.
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, is to leave out Subsection (1), but Sub-section (1) appears to be the whole of the Clause.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire to move the deletion of the Sub-section to raise the question of placing the responsibility of registering himself upon the person who reaches the age of fifteen, and by raising that matter, in a general discussion, to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill some indication of what modifications he is prepared to accept. I should confine myself within those limits.
    The CHAIRMAN: Still I am afraid it must come on the Clause, and not on the Sub -section.
    Major NEWMAN: I have put down an Amendment to leave out the word "male."
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member took his discussion on Clause 1.
    Major NEWMAN: This is quite a different point.
    The CHAIRMAN: Clause 1 sets out the new persons who are to be registered, and the Committee there decided that they were to be male persons. Clause 2 sets out the method in which persons are to do the duty imposed upon them, and it must follow the same terms.
    Major NEWMAN: On the point of Order. Clause 2 does not altogether deal with new persons. It deals also with persons who were liable to register themselves under the principal Act and have failed to do so.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member has a separate point, he can deal with it.
    Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "male."
    We are dealing in this Bill not only with those who come under this Bill, but with persons who are liable under the principal Act to register and did not do so. If that applies to men, it surely ought to apply to women! A great number of men did not take the trouble to register themselves under the original Act, and this is perhaps even more true of women. It must be notorious that there are hundreds of thousands of women who for various reasons did not register themselves under the original Act. Under the original Act forms were sent round to the household by canvassers selected by the local authorities, filled up and returned. It is obvious, in the case, say, of a single woman living by herself, that she was not reached by the canvassers and did not fill in a form, and has never since taken the trouble to do so. I take it that this particular Clause means to make her liable to register herself. The machinery now is quite different. It is now up to her to register herself. There is no one to run after her. She has got to go to a post office, apply for a form, fill it up, and return it, and if she does not do so she is liable to a penalty. Therefore I suggest if we leave in the word "male" we shall be defeating the purpose of this Bill altogether. It is obvious that Clause 7 will have to be enforced in respect of these women who have not registered themselves under the old Act, and it is much better to do this now and to provide that every person, whether male or female, shall take steps to register himself, and thus carry out the intention of the Bill.
    Mr. FISHER: This Amendment would have a very limited effect. As my hon.
    880
    and gallant Friend says, it would merely force all females who failed to register under the Act of 1915 to apply for forms and register themselves in the orthodox way. There would be considerable advantage in their so doing, no doubt, but the Government had to consider whether they would apply this Bill to males and females at once or whether they would apply it to males at present and take power by Order in Council to apply it subsequently to females. It was the opinion of the Government that, as we wanted celerity in this matter, as we wanted as quickly as possible to get on the register all these young fellows who have attained the age of fifteen since the last register, and to get on the register as quickly as possible all these who have ceased to be members of His Majesty's Forces, it was better not to put an increased burden on the registration authorities, and that it would cause delay if we were to add any conditions as regards females as well as males. I think that, on the whole, it was a wise decision. My hon. and gallant Friend may be sure that the question will not be lost sight of. It will come up again when we come to Clause 7, which enables the Government to apply this by Order in Council to females, and my hon. and gallant Friend may be certain that, if it turns out to be more easy than we expect to get males on the register, and if we can obtain inclusion of the males within a reasonable period without too arduous a task being put on the registration officers, the case of females will be very carefully considered as to whether we shall avail ourselves of the power, which I hope the Committee will give us, of by Order in Council applying this to females as well as to males.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, to leave out the words "cause himself to be registered and for that purpose before the appointed date to obtain."
    This Amendment has to be taken in connection with the subsequent Amendment on the Paper. If my Amendments are adopted then instead of the person being required to obtain the form himself he will have to fill it up after delivery to him by the local registration authorities.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that it would be more convenient to discuss the issue which the hon. Member desires to raise.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am very glad to move this Amendment in a form which I think will be for the general convenience of the House. It proposes to substitute for the method of this amending Bill the method which was adopted in the original Act, under which the registration authorities delivered the form to those who were to be registered. This amending Bill proposes that it should be done by the persons to be registered; themselves applying for the form. This means that within fourteen days, in most cases, they are to obtain the form, fill it up, and return it to the local registration authority. If my Amendment be accepted it will relieve the persons to be registered of the liability of themselves obtaining the form, and will place it upon the local registration authority, precisely as is done under the principal Act. The duty of the authority would be to provide the person liable to registration with the form, as under the principal Act. This provision to which my Amendment is directed is one of the chief blemishes of the Bill in the view of some of us. We believe that it will be an unworkable proposal. In the first place, we believe that to imagine that children—for a great many thousands and tens of thousands of those who are to be registered are children at school—should undertake this liability placed upon them of themselves obtaining the form and seeing that they are registered, is to imagine what will prove unworkable. It was stated by my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, that the local registration authority would take care to see that all persons liable to registration were duly informed of their liability. He put it as an entirely simple matter making known to all persons the provisions and liabilities of this Bill, through various agencies. But this Bill may affect some millions of persons, for at the present moment, according to the figures which had been placed before us, this measure affects more than one million boys, and may affect more than one million females, between the ages of fifteen and seventeen and a half. It will also affect something like 400,000 boys, which is the average number of boys attaining the age of fifteen in any one year; and if the provisions of the Bill are extended to females, it will affect, roughly speaking, about 400,000 females who reach the age of fifteen in each year. I suggest to the right hon.
    882
    Gentleman that the proposal is unworkable with these vast numbers. If the liability to registration is to be brought under the notice of these very great numbers of persons who are affected by the Bill, it will be necessary for the local registration authorities to do something in the nature of a house-to-house canvass and to issue forms to the heads of households, precisely as was done under the principal Act. I have heard no reason whatever in the course of the Debate which has taken place why the methods of the original Act should not be adhered to in this amending Bill.
    Let me put a further point. Soldiers who are discharged from the Army, on the passing of this Bill, must, within fourteen days, obtain the form and see that they are registered. This liability is placed upon soldiers, within a very short time, who have been serving in distant parts of the Empire and who will certainly know nothing whatever of this Bill. That is a separate category of persons who will be affected by the provisions of this measure. While I think it wrong, and indeed ludicrous, that we should require schoolchildren of fifteen to carry out this duty and to know about the provisions of this Act, I think it equally wrong and equally ludicrous that we should subject the discharged soldier to what may be heavy penalties for failing, within fourteen days after the passing of the Act, to obtain the form or failing to return it to the registration committee. A very large part of one objection is to the machinery of the Bill. I am not now speaking of the principle of the Bill, which I do not believe in. My objection to a very large part of the harsh machinery with which you attempt to realise that principle will be removed if you do what you did under the original Act, that is if, through the registration office, you send the form to the persons liable to be registered, and then require them to return the forms filled up to the registration authorities. Considering the very great numbers that are involved, it is impossible to consider this suggested machinery without remembering also that the penalties under the original Act are transferred to this Act. I am very glad indeed to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board present, because he will remember that on the occasion when the Bill was last under discussion he stated that he was quite unable to see that any penalties would fall upon anybody for non-observance of the pro-

    883
    visions of this Act, and that no new penalty would be imposed upon any person under this amending Bill that did not fall upon them under the original Act. It is only fair to say that the hon. Gentleman stated that he would look into this point to see if it was correct.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Walsh): What I did say was that there were no penalties transferred from the present Act to the new Bill in regard to persons under eighteen years for failing to register.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman is really quite wrong in that statement. That may have been the statement he intended to make, and I do not dispute for a moment that that was what he intended to say, but I think if he refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that his words can bear a much wider interpretation than that. But it is essential to consider what penalties fall upon these children in connection with this Amendment. If you look at Clause 11 of this Bill you will see that the two Acts have to be construed together, and I suppose that the whole of the penalties under the original Act are transferred to this measure, not only by reason of the last Clause of it, but particularly by reason of Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, which we are now to consider, and which is an involved piece of draftsmanship that a child will find it difficult to understand immediately, or even a discharged soldier, for that matter. Sub-section (2) says, "Sections 5, 6, and 13 of the principal Act (which relate, respectively, to the completion and collection of forms, to the right to certificates of registration and to penalties) shall have effect as if reference therein to forms included a reference to forms under this Act." I understand—perhaps I am not divulging any secret—that, from conversations with the Registration Department, there is some doubt about the legal effect of Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, and as to whether it does succeed or not in transferring the penalties from the principal Act to this Bill. That is my second point with regard to penalties. My final point with regard to penalties is that a new penalty is introduced under the terms of this amending Bill, and this new penalty of £5, instituted in terms in this amending Bill, falls upon those who fail to produce their certificates
    884
    of registration. How they can produce their certificates of registration without having first registered I cannot see, and therefore I think I am entirely right in saying that the penalties of the original Act and certain new penalties are provided in terms in the present Bill, and they fall upon children of fifteen, on whom is placed the liability of registering themselves under this amending Bill. This is a very serious point indeed: I believe it is the most serious point with regard to the machinery proposed in this. Bill.
    And I want to remind you, Sir, that whereas the original Act did cause persons who have reached the age of fifteen to be registered after a form had been delivered for that purpose, this House deliberately refused on that occasion to sanction any proposal which would put any sort of penalty upon anyone under the age of eighteen, or refusing or failing to fill up and return the form, even after it had been presented to them for the purpose of being filled up. I do not know whether hon. Members now present heard the Debate on this question when the original Act was under discussion. I hope the President of the Local Government Board will refresh his memory by a reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT, and he will see how strong the feeling was in this House, and which has found expression again and again in recent legislation, that you should not create new statutory crimes for children and young persons. It was as the result of that strong feeling that the deliberate decision was come to that whatever penalties were provided in the Act should only fall upon persons above the age of eighteen years. The President of the Local Government Board a little earlier in the evening said that we could give no example of an Act where no penalties were proposed for non-observance of liability. He invited the House to give him an example. I desire to give him an example, and it is the Registration Act, of which this is the amending Bill. It imposed no penalties whatever for a breach even of the whole of the provisions of that Act on any person under the age of eighteen years. In this amending Bill you introduce a new penalty in terms which falls upon everyone affected by the measure of the age of fifteen and upwards, and, by the somewhat involved draftsmanship to which I have referred, I think you also transfer the other

    885
    penalties from the original Act and make them applicable also to this measure, the two being construed together.
    If my Amendment is not accepted, what will it mean? It will mean that if a schoolboy of fifteen—he may be in an industrial school or a private boarding school—fails within fourteen days to obtain, fill up, and return the form, he is to be subjected to a heavy fine, and I think, according to my reading of the Bill, a continuing fine. If this boy of fifteen on leaving school fails within fourteen days to obtain, fill up, and return another form stating that his occupation is no longer that of a schoolboy, or something else, he is again subject to penalties, and I think continuing penalties. If the same schoolboy a week later changes his address and fails to obtain another form and fill it up and return it he is again subjected to severe penalties. That might happen in many cases among the thousands of schoolboys if my Amendment is not accepted. You might have the case of the schoolboy of fifteen in entire ignorance of this Act and the amazing machinery by which it is proposed to carry it out. If the boy fails with regard to change of employment to register within fourteen days or to register a change of address that his parents have made he may have committed three new statutory crimes and he is liable to prosecution for a breach of the Act on each of those counts. What I say with regard to the position of the schoolboys is equally true with regard to the discharged soldier. He may arrive in this country after the passing of the Act and may be in entire ignorance that it was passed, and yet if within fourteen days he fails to notify himself for registration or to return his employment or particulars of his change of address he commits three new offences, for which he is liable to severe penalties. I do not think the Committee will sanction those liabilities being placed on school children and on discharged soldiers and sailors. I would ask the sympathetic consideration of the right hon. Gentleman for this matter. A large part of the objections to the machinery proposed in this Amending Bill will be met if he will modify this Clause which places upon the individual the duty of securing registration within so short a time and subjects him to such heavy penalties for any breach of the conditions. I sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not only be able to accept the Amendment and revert to the machinery of the original Act, but that he
    886
    will also be able to assure us that he does not propose, if the Bill is ambiguous in any respect, to let the Bill go through without removing altogether the penalties which, as it stands at present, will fall upon young persons under the age of eighteen and upon discharged soldiers and sailors.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Gentleman desires to place the liability of acquainting both discharged soldiers and these lads of fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen with the fact that they ought to be registered on registration officer. If the Bill as it stands, compelling both discharged sailors and soldiers and lads of fifteen to obtain a form and fill it up is entirely unworkable, I think that can be applied much more to the suggestion of the hon. Member to compel the registration authority to notify all these lads who had become fifteen since the 15th of August, 1915, that inasmuch as they had attained the age of fifteen they ought to be registered. How could the local authority possibly know what lads in their area had become fifteen or sixteen or seventeen since that date? They have no means of knowing.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The Government have the sugar cards which give this information, and they would only have to take it from those cards and leave forms with the respective householders.
    Mr. FISHER: I am afraid that even with. the acquisition of that knowledge from the very recent sugar card the local authority would not be able to tell what number of lads were in its area, and still less would it be able to tell the number of discharged soldiers in the area who ought to be registered under this Bill. In the case of the original Registration Act we were able to bring to the notice of every householder the fact that the Act had been passed, but it was only because we were able to obtain very large help from volunteer bodies. Something like 150,000 volunteers came forward to assist us in compiling the register, and among those there was a very great number of school masters and school mistresses. We shah not have that aid and assistance on this occasion. Hon. Gentlemen will realise the enormous difficulties that there are for the local authorities to supply themselves with the labour or with the paper, which has become exceedingly dear and difficult to get. The only alternative to this proposal of the Bill, by which the liability to register is placed on

    887
    the person who should be registered, would appear to be to leave a notice in every single house, and, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, that would necessitate something like 8,000,000 forms being left in the different houses throughout the whole of the country. That would be a very expensive process, and very difficult to carry out in the matter of labour and paper. What we propose is this, to give as much publicity as possible to the fact that this Bill has become law, and to the fact that every boy who became fifteen since the 15th of August, 1915, has to be registered. We shall place at every post office forms which those boys can obtain by going to those post offices. After all, the parents of the boys would probably know that their boys lad to be registered, and the schools would have the information. We shall, by that publicity, endeavour to secure that the boys may have the information at their disposal, and every possible act will be done by the local registration authority to ensure that the provisions will be well known. I do not at all anticipate that these boys are going to be placed in the position in which the hon. Member anticipates they will be placed. We heard of boys of fifteen not knowing that they had to be registered. or to go to the post office and obtain a form, and that therefore they will in that way render themselves liable to penalties amounting to The hon. Gentleman drew a picture to which he invited my sympathy, but which I think is quite unnecessary.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is it real?
    Mr. FISHER: If the hon. Member will allow me to refer him to the Clause he will see that there are no penalties really imposed on anyone under the age of eighteen. Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 provides that "Sections 5, 6, and 13 of the principal Act (which relate respectively to the completion and correction of forms, to the right to certificates of registration, and to penalties) shall have effect as if references therein to forms included a reference to forms under this Act." The penalty Clause is lifted from the Act of 1915, and the penalties under that Act are restricted to persons over the age of eighteen, so that under the original Act no one under the age of eighteen was subjected to any,penalty. It is exactly the same, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, in this amending Bill.
    Mr. TREVELYANIn that case I take it that there is going to be no penalty on boys if they fail to register, but the only penalties are on ex-soldiers who do not register. Is that so?
    Mr. FISHER: The penalties provided under the Act apply to all those over eighteen who either refuse or without lawful excuse neglect to fill up forms at the time when they are to obtain them, or make or sign, or cause to be made or signed any false returns.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: This is a most important point, and I would now ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn to Subsection (4) of Clause 6, which states that if any person fails to comply with the provisions of this Section he is to be liable to a fine not exceeding £5. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will not dispute that that affects persons between the ages of fifteen and eighteen. The offence for which a person can be fined £5 is for refusing or failing to produce his certificate of registration. Therefore, a young person of fifteen who does not register, and is then asked to produce his certificate of registration is, for failing to do so, subject to a penalty of £5. Am I right or not?
    Mr. FISHER: I was dealing with the penalties under Clause 2. As to the penalty under Clause 6, it is true that the drafting of the Bill did undoubtedly leave it in some doubt, at all events, as to whether the penalties did not attach to those of fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen. I have already framed an Amendment, with which I am sure the House will agree, making that provision apply to persons over the age of eighteen, and it is on my notes, and it is my intention to move it at a later stage. I think it commends itself to the Committee that penalties under the Clause may be in fact on those not under the age of eighteen. I wanted to make it quite clear that we have no intention of inflicting penalties on youths under the age of eighteen. At a later period of the evening we shall be able to make it perfectly plain to the Committee that, as the original Act did not impose penalties on those under the age of eighteen, so this amending bill does not impose penalties for failure to perform duties under this Act on those under the age of eighteen. I am afraid I cannot put the liability on the local authority actually to make certain that these forms

    889
    shall be left at the houses of those who ought to be registered. I am afraid they will have to obtain the forms from the nearest post office, or, possibly, from some other place which is equally convenient, but certainly forms will be available at the post office and the local authority I have mentioned will make it as well known as possible that this duty is imposed.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I think the speech to which we have just listened has created rather a serious situation. We have been discussing this Bill as a compulsory Bill. It is quite true it will remain in part compulsory after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but with regard to lads between the ages of fifteen and eighteen it will not be compulsory, for the simple reason that there are no penalties. That, I think, is, on the whole, perhaps a very reasonable solution, and, at any rate, for my part I am quite satisfied with that. I think that, as the House desires the registration extended, it is desirable that it should be extended on a purely voluntary basis. There is now going to he no penalty on youths who are not registered either by themselves or their parents, and what the right hon. Gentleman says about making the provisions as widely known as possible is, of course, under those circumstances, perfectly satisfactory. But it remains compulsory, with penalties, for another class of men. The other large class is those we have been discussing to-day—the discharged soldiers. For them the penalties will still remain, and the penalties will still remain even if they have never heard that the registration exists. I am bound to say I think there are many people in this House who are quite agreeable to haying the Registration Bill, and even having penalties on discharged soldiers who choose not to register if they know they ought, but who will regard it as rather a serious matter that every soldier from this time henceforward who is discharged, having served his country for three years and returning from the front, does not happen to know this Bill has been passed, if he fails to register within a few days of settling in the country, will be liable to the penalties under this Bill.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not meet us on this Amendment, because it was impossible for the local registration authority? to find out who
    890
    ought to be registered. I dare say the local registration authority in many cases would be ignorant of the soldiers who had come to settle in their district. It is a competition of ignorances. Are we to put upon the local registration authority the obligation to find out who ought to be registered in the district, or are we to put upon the soldiers settled in the district the obligation to find out whether they are under this law? I venture to say it is the public authority who ought to take the responsibility, and not the soldiers, and I think it is a very unsatisfactory thing that soldiers coming back from the front should find themselves under this obligation. If, as some people think, before the end of the War there are going to be 1,000,000 of them, you are going to have a good many brought up in the Court for their ignorance and punished. It is all very well to say that magistrates will not convict. That is not the way in which we have to make laws in this House. We have to make laws on the assumption that even magistrates can be unreasonable, and we ought not to leave our soldiers, when they came back, at the tender mercy of the reasonableness of magistrates. If they do not know the law exists they ought not to be punished, and that is the point of this Amendment.
    I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to meet us in some way or other. I should have thought that he might in some way have modified the penalty Clause. I do not know whether he has looked at an Amendment I have lower down on the Paper to insert at the end of the Clause the words
    "But, no penalty shall attach to any failure of duty under this Section unless it can be proved that the person charged has been warned in writing by the local registration authority of his duty to register under the Act."
    That might be modified by substituting. after the word "charged" the words "has not had an opportunity of due warning." It might be less strict than the words I have got down, which the right hon. Gentleman has already rejected in the speech he has made. But I cannot help thinking he might consider amending the penalty Clause in some such way as that, so that it could be made clear that if a man really had hot had a decent

    891
    chance of knowing he would not come under the penalty. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will mot consider some Amendment of the Clause for the sake of the soldier?
    Mr. MORRELL: It seems very ungracious now, after we have had this large—I will not say concession—but announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman, to criticise in any way the scope or the provisions of this Bill. Certainly I would like at once to say that this large class, who seemed by the Bill to start with to be liable to all the penalties, are now to be under no penalties whatever. They are under a legal obligation which cannot be enforced before a Court. That, I understand, is the present position. That is very satisfactory, but I think the right hon. Gentleman would have saved himself and us a great deal of trouble if he had told us all this before, and had not indulged in the very tall talk we had earlier in the Debate as regards all that this Bill was going to perform. He told us this Bill was going to be of great benefit to the Food Controller, and was going to give us great vital statistics, and we were going to have a tremendously valuable register of all the resources of the country. It was going to take us something on the way to a new heaven and a new earth, because for the first time we were going to know exactly about all the males from fifteen to sixty-five. Now, what is really going to happen? We are going to call upon these boys from fifteen to eighteen to register, and if they do not you will have nothing more to do. I think it is right that you should not impose penalties upon them, but does anyone suppose we are going to have a complete register in that way? Of course you will not. If we have large bodies of boys who find out, as they will, that there are not going to be penalties, we shall have large bodies of boys who will not register. Does the right hon. Gentleman, then, think his register will be of much value? Of course it will not be, and he knows it cannot be. Is there any step he proposes to take, if he gives up any idea of bringing them before a criminal Court, to make a complete National Register? Does he really suggest that a register formed in this way, containing a few lads here and there, is really of any great value to anybody? No doubt the original register was of considerable value.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the effect of an Amendment which may or may not be accepted later on.
    Mr. MORRELL: I quite agree I was going much further than I ought, but I think it would be material to know what the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind, and whether he will enlighten us as to how he is going to make this register complete if this Amendment is accepted or is rejected. In either case, it seems to arise out of what he said. Does he propose to take any steps to make this register a complete one? If I am going too far, I will not dwell further on that point. I will only say that I have heard the announcement he has made with great pleasure, although it really does confirm what I have always suspected, that this Bill, in the present state of the country, is of no national value whatever.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to think that a National Register will be of no use whatever unless there are penalties attaching to it.
    Mr. MORRELL.No! Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to correct that? I do not think it will have all the benefits attributed to it by the right hon. Gentleman unless it is reasonably complete, and I do not see how he is going to make it complete. I do not want penalties attaching—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is really going into a review of the Bill as it may leave the Committee, which is an appropriate matter for the Third Reading.
    Mr. FISHER: There is a duty enjoined by the Act of 1915, and now there is a duty to be enjoined by what, I hope, will be the Act of 1918, on all lads of fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, and so on, to register themselves. The hon. Gentleman seems to take the view that because they are not subject to a penalty of £5, therefore we shall not get them upon the register. That is not what I have experienced. There was no penalty attaching to youths under the age of eighteen to register themselves under the Act of 1915, yet in the great majority of cases that register was complete, or very nearly perfect. It may have become imperfect from the number of removals, but the mere fact that there was no penalty did not deter the citizens of this country from doing what an Act of Parliament

    893
    called upon them to do in carrying out the national duty of registering themselves. I think the whole spirit of the country is entirely different from what the hon. Gentleman thinks. I think the whole spirit of the country may really be summed up in this way: If the Government and Parliament pass an Act of Parliament which they say will be beneficial towards the winning of this War—towards the apportionment of forces by which we may win this War—the citizens of this country will not ask whether any penalties attach to the non-performance of those duties, but they will most willingly strive to perform the duties, because the Government and Parliament tell them by so doing they will be assisting the country in the time of its need. I do not take the low view that the hon. Member does about the youths of this country, that they can only be compelled to do their duty by subjecting them to heavy penalties. I believe they are stirred by far higher feelings than that; that they are stirred by feelings of patriotism and lofty duty towards their country at a time when the country needs all their services. It is that spirit which animates the people, whether there be penalties in this Bill or not, and that parents of lads, or lads themselves, will do all in their power to comply with the desires of the Act of Parliament.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, now that the right hon. Gentleman has given me a definite and complete pledge that he will assent to the introduction of words into this amending Bill making it clear that no penalties of any kind will fall upon any person under the age of eighteen for failure to observe any of the provisions of this Act. He is thus reverting to our deliberate policy when the original Act was passed. I accept the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman, and I also wish to thank him for making it in such a complete and unqualified way.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "fourteenth" ["the fourteenth day after that date"], and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-eighth."
    I wish to ask why we are to have less time here for this registration to be effected than was allowed under the original Registration Act? Under the original Act twenty-eight days were
    894
    allowed; why should the period be now reduced? It is not a very important point, but I think it well to move this Amendment.
    Mr. FISHER: In the original Act it was felt that, as the Act was not very well known, it was advisable to allow a period of twenty-eight days after the Act had come into operation, in order that people might ascertain if they were liable to register, to obtain the necessary forms and to fill them up. But we think that for those who now come within the purview of the Act fourteen days will be sufficient.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    There really is no point of principle between us on this matter, but I desire to move to leave out this Sub-section so that I may point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he is wrong in thinking that no alteration is necessary in the Subsection, in order to carry out his undertaking that no penalty shall fall upon persons under eighteen years of age. It is clearly necessary in a later Clause to introduce some words, and I want to show the right hon. Gentleman that it is also necessary for him to do it in this case. If hon. Members will turn to Sub-section (2), they will see that the emission of this Dart of the Clause would have this effect. The Sub-section does this: it says that Section 13 of the principal Act relating to penalties shall have effect as if references therein to forms included a reference to forms under this Act. I want to use as an illustration the result of taking Section 13 of the principal Act relating to penalties, and saying that it shall have effect as if the reference to forms therein included a reference to forms under this Act Section 13, which imposes penalties on persons over eighteen years in the original Act imposes them for, among other reasons, failure to fill up certain forms. The Section says that if any person over eighteen years of age neglects to fill up a form he shall be subject to certain penalties. We have to construe that as if the reference to the forms therein included a reference to forms under this Act. As a plain layman I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the transfer with reference to forms under this Act of the penalty for failure to fill up those forms involved in the original Act would mean

    895
    that you would construe this Act as though the reference to forms under Section 13 of the principal Act was a reference to forms under this Act. If you read it thus surely it means that persons affected by this new Act have to fill up the forms in the way prescribed by the original Act, and if they fail to do so then they are subject to the penalties laid down in the Sub-section. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the Department I know have had some doubts on this point. I acknowledge quite freely that if the result of this Sub-section is to transfer the penalties from the principal Act to this Act, it is done unintentionally, and I want to invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point. If he is not able to give a final decision now, will he promise that if it is shown to be necessary in order to carry out his undertaking that no penalties shall fall upon young persons under eighteen, to introduce other words, he will do so on the Report stage?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think this Amendment covers the four following ones in the name of the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King).
    Mr. KING: I quite agree, but I rather think that my Amendments are the better ones, and I am going to suggest to my hon. Friend that his point would be more adequately met if the President of the Local Government Board accepted my proposal. Now this Sub-section applies to three Clauses in the principal Act—the 5th, 6th, and 13th. With regard to the first of these three, it deals with the completion and correction of forms, and provides that the local registration authorities shall cause forms to be got out, and shall get them tabulated, and so on. That is all right. It is inevitable that there must be some such provision. Then Section 6 of the principal Act deals with the certificate to be given to the persons who have registered, and that, too, is inevitable and desirable. It is only when you come to Section 13 of the principal Act, which deals with penalties, that the real difficulty or difference of opinion arises, and I suggest that my right hon. Friend might drop this proposal so far as it affects Section 13 of the principal Act. If he did so, he would really be carrying out what I believe is intended, and at the same time he would do away with the objection which soldiers feel to this registration, an objection which has been very strongly
    896
    insisted upon during the two hours' Debate we have had on the point. It would do away with the imposition of penalties on soldiers, and take away the real objection which they have to the proposal. I think the acceptance of this Section would strengthen the Bill and deprive it of its most objectionable aspect—that of putting penalties upon discharged soldiers
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. FISHER: It is impossible for us to accept the Amendment to omit Sub-section (2), because then the Bill would be without any penalty. We should impose upon lads of fifteen and upwards and on discharged soldiers the necessity of filling up the forms, but we should make no provision for the collection of those forms or for the machinery used under the principal Act to be applied also to this amending Act. The lion. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) asked whether I would not accept two Amendments which dropped all reference to Section 13. What would be the effect of accepting that? There would then be a duty imposed on lads of fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen to register, but no penalty. There would also be no penalty attaching to those over eighteen years who were discharged soldiers and sailors for failing to fulfil their obligation to register. It would have this effect, that as a penalty would attach to all those who were not discharged soldiers or sailors there would be a duty and a penalty in their case, but a duty only on the part of the discharged soldier or sailor to register. I think that would be a rather unfair distinction, and it would be one which might very likely be greatly resented by munition workers, and many others who, at all events in their opinion, are doing equally as good work as soldiers and sailors at the present time. I have already promised before the Report stage to consider the whole case of the penalties which attach to soldiers and sailors in case of non-compliance with this Act through want of knowledge on their part of the existence of the Act, while at the same time having a readiness to comply with it directly it is pointed out that they have not registered. and I will consider whether I can bring up any words which will, at all events, mitigate the penalty which they would suffer. I cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset, but I will consider the whole question of penalties in the interval which is going to elapse before the Report stage. We shall then, perhaps, be in a better position to consider the whole

    897
    subject, and to consider it in view of the fact that I have promised a limit acceptable to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and one that will make sure that no one under eighteen will be subject to any penalty in connection with any duty under the Bill. I hope that assurance on my part will give some satisfaction, to hon. Gentlemen.
    Mr. TREVELYAN: What I am interested in is not quite so much the diminution of the penalties on soldiers. They are not very serious on a man who deliberately refuses to register, and I am chiefly concerned with the soldiers' knowledge. I shall not move my Amendment, but if the right hon. Gentleman undertakes to consider carefully before the Report stage some means, if possible, of warning soldiers of their duty to register, I shall be quite content with that.
    Mr. FISHER: I have been in communication already with the War Office, and they think that at all events so far as future discharged soldiers are concerned they will be able to give them the information that on discharge they will be required to register under this Bill if it becomes an Act of Parliament. I will, however, look further into that.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: In view of the remarks the right hon. Gentleman has made, and his promise further to consider the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Duty of Certain Persons to Notify Changes of Occupation and Loss of Certificates.)
    (1) If any male person at any time registered under the principal Act changes his profession or occupation he shall within the appointed time notify the change to the local registration authority, and for that purpose send or deliver to that authority, by post or otherwise, his certificate of registration with his new profession or occupation noted thereon, and there shall be supplied to him a fresh certificate of registration, and the change shall be noted in the register.
    For the purpose of the foregoing provision any male person registered under the principal Act at the date of the passing of this Act whose profession or occupation at that date does not correspond with his profession or occupation as specified in his certificate of registration, or if his
    898
    profession or occupation is not so specified with his profession or occupation as on the date when he was registered, shall be deemed to have changed his profession or occupation as on the date of the passing of this Act.
    The appointed time for the purpose of the foregoing provision means, in the case of a person who changes or is deemed to have changed his profession or occupation on or at any time within twenty-one days after the date of the passing of this Act twenty-eight days from that date, and in the case of any other person seven days from the date of the change.
    (2) Any male person who has lost his certificate of registration, whether he is required by this Section to send his certificate of registration to the local registration authority or not and whether the loss occurred before or after the passing of this Act, shall, as soon as he becomes aware thereof, notify the loss to the local registration authority of the district in which his place of residence is situate, and for that purpose obtain, fill up, sign, and send or deliver by post or otherwise to that authority, notice in the prescribed form of the loss, and there shall be supplied to him a fresh certificate of registration.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "his" ["changes his profession or occupation"], to insert the word "regular."
    We now come to another question altogether, to the problem of changes of occupation and loss of certificates. The change of occupation which now has to be registered according to the proposals of this Bill is an entirely new idea. The principal Act did not impose any duty upon any person who changed his employment to notify the change of employment, and this present proposal is a very large extension. I called attention to it on the Second Reading, and I think I had some sympathy in the House for some of my remarks which went to show that it is not going to be a very easy thing to know exactly how far a man has to go in registering himself afresh when he changes his employment. Near where I live in the country there is a man I know very well, and whom I employ from time to time, perhaps for a month or two. I remember that this man a little time ago was working at the harvest. For two months after wards he was working with a threshing machine. For two months after that he was engaged on mending roads. Then a

    899
    little later that man was working for two or three months in cutting wood in the copses, and making wooden bands, for binding ammunition boxes. For two months after that he was again working on the farm. There is clearly a man who is constantly changing his employment. Is he to go every two months and register afresh? What I have described is what he does almost every winter, and I should like to know whether that man is to go and alter his registration form and get a new card for each different employment. Ms case, of course, is only typical of those, of a great number of working men. A large number of working men have seasonal employment that they take up at different times of the year. Many men, too, in industrial life, in factories, go from one employment to another. Many men in the building trade will be in that trade one part of the time, and in mines for another part of the year. What does the President of the Local Government Board intend with regard to the working man—not an uncommon case at all—who constantly changes his employment?
    I suggest by this Amendment that a man should be registered in respect of his regular employment. Most of these men who are in industrial life, who are changing their status and position from time to time, would tell you that they are one definite thing more than another. They would say that they bad one regular employment. Whether it be a worker on the land, a building-trade labourer, or whatever it might be, almost all these men, if you asked them, would give you one employment as their regular, preferential employment. I, therefore, propose in this Amendment that you should make the position clear by saying that a man should register afresh when he changes his regular employment. I think that is an intelligible and quite sensible way of getting out of what is really a difficulty.
    Mr. FISHER: I do not think this Amendment would add anything whatever to our knowledge or to the strength of our proposals.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the term "usual"?
    Mr. FISHER: I think it would be dangerous to adopt that, and to put that word in before the words "profession or occupation," as it might limit them.
    Mr. KING: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give some answer to my very definite inquiry as to whether a man who habitually changes—once or twice a year, say—from factory to mine, from mine to agriculture, or from one factory to quite a different kind of factory, or whatever it is, is to register afresh, or whether he is not? The right hon. Gentleman has never answered that question.
    Mr. FISHER: I think that in all probability where men are engaged in two separate industries at different seasons of the year—there are a great many of those men in the country who at one period of the year are engaged in one occupation and at another period of the year are in another occupation—they will have to register both occupations, and will have to put down that they are employed in two occupations. What is intended, obviously, is that where any change of occupation is likely to extend over any considerable length of time there is a duty put on the man to notify that change of occupation, but where a change is of a very temporary character, obviously it would be quite worthless from our point of view for the man to notify his change of occupation. Obviously there would be no pressure put on him to notify a change of that kind, and I need hardly say there would be no penalty. The whole object, and the real object, of this is to place at the disposal of my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service as much information as he can possibly acquire of the occupations in which men and women are engaged so that he may see where it is labour is employed, where it is that he may possibly be able to transfer labour, and in what way he might utilise the man-and woman-power of the country to the fullest possible extent. There is no idea whatever to harass people who are sometimes engaged in one occupation, but are repeatedly changing to another occupation, who are temporarily casual labourers, as it were, taken on here and there for three or four days at a time. There is no intention either to harass them or to put them to the difficulty of constantly notifying the local registration authority that the change has taken place in their particular occupation. We hope that we may gain substantial benefits from this, but it is only intended that changes of a somewhat permanent character should be

    901
    notified, and not those which would not be of value to my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service.
    Amendment negatived:
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "occupation" ["changes his profession, or occupation"], to insert the words "as registered in his certificate of registration."
    Mr. FISHER: If the hon. Member attaches importance to this Amendment we may be prepared to accept it, as I am informed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service that he does not think the Ministry will lose anything by this Amendment. Without the words suggested there is possibly not felt to be any obligation on the part of persons engaged in one form of employment to notify that they are changing into another form of employment where that change is just temporary and not of a permanent character. What is desired is not so much the notification of a temporary change as the notification of a change of a more or less permanent character.
    Mr. KING: I really do attach some importance to this Amendment. I think it would make things work better. Take the case of a man who requires in the season to change his employments. Let him put each one of those employments down)n the register; then he would not need each time he goes over from one or another to have to notify the fact.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That covers the next Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. KING: Probably it does. I shall then move the next, at the end of Subsection (2), to insert,
    (3) Any male or female person employed in any agricultural work for wages shall not be deemed to be included in this Section."
    In the course of the Second Reading Debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board referred to the peculiar case of agriculture. There was the point, as the President of the Local Government Board knows, as to whether any concessions were to be given to agriculture. I certainly think some concessions are needed in respect to casual workers. I do not think it would be the
    902
    best to register persons who are working in the hayfields. Many of the farmers are getting casual labour from day to day, or certainly week to week, at harvest time. You ought to make some concession, and not render it necessary for them to register each time.
    Mr. FISHER: I cannot accept this Amendment, which practically exempts from the operation of the Clause the people referred to. The hon. Member desires that this provision should not apply to any male or female person employed in any agricultural work for wages. But they may be permanently employed in some particular form of agriculture, and they may, for some reason or another, go into munition works or even into aeroplane works. We have heard of them going into other kinds of works. If this Amendment were accepted it would be a loss, because it is this kind of knowledge to which my right hon. Friend the Minister for National Service attaches great importance. To accept this Amendment would be to deprive him of a great deal of information which might be of considerable value.
    Mr. KING: I think my Amendment is perhaps rather sweeping, and I beg leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of s. 7 of the Principal Act.)
    (1) Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the principal Act (which provides for the notification of changes of address) shall have effect as if for the words "within twenty-eight days" there were substituted the words "within seven days," and for the purpose of the said Subsection any person registered under the principal Act at the date of the passing of this Act whose place of residence at that date does not correspond with his place of residence as specified in his certificate of registration shall be deemed to have changed his place of residence as on that date.
    (2) Sub-section (2) of the said Section seven (which provides for the registration of unregistered persons arriving in the United Kingdom) shall have effect as if for the words "within twenty-eight days" there were substituted the words "within fourteen days," and for the

    903
    purpose of the said Sub-section any person who arrived in the United Kingdom before the date of the passing of this Act shall be deemed to have arrived in the United Kingdom as on that date.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "seven" ["within seven days"], and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-one."
    We have now come to the Clause which deals with an Amendment of Section 7 of the principal Act, and that provides for the notification of changes of address. My first Amendment deals with the proposal that a person changing his address shall now give notice within seven days instead of twenty-eight, as it used to be. Why the change? You give the person only that short time to notify his change of address. I drew attention to this matter on the Second Reading, and I do not seriously think that my argument, though it was referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary, was adequately met. There are a great many people who change their residence—
    Mr. FISHER: I am prepared to compromise the matter with my hon. Friend and to make it fourteen days.
    Mr. KING: I am obliged.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: Leave out the word "seven," and insert instead thereof the word "fourteen"—[Mr. King.]
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "fourteen" ["within fourteen days"], and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-one."
    This relates to persons who come into this country. Previously these were allowed twenty-eight days to register: now it has been cut down to fourteen. I propose twenty-one. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will accept my proposal on this head, or whether he would prefer—
    Mr. FISHER: The question is one of arrival in this country. It is desired that they should register within fourteen days. I cannot extend that period.
    Mr. KING: I think there is something in what my right hon. Friend says. I will only make this suggestion: At the ports of entry now a good many formalities have to be gone through, and I would suggest
    904
    to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Service that when persons enter this country now—and there cannot be very many—there are certain persons from our Colonies—they ought to have given to them when they come into this country a paper or notification stating what are their duties in respect of this registration. If that is done I certainly shall not object to the period being fourteen days, and I hope this suggestion will be adopted.
    Mr. BECK: The matter Which has been referred to does come within our purview, and I will very carefully consider the hon. Member's suggestion, which seems to me a practical one.
    Mr. KING: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Duty of Employer to Require Production of Registration Certificates.)
    (1) Any person who on the fifteenth day of February, nineteen hundred and eighteen, has in his employment any male person between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five who was required to register himself under the principal Act or is liable by virtue of this Act so to register himself, or on or after that date takes into his employment any such male person shall, within seven days after that date, or immediately on taking the male person into his employment, as the case may be, require him to produce his certificate of registration, and if any such male person does not produce his certificate of registration to the employer within a period of seven days after being so required, the employer shall on the expiration of the said period send to the local registration authority in whose district that person is resident notice that that person has so failed to produce his certificate of registration.
    (2) If any person taking info or having in his employment any such male person as aforesaid fails to comply with the requirements of this Section he shall for each offence be liable, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "immediately on," and to insert instead thereof the word "after."

    905
    The object of this Amendment is to enable the employer to take advantage of his having to employ a good many men to unload a ship or carry out similar. work that requires a large amount of additional labour for two or three days. This leaves seven days after taking a male person in his employ, and within seven days he must require him to produce his certificate. If such person does not continue in his employment he will not necessarily be called upon to produce his certificate. This proposal is simply to allow an employer to take on temporary labour without inconvenience.
    Mr. KING: I think this is quite a good Amendment, and meets the point I have in view. I would like to ask, however, if it really meets the practical difficulty of men who come for short time employment being required to produce their certificates, report change of employment, and all the rest of it. Could not a more simple provision be put in to the effect that where an engagement was for less than a fortnight this arrangement should not apply?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out- the words "five pounds" and to insert. instead thereof the words "one pound."
    This is a very small offence concerning a man having a person in his employment, and not complying with this Section. I think one pound is quite enough fine, especially as it may fall upon small agricultural employers and men of limited education. There are a great many small employers of labour who are uneducated men possessing a very imperfect knowledge of what-is going on in public affairs or of the relations prevailing elsewhere. Take, for example, small farmers in remote districts, or small tradesmen in out-of-the way places. These are just the class of persons who are very likely to omit to perform the duties imposed by this Section, and I suggest that £1 is quite enough as a penalty, because £5 in such cases is very likely to be ruinous.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this Clause will have to be reconsidered when he arranges what words he is going to introduce into the Bill to prevent these penalties falling upon young persons under this measure. It may well be that
    906
    a young man of seventeen and a-half years of age may have in his employment other persons who are subject to registration, and Le may omit to carry out the provisions of this Act. Whatever words the right hon. Gentleman decides upon will have to have reference to this Sub-section of the Clause in order to meet certain cases where you have youthful employers. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with this point now, but I ask him to bear it in mind at a later stage.
    Mr. FISHER: I think it will be a very rare case indeed of a young person of seventeen and a-half years of age having a number of people working under him. I did promise to look into the question of the penalty, but as the penalty of the principal Act is a sum not exceeding £5 I think it would probably be better to keep the same penalty under this Act. Several hon. Members have rather harped on this £5 penalty, but let me point out that that is the maximum, and it is not one which any Court is likely to impose except for a very serious offence. When we make the maximum £5 we do not expect it to be imposed in cases of a mild nature which could probably be met by a penalty of a few shillings. There is always a certain amount of elasticity in regard to a penalty of this kind, and we trust to the discretion of the magistrates to be merciful towards people who, without any knowledge, have, perhaps, committed only a nominal offence under the Act as it stands.
    Mr. KING: I do not think that this case can be met simply by saying that £5 is the maximum penalty, and that hardly any magistrates will ever impose it. That is not at all my experience. My experience is that the inequalities of fines at the present time are worse than ever. There are a great many benches of magistrates who now always out on the maximum fine, because they think the country is short of money, and that this is one way of raising money for the War. There are magistrates who are so ignorant and prejudiced that they will always impose the maximum fine in cases like this. There are others who are so tender-hearted that they will hardly impose any fine at all. The right hon. Gentleman does not know the weaknesses of our magisterial system, or he would give a more complacent hearing to my opinion.
    Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Power of Constables, Etc., to Require Production of Registration Certificates.)
    (1) Every male person who was required to register himself under the principal Act or who is liable by virtue of this Act so to register himself shall—

    (a) If notice requiring the production of his certificate of registration has been given in accordance with the provisions of this Section, produce his certificate to the person, and at the time and place, specified by the notice; and

    (b) whether any such notice has been given or not, on demand by any police constable, or any person duly authorised in that behalf by the Director-General of National Service, either produce his certificate of registration or give particulars as to his name, address, age, and occupation.

    (2) Any police constable or other person authorised to demand the production of certificates may, for the purpose of the performance of his duties under this Section, at any reasonable time enter any factory, workshop, or business premises and may inspect and take copies of any certificates produced to him.
    (3) Any notice for the purpose of this Section may be given by any person authorised in that behalf by the Director-General of National Service, and either by delivering it to the person who is to be required to produce his certificate, or by leaving it at that person's place of residence, or by publishing it or causing it to be published at the place where that person is employed in such a manner as is reasonably calculated to bring it to his knowledge, and any such notice may specify a time (not being less than three days from the date of the notice), and a place (not being other than the residence or place of employment of the holder of the certificate), at which the certificate of registration is to be produced.
    (4) If any person fails to comply with the provisions of this Section or gives particulars which are false in any respect, or obstructs any person in the exercise of his powers under this Section, he shall be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move. in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (b).
    908
    I attach very great importance to this Amendment. It raises a really vital question not with regard to the principle of the Bill, but with regard to the machinery by which the provisions of the Bill are to be carried out. The paragraph gives authority to any police constable to stop any person between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five and to compel him either to produce his certificate of registration or to give particulars about himself. This Section, apart from its extraordinarily offensive and Prussian-like character, is wholly unnecessary, because under paragraph (a) power is given to demand the production of the certificate from any person by the proper authority. The local registration authority or the proper authority under the principal Act has only to serve a notice upon any person, and under the provisions of Clause 6, paragraph (a), of this Bill the duty is then placed upon that person to produce his certificate at the time and place and to the person specified by the notice. The original Act provides that any person shall on demand by the appropriate civil authority produce his certificate of registration. The advisers of the right hon. Gentleman, in framing this Bill, have gone beyond the original Act in a most extraordinary way, and by this paragraph they give power to any police constable to accost persons between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five and demand either the certificate of registration or compel them to give an account of themselves. I should like to hear the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Colonel Sir H. Greenwood), because I think he would consider the matter for a long time before lending his support to this amazing proposal. There is no necessity for conferring upon the policeman this extraordinary power, because the other power taken under the Act is quite ample to secure from any person full particulars. Is there any parallel for legislation of this kind? I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to produce any parallel for an amazing proposal of this kind. At present the police can only accost ordinary citizens if they are engaged in the commission of some crime or if they are believed to be contemplating the commission of some crime. There is no provision in any other Bill by which the police can accost any person within these ages and demand these particulars either in the public streets or in other public places. The only analogy—

    909
    it is not a true analogy—is that by which a person directly authorised can make inquiries of men who are believed to be subject to military service. I do not think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will quote that as a precedent for this proposal. I could point out very essential differences which place that in a different category altogether.
    Mr. TICKLER: What about motor drivers?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I presume that motor drivers, who are a small class, can only be interfered with by the police if they arc doing something illegal or believed to be practising in an illegal way. I would not, however, put my knowledge with regard to the law affecting motor drivers against that of my hon. Friend. I am sure he knows very much more about that than I do, though not more than my hon. Friend in front of me (Mr. King). May I remind the Committee what happened with regard to the powers that were given to specially authorised persons under the Military Service Bill? Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember the widespread scandal that was caused by the military officials and by persons acting under their direction holding up all those who arrived by certain trains and taking them technically into custody until they had satisfied them with reference to their liability to military service? Similar raids were made upon persons at public meetings, in certain theatres, and other public gatherings; and the right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not exaggerating when I tell him that those raids caused widespread scandal and indignation, and were stopped because of popular expressions of disapproval at such drastic instances of officialdom which in this country, until the War broke out, we had always associated with what we called "Prussianism." The members of the Committee may or may not feel that such a provision in a very modified form and in the hands of specially authorised persons was justified with regard to the operation of the Military Services Act. It hardly follows from that that the Committee will approve of every policeman without any special authority, without necessarily having any grounds for suspicion or inquiry, having the unqualified power vested in him by Act of Parliament of accosting any persons between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five and requiring them to give an account of themselves, not in
    910
    connection with their liability for military service, but as to whether they have carried out the liabilities which fall upon them under this Bill. I say, without any hesitation, that such a proposal will be extremely repugnant to the people of this country, as I believe it is repugnant to the feelings of the Members of the House of Commons. What does it mean in effect? It means that there may be raids carried out by the police on public meetings; it means that all persons leaving certain railway stations may, if the police so decide, be subject to being held up and undergoing these inquiries; it means that any person walking in the streets at any moment may be subject to being stopped by the police and being subjected to inquiries. Our legislation can be searched in vain for any parallel to such a widespread, drastic, and most offensive piece of officialdom being enacted in a Statute of this country.
    There is a yet more serious objection to this proposal. I should myself very greatly regret it if schoolboys of fifteen or sixteen, or, indeed, persons of any age, were arbitrarily stopped by the police more than once and on any sort of occasion and put through these inquiries. I should consider that a most lamentable thing. But there is a feature of this proposal which is much more offensive. I must again remind the Committee, as I reminded the House on a former occasion, that this proposal has to be considered in connection with Clause 7 of the Bill, which makes it lawful by an Order in Council to extend to female persons any of the provisions of this Bill which, as drawn, only apply to male persons. The Clause I am proposing to amend, as drafted, applies only to male persons between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five, but the moment the Order in Council is made under Clause 7 applying it to females, if such an Order be made—power is given for such an Order to be made—the police will then have the right to stop every female between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five and require them to give an account of themselves. That provision has only to be stated in order that it may be condemned. I do not believe that this House would tolerate such a provision, which is repugnant to all our traditions. It is a singularly unfortunate—indeed, I may say, a singularly offensive—proposal to put in the Bill. Nothing like it is to be found in the original Act which this Bill amends. This is not a matter in which there is any

    911
    middle course. I, therefore, move this Amendment and trust that the right hon. Gentleman, who, during the later stages of this Debate, has shown what I gladly and freely. acknowledge to be a most reasonable spirit in considering the Amendments, will show the same spirit and promise that this amazing provision, subjecting, it may be, males and females alike between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five to this drastic and arbitrary interference by any police constable without any special authority, shall be deleted from the Bill.
    Mr. KING: I am in complete sympathy with the line taken by my hon. Friend. The employment of a police constable in a matter like this, without any authority, is highly objectionable, and, I am sure, will be resented. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Tickler) interpolated a remark just now about motor-cars. Why is a policeman entitled to stop any motorcar he likes and ask for the driver's licence? He is entitled to do so for the reason that when motor-cars were started everybody was terribly afraid of them, and the unpopularity of anybody who drove a motor-car—I am speaking of about fifteen years ago—was so great that Parliament at first would not allow motor-cars at all. It was only with the greatest difficulty that any motor-car was allowed, and the only condition upon which any man was allowed to have a motor licence was that any policeman should be able to stop him at once and find out whether he had a. licence.
    Mr. TICKLER: There are gun licences.
    Mr. KING: It is the same with gun licences. Anybody who carries a gun is a danger to himself and to the public. Even men who are very good shots and who have been accustomed to guns for year; have killed other people and even killed themselves by accident.
    Mr. TICKLER: Game licences!
    Mr. KING: I will not follow them all. They are all on the same principle, that a policeman can stop anybody who, under the conditions Parliament has laid down, he thinks is dangerous to himself or to other people, or to both. In this case a policeman is to be allowed to stop any mortal person, male or female, between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five. Have we got to this point, that our Government
    912
    thinks that every person between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five is a possible danger to the country? That is the spirit of Prussianism in in excelsis. Prussianism thinks that any man with a conscience and an idea for himself is a danger. I dare say there are Prussians on the Treasury Bench who are of that opinion. They have not reached that height of feeling yet, but they will reach it shortly.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that this abstract from one of the hon. Member's speeches on War aims is quite relevant to the Amendment before the Committee.
    Mr. KING: I quite agree. I may add that I have not, yet delivered a speech on War aims, but I am eminently qualified to do so. I will only appeal very earnestly to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he cannot accept either this Amendment or that standing in my name to cut out the words "police constable or," which would allow any persons authorised to stop people and make inquiries In that case you would get a local registration authority, finding that there were deficiencies or defects in the register in a certain district. The authority could authorise any particular constable for any particular purpose. That would still be objectionable in sonic ways, but it would be reasonable and practical. If my Amendment is accepted the right hon. Gentleman will not be makng any difficulties for himself, and will be removing a grave objection, because it will always be open to a local registration authority to appoint a constable to make inquiries in a certain direction or even in a certain area. Therefore, I sincerely hope some modification will be made in the Bill in this respect, and if the Government cannot accept this Amendment, I hope it may possibly accept mine.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: One of the great differences between life in England and in certain parts of the Continent is the freedom with which people Call go about without interference from any official authorities whatever. Persons who are suspect are liable now to be interfered with by the police, and can be made to give an account of themselves, and can be taken to a police station, but this is placing in the hands of the police a power which they have hitherto not been able to exercise. Any person, however innocent, is liable to be called up, to be made to

    913
    produce his registration card, or to give an account of himself and his life history, and prove that he is innocent of anything suspicious. That is introducing the Prussian system into this country, and it will do this: At present the relations between the public and the police are very friendly. Generally speaking, a policeman, especially to a stranger in a strange place, is a help and a friend. This will make a policeman look upon every stranger whom he sees as a suspicious person, and will place on him a kind of duty to keep watch on people who are going past him in the streets, and it may lead to a complete change in the relations between the, public and the police, and there will be a feeling of mutual suspicion, the public feeling that the police are watching them in a hostile sense and the police feeling that it is their duty to be constantly watching the public. It is most unnecessary and undesirable that this power should be placed in the hands of the police, because the power which we place in their hands will become a duty which will be exercised at first perhaps sparingly and occasionally, but it may later on come to be exercised as a regular part of their duty. That would be insufferable. This inquisitorial official interference with the private life and even the movements of perfectly innocent, and at present free, citizens, will be simply intolerable against all precedent in our history and against all our cherished ideal of personal freedom, and I hope the Government will either modify or consent to do without this paragraph.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. S. WALSH: I remember that in this House, on a very small Bill, a right hon Gentleman said that that Bill was the beginning of the dismemberment and downfall of the British Empire. I hardly remember any Bill so trumpery as that Bill was, in 1906. The speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Chancellor) remanded me of it. Within this very innocent provision are embodied the most awful possibilities. I know nothing so nonsensical. What does it really require? A police constable may stop a person and ask him, not his life history, not a single word of his history, but his name, age, address and occupation. Is that anything of the life history of a person? Is there anything inquisitorial in that?
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is there anything to prevent a policeman from inquiring into his life history?
    Mr. WALSH: Certainly.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Not in this Clause.
    Mr. WALSH: A person is only called upon to act in accordance with the provisions of this Clause, and the moment any other particulars except those here mentioned are asked for the man or boy can turn upon his heel and say: "I am giving you no further information." To say that that is inquisitorial and is Prussianism is really to play with the English language altogether.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: It is true all the same.
    Mr. WALSH: Of course, if the hon. Member is prepared to keep on that line of argument and retort, no one can prevent him, but what is really asked is exactly what I say, and we really desire to keep this a wholly civilian measure. There is no authority that we know that performs its many duties, often invidious duties, so well and with such exceedingly good feeling between the public and themselves as the police constable. The hon. Member himself has said that is there going to be a sudden change in the nature of the police constable? Surely they have already analogous powers. Under the Military Service they are entitled to perform very similar functions. Has there been, amid the hundreds of thousands of exemption certificates issued, any serious complaint? That there have been a few complaints must be admitted, because no human society and no person is perfect, but the action of the police constables in the performance of their duty in respect of finding out from the general public whether they did or did not possess exemption certificates, and whether they had them in their possession, invidious as it may seem upon paper, has been performed in a most splendid manner. The duty here is not nearly so serious as that. If a person is accosted, to use the term put forward by the hon. Member (Mr. King), he simply gives these small particulars, and to say that this is bringing Prussian inquisitorial methods into our English life is something I cannot possibly understand. We want to make the register as complete as possible, because of

    915
    the social purposes for which it will be needful, but those are in no sense military purposes, and if the Amendment that follows later is carried it will confine the duty of finding out whether a person does or does not possess a certificate to people authorised by the Director of National Service. It would, as a matter of fact, on those lines have a much more invidious tendency than the lines which we suggest in this Bill. The Ministry of National Service is largely associated in the public mind with military service. Here we bring in the civilian element—the man responsible for the general peace of the locality, the man well known to the mass of the people, and the man who, in the performance of his duty, is generally in friendly relations with the people among whom he has to live. That is the man who is to perform this special duty, the man between whom and the people there has been good feeling in the past. We need his help from time to time. It is admitted that the register must be complete and made as perfect as it reasonably can. All the young people of eighteen years of age and under are to be enabled as freely as possible within our system of local government to get this work done for them, and there is no penalty attached to them. But it must be admitted that the local registration authorities may from time to time not be able to get all the information as complete or as exact as is desirable. Shall there be no help given to them? If the local registration authority thinks it right they may say to a police officer, "Will you see So-and-so, and ascertain whether he possesses his certificate?" Can there be any harm in that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I say for myself, and I am quite sure that I speak for the vast mass of the people of this nation on this question, that the fears entertained by the hon. Gentleman opposite are groundless. We are going to stand by this Section.
    Mr. T. DAVIES: I have listened very carefully to the Debate on this Amendment and to the answer that has been given, and I cannot understand the arguments put forth in defence of keeping this proposal in the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board says that if you take this proposal out of the Bill the whole thing will be under the Director of National Service. It seems to me that if you keep
    916
    it in he will have power to appoint anyone to ask anything as to age and other particulars, besides occupation and residence. He thinks there is not much danger of our running ourselves into a second Prussia, but my experience of the last few months is that if we go on in this way, piling up Bill after Bill to restrict the liberty of the subject, we shall get pretty near to that. We have been told twice this afternoon, once by the President of the Local Government Board that this Bill is not required for military purposes. We have been told again that this Section is not required for military purposes of any kind. I thought we were passing this emergency Bill in order to strengthen our military position and to win the War more easily. If that is not the purpose, there is no reason in passing the Bill. If the powers are to be used after the War and for no military purpose, then why pass them? I do not know whether this Amendment is going to be pressed to a Division, but if we do not get a better answer than the one which has been given I shall go in the Lobby in support of the Amendment. The police in London have been on very good terms with the people, but the more of these powers you put into the hands of the police the more strained the relations will become. I am surprised at the attitude of my hon. Friend (Mr. Walsh), who usually, when he sat on the Labour Benches, defended the liberty of the subject, whether it affected London or Lancashire. If we place in the hands of the police duties which they do not like and which interfere with the liberty of the people, we shall find that the people and the police will not be on such good terms in the future as they have been in the past. I hope the Government will reconsider their decision, and agree to leave out this Section.
    Mr. MORRELL: I am sorry that the Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment, and I am particularly sorry after listening to the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Walsh). I can remember the time, not long ago, when the tone of the hon. Gentleman on a question of this sort would have been very different from what it is to-night, and he would not have denounced, as he has done, the people who are attempting to stand up for liberty in this country. I can assure him that I view with regret the corrupting influence of the Treasury Bench, and

    917
    I would invite him to bethink himself before he stays there too long. After all, he no longer has the right hon. Member for Trinity College by his side, and he might follow that right hon. Gentleman's good example. I look back with regret to the old days when I remember the different tone of the hon. Member. I protest against the notion that this is a trivial Amendment or an unimportant point. I think it is a. very important point, because it is quite clear that this power which the Government is asking, to authorise a constable to stop persons in the street—men, women, girls, or boys—and to demand their name and address is a power which is not necessary for the working of this Bill. It is perfectly clear that you could get as complete a register without these powers as you can with them. It means increasing arbitrarily and unnecessarily the already very large powers of the police. Under Section a the authorities will have power to send notice to a man requiring the production of his certificate of registration, and after proper notice has been given to him he is bound to produce it at the time and place specified by the notice. Is not that enough for the Government? Why do they want to have the police going about the streets and stopping people? Why cannot the authorities give proper notice to a man to produce his certificate at the right place? That is the sort of thing we have always had before us in legislation. What is there so urgent that you must have people stopped in this way by the police?
    We understood that this Bill was vitally necessary for the winning of the War. Now we are told something quite different. We are told that it is a Bill for social purposes, that it is a Bill for reconstruction, that it is a Bill to give valuable information to the Food Controller, that it is to enable some other Department to get vital statistics, that it is to increase employment, and all sorts of things, and above all that it is to get a complete register of everyone from fifteen to sixty-five years of age, although there is no effective machinery for obtaining a complete register. We know perfectly well that you will never have a complete register under this Bill, because in the last resort there is no compulsion—and I think it quite right that there should not be—as regards anyone below the age of eighteen, and there are thousands of young men and women under that age who will never be registered
    918
    under this Bill. Therefore, all talk of the importance of having complete vital statistics has no application.
    Why, then, are we asked to submit to this police supervision? It is contrary to our traditions, to the liberty of the people, and to the healthy government of this country. I am inclined to think that, perhaps, after all, the object of the Bill is to give fresh power to the police. No one respects the police more than I do, but I have noticed during recent years that the tendency of the police to interfere is growing greater. I sit as a magistrate on a bench in the country sometimes, and I notice the great number of petty cases brought before the magistrates, and in almost every case brought before the magistrates by the police you can have a fine of £100 or six months imprisonment, or both. The other day a man pleaded ignorance of the Regulation and was actually fined 10s. because he filled up a return in ordinary pencil, instead of indelible pencil or ink. I was on the bench and protested, but the decision was carried against me by the majority. That is the sort of police interference that is growing enormously in this country. The hon. Gentleman says that it is not Prussianism. I do not know what else Prussianism is. I have travelled in Germany and France before the War. I know that in France the police could have you up any time and you could be examined by them. That is the sort of thing we protest against here. It leads to very bad results. If the Government could not accept this Amendment, at least- they could have accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Somerset, so that if you are going to exercise powers of accosting people in the street and examining them as to their occupation and addresses and everything else, this should be done by some person duly authorised for the purpose, and not by any young police constable who may be inexperienced. This is a bullying, Prussian proposal. I strongly object to it, and shall vote against it if it goes to a Division.
    Mr. A. ALLEN: I do not want to let this Clause pass without registering my protest against it. We were told by the Secretary to the Local Government Board that there was some great social object of this Bill. It appears to me a very singular way of promoting social objects to give to the police the right to accost any man in the street and ask him various

    919
    questions as to his age and occupation. I cannot believe that in Scotland, at any rate, that way of promoting special objects will be very popular. So far the police have been on very good terms with the public, because they have been the servants of the public. This puts them in a totally different position, the position of stopping and making inquiries of people who are doing no ill at all, people who may have carried out every provision of this Bill, and I am inclined to think that this will have a very serious effect on the happy relations existing at present between the police and the public. I also oppose this Clause because I agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Morrell) that this is a strong advance in the direction of what we have all been opposing in this country, the introduction of the Prussian spirit into our life. I heard the hon. Gentleman opposite say just now that it was ridiculous to make a fuss about a small matter of this kind. After all what we call the Prussian spirit is a combination of small things, and if this is a small thing—and I am disposed to think that it is a big thing—at any rate it is eminently characteristic. Like my hon. Friend I have been in Germany, and I know from -study on the spot what the Prussian spirit is. This is eminently characteristic: of what we know as the Prussian spirit, and I shall certainly support my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I had hopes, after the speech of the Secretary to the Local Government Board and the subsequent course of the Debate, that we should have had an opinion from the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Munro), who is the only person on that bench qualified by profession and training to advise us on the legal aspects of this proposal. I am very sorry that he shows no signs of guiding the Committee to a decision in this matter. I am profoundly disappointed at the tone adopted by the Secretary to the Local Government Board. The President of the Local Government Board before lie retired to dinner had become most gentle and patient. The somewhat exclusive note that was noticeable in him at the beginning of the Debate had disappeared entirely, and nothing could have been more alluring than the demeanour which he displayed before he Withdrew. But the hon. Member (Mr. Walsh) having had the advantage, which I have not had, of
    920
    having his dinner, comes into this House and with great physical energy and great emphasis and great copiousness of words denounces not only this Amendment, but everyone who supports it, pooh-poohs the arguments as being trumpery and absurd, without taking the trouble to know what they are, much less to offer any reply, and finally sits down, having run amok on this question. My hon. Friend has taken a course which will not expedite the passage of the Bill, and is not just to those of us who, with great economy of words, have throughout this Debate attempted to fasten attention upon certain words and facts of the Bill. My hon. Friend would have been far better advised if, instead of indulging in invective and rhetoric, he had addressed himself to the task of replying to the arguments which were put forward, particularly in view of the fact that when he took part in the Second Reading Debate on this Bill he was so badly informed as to make remarks which were not strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, as he will see by referring to his speech on the Bill.
    What is the proposal that the hon. Member dismisses in this high-handed way? The Amendment simply takes out of the Bill this novel proposal, introduced in this form for the first time, and giving any police constable, without any special authority, the right to accost any person, male or female, between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five. A police constable may accost a person in the street, he may visit a private house and cross-examine him there, he may accost him in a place of public entertainment, he may accost him under almost any condition that he likes, and demand this particular document. This is precisely what we are objecting to, and it is no good for the hon. Gentleman, in rising to reply to this Amendment, to brush aside the arguments and say what noble persons the police are, and how we all love and revere them as an important element in our consolidated social life. The hon. Member knows very well that these remarks are not relevant to the Amendment. When he talks of the police he must not talk in such a way as to suggest that anyone has attacked the police, or that those of us who resist this preposterous proposal have any intention of attacking the police. In regard to myself, I have always supported any legislation brought forward to improve the lot of those who do so much arduous and honour-

    921
    able service to the public. This Amendment is not attacking the police; it is attacking the Government for the way they are going to give to the police a control under which the population would be subject to police scrutiny and police inspection which exists only in those countries that we have reprobated and at which we have pointed the finger of scorn because of their system of officialdom, which is more familiarly known as the system of Prussianism.
    I would refer to a most striking omission in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton has referred to some of the objections to the system of police inspection. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board failed to reply to one of the most serious aspects of this matter. Why did he not deal in his speech with the provisions of the Bill which permit all females between fifteen and sixty-five to be accosted by the police, and have these inquiries made of them? The hon. Gentleman said the Government would stand or fall by this Section, or at any rate that they would stand by this Section. Why did he make that heroic, that very heroic declaration, upon which I heartily congratulate him? Why did he rise to this almost sublime height of heroism? He failed to deal with the most serious aspect of this extraordinary proposal. The most serious feature of it is the power of the police to accost women between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five, and the hon. Gentleman cannot ride off from this argument by saying the provision is not in the Bill. If he will carry his memory. back, and I am not putting a great strain upon it, he will recollect that I particularly called attention to and described the way in which this provision might affect females between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five. I reminded him that there is a later Clause in this Bill making it possible for an Order in Council to be passed at any time after this Bill becomes an Act, extending all its provisions, which now apply to males, to females, and in that way females between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five will be subject to inspection.
    Mr. WALSH: I would like to say a word here. I mentioned on a previous occasion that we were perfectly willing to consider that point on Clause 7 in Committee, because, I said, there was a danger of the power being used under the Order
    922
    in Council. As Clause 7 stands, it applies to male persons only, and no Order in Council has been made. The reference made was to male persons. The reason why I did not take this point at the time was because I was dealing entirely with Section 6; but I did promise, arid to that promise we adhere, that on Clause 7, in so far as at a later date an Order in Council may affect females, the whole matter shall be fully and fairly considered.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and I will wait until we come to the discussion of Clause 7, when the Bill will be extended to females. I have shown good reason why the Amendment should be accepted, and I shall certainly go to a Division.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the right hon Gentleman allow me to put one point? It has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman that the police could only ask for the name, address, age, and occupation of a person. I wish to ask the Secretary for Scotland, before he replies, this question: Supposing a policeman is not satisfied with the answers he gets from the person, has he any power to inquire into the past life of that person whom he is accosting in the street? Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly deal with that point?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I readily respond to the request made to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanarkshire to give any help I can the Committee in arriving at a decision on this matter. The hon. Gentleman rather assumed that I was not going to reply on the Debate, but I can assure him that it was only when I saw him rising that, through courtesy to him, I refrained from rising until now.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. MUNRO: I really think that the dangers adumbrated by various hon. Members in connection with the operation of this Clause have been largely exaggerated. My hon. Friend referred, quite rightly, to the operation of the police law. It has been my lot to have a good deal of association with the administration of the law in Scotland, and I have been in touch with Police Courts on the other side of the Border. I am bound to say that if the Clause of the Bill is fairly administered, as I have no reason to doubt it will be, then many of the apprehensions expressed

    923
    are, in my judgment, wholly without foundation or justification. The Debate has proceeded on the assumption that there is no precedent for this Clause. My hon. Friend spoke about this being a novel and amazing provision. I do not really think that the Clause deserves such a flow of adjectives as those which he applied to it. There is a precedent, as every member of the Committee well knows, for this Clause in the Military Service Act of 1916 by which the police are empowered to require any man who holds a certificate of exemption from military service on being required by a constable to produce it and give certain information. That Clause has been in operation for a considerable time. It has worked, as far as my information goes, smoothly. It is for military purposes, but the character of the Clause is just the same in one case as in the other. Having made inquiries into the operation of that particular Clause, I am informed that it has worked without friction and without resentment on the part of the persons affected. I will tell the Committee my own personal experience in this connection. I chanced to be in a South coast town when one of these "rounds up," as they are called, by the police took place. Under that particular Clause I, with a great many other persons, was asked for the particulars which the police were empowered to ask. No one refused the information that was asked, and no one resented the questions which were put with perfect courtesy and with perfect fairness. Indeed, a more good-humoured crowd than the crowd on that occasion I have never seen. There is a case where you have precisely, the ante principle in operation and in operation without friction or resentment.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: That is not so in the East End of London.
    Mr. MUNRO: I have given my own experience and I am endeavouring to meet the argument that this is an entirely novel and amazing proposal. It seems to me, from the information I have received, that this provision is necessary in order that the register shall be properly compiled and kept up to date. If it is not properly compiled and if it is not kept up to date, then it will really be useless for the purpose for which it is designed. With regard to the question as to the exact measure of police powers they are the
    924
    powers which are conferred upon them by this Section. If any excess of those powers were used, and I have no reason to suppose it likely, by the police, then the question could be raised at the proper time and in the proper way.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are they bound to accept the statements of the. person accosted?
    Mr. MUNRO: That is a question of law. Whether or not they are bound to accept the information as satisfactory is possibly for the police constable to decide and possibly for his superiors to decide. All I say now is that the measure of police powers is contained in this Section. Tributes have been paid to the fairness of the police with which I entirely agree. The assumption upon which the Debate has proceeded on the part of those who opposed this Clause is that the police powers will be abused. I venture most respectfully to dissent from that view. From the experience I have had of the police administration on the other side of the Border and from the knowledge I have of administration on this side of the Border, I have no such fear. I am sure that,this provision is necessary for the proper compilation of the register, and I would respectively invite the Committee to accept it in the view that it will work without undue friction, just as the provision in the Military Service Act, to which, I have referred, has worked.
    Mr. KILEY: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he resided in the East End of London the story which he related to us would not have been quite so pleasant. Constituents of mine were pulled out of motor-buses and were taken off the streets and were kept from three to six hours, although they had their proper registration cards and exemption cards with them. Those did not suffice, as the police wanted them verified, and the police kept the men until they sent to their homes and made inquiries. I can quite see the same thing happening here. There is mention in the Clause of this power being extended to any person duly authorised by the Director-General of National Service. Does that mean that it is to be confined to the paid officials of the National Service Department or are the powers to be given to any person to

    925
    whom the Director chooses to give them? Under the Military Service Act those powers are given to members of the Advisory Committee, who can go into any of their competitors' places of business. I think that under this Section they would have the same power. I suggest to the Minister in charge that he should find some form of words that would limit or place some restriction on the vast, un-

    Division No. 147.]

    AYES.

    [9.43 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., A ltrincham)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Archdale, Lieut. Edward M.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich)

    Baldwin, Stanley

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

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Barnett, Captain R. W.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecciesall)

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Robinson, Sidney

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

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

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Samuels, Arthur W. (Dublin, Univer.)

    Bird, Alfred

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Boyton, Sir James

    Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Shortt, Edward

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hinds, John

    Smith, Sir SwIre (Keighley, Yorks)

    Cater, John

    Hope, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Edin., Midlothian)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Staveley.H Ill, Lieut.-Col. H.

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Jones, Henry Hadyn (Merioneth)

    Swift, Rigby

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthcn, East)

    Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord Edmund

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

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

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lee, Sir Arthur Hamilton

    Tickler, T. G.

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

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

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

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

    Ward, W. Dud ley (Southampton)

    Feli, Sir Arthur

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Waring, Major Walter

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

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Weston, Col. J. W.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescua

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Whiteley, Sir H. J.

    Fleming, Sir J. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Maitland, Sir A. J. Steel

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

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

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Morgan, George Hay

    Williams, T. J. (Swansea)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Newman, Major John R. P.

    Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge)

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

    Parker, James (Hallfax)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Pease, Rt. Hon. H. Pike (Darlington)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    J. Hope and Mr. Pratt.

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis J.

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    NOES.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Arnold, Sydney

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Morrell, Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Chancellor and Mr. King.

    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, b), to leave out the words "any police constable, or."
    After the very strong arguments put forward on the last Amendment, and the very strong plea—very different from the expression in the Division Lobby, where Members came in, of course, without having heard the discussion at all—will the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill consider this Amendment? It would allow any person authorised by the Direc
    limited powers in the Bill before us. If not, I shall have to support the opposition to this Clause.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out down to the word 'any' ['by any police constable'] stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; hoer, 12.
    tor-General of National Service to make these inquiries, and possibly it might be followed by an Amendment which would allow any person authorised by the local registration authority to do so. I believe that if this were done it would be less objectionable. I do therefore hope that this concession may be made, feeling sure my proposal will not in any way affect the proper administration.
    Mr. KILEY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this proposal.

    927
    If we are to have inspection at all, I would much sooner have it done by the professional than the amateur. I prefer the constable in uniform, whom I can recognise, and whose authority I can accept.
    Mr. MUNRO: I am afraid this Amendment cannot be accepted, for the reasons which I stated in reply to the Debate upon the former Amendment, and those reasons were reinforced by the argument of my hon. Friend who has just spoken.
    Mr. KING: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    This Sub-section gives power to police constables, in order to discharge the duties which fall upon them under this Bill, to enter any factory, workshop, or business premises, and examine the workpeople, and take copies of any certificates presented to him. I have no intention of repeating here the very numerous arguments—arguments of great weight, I think — which were addressed to the Government on the previous Amendment in connection with this police inspection, but I desire to point out that the case—and it is a singularly poor one—the Government put forward for the support of the Bill on that Amendment falls to the ground in connection with this. I wish to submit—and I think I can show that this Sub-section giving the police this power is wholly unnecessary. "Workshops, factories, and business premises," to use the words of this Clause, are already subject to inspection. There are numerous Acts of Parliament regulating labour. There are the Acts we roughly refer to as the Factory Acts, which require special visits to factories and workshops and business premises. All the legislation regarding the factory laws has been placed in the hands of the Home Office, which maintains a very large staff of inspectors for the express purpose of visiting these places to see that the provisions of existing legislation are observed. There is no reason whatever why if the Government suspect that in any factory or workshop the proprietors or workmen are avoiding the provisions of this Act an inspector of the Home Office should not at once make a visit to investigate the matter. This is not only an obvious business arrangement, but it would be
    928
    much more efficient for the Home Office inspector who knows the factory to make the visit and see that the provisions of the Act are being carried out.
    The right hon. Gentleman will not contend for one moment that it is proposed there should be any general visitation of factories and workshops. If that were so the services of the whole police force would be required to carry it out. But it amounts to this in practice. You may find isolated cases where you suspect that the law is not being observed, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should accept this Amendment, and, in these exceptional cases, which could not be very numerous, direct the Home Office inspector to visit and make a report. All that is needed is a little friendly co-operation between two Departments, and it would have this additional advantage, that it would point the way for a much-needed reform to put an end to the present overlapping of inspection in factories and place it on a. scientific and businesslike basis.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think this Amendment will cover the next three Amendments on the Paper dealing with this Sub-section.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. FISHER: The object of this Bill is. as far as possible to induce every person between the ages of sixteen and twenty-five to register, so that we may have an accurate knowledge of the man-power of this country, and as an inducement to get them to register we provide that those who do register shall produce their certificates of register at certain times, in certain places, and under certain conditions. If that is to be the practice I can imagine nothing more convenient to those who hold the certificates, that police constables should be allowed to enter premises where people are working who ought to be registered, and to remind them of the necessity of getting their certificates, and at the same time stating the information which has to be given on registration. I believe that in practice this will be the most convenient way in which to enforce registration, and I do not believe it will be resented. I have found in these matters no reluctance on the part of people to register or to show their certificates, and they certainly are willing to be informed if they have omitted to register. I do not believe there will be any objection at all to police constables entering premises at

    929
    stated times and asking for certificates, or using their influence with those who ought to have registered but have not done so. We will consider very carefully before the Report stage the question of penalties, but I repeat what we desire to bring about is the most accurate registration possible, and we believe this will be one of the best methods of making that registration complete.
    Mr. KILEY: I have had some experience of visits by officials in connection with recruiting for National Service, and I must say the results have not been altogether satisfactory. First, we had one visitor who discovered, as he thought, some little informality; he went back and reported it, then we had another visitor to check his statement. Eventually the number of visitors rose to four before the matter was satisfactorily cleared up. Therefore, I am not sure I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we would welcome with open arms these visits of constables; but, seeing that under the Defence of the Realm Regulations we have no option in regard to them, I see no object in opposing this Sub-section.
    Mr. WING: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman by what means he proposes we shall be able to distinguish the "other person" who is to exercise this power. I am not so much concerned about the police constable; he is a man who can be recognised, but in what way are you going to clothe or garb the "other person" so as to avoid the danger of some individual, under the guise of a representative of National Service, gaining access to premises and demanding to see this, that, and the other for purposes of his own and not for the purposes of the Act? How is it proposed to make this "other person" easily distinguishable by the individual of whom he may be demanding information?
    Mr. FISHER: It would be possible for anybody to dress himself up in the uniform of a police constable and to represent himself as being authorised by the Minister of National Service. All we can do is to see that the person who does appear as the authority authorised by the Minister of National Service shall have the best possible credentials. That is a matter to which we will apply our minds, and will see how far we can perfect our arrangements, so that anyone who presumes to appear for the Minister of National Service shall not only have the authority, but shall be able to persuade the person affected
    930
    that he is a duly authorised person. I cannot say exactly by what means that will be done, or what form the authority will take. I agree it is a matter to which attention ought to be given, and I will see to it that the matter is studied and that we shall, as far as possible, guard against anyone entering premises who is not authorised to do so by the Minister of National Service
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Whitehouse), to leave out Sub-section (4), I think, perhaps, this point has been met by the Government Amendment, which has now been handed in, to insert, after the word "person," the words "over the age of eighteen years." is that so?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Yes; that entirely meets my point, and I was about to move my Amendment in that form.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (4), after the word "person" ["If any person fails"], insert the words "over the age of eighteen years."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7. (Provisions as to Females.)
    It shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council to extend to female persons any of the provisions of this Act applicable only to male persons, subject to such modifications in dates as may be fixed by the Order.
    The CHAIRMAN: Does not the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King)—after the word "persons," to insert the words "above the age of sixteen years and not employed in agriculture"—follow an Amendment rejected earlier in the Bill—on Clause 1, I think?
    Mr. KING: No; it does not quite cover that point. This would refer to sixteen only in the case of females. It is a different point. I beg to move, after the word "persons" ["to extend to female persons"], to insert the words "above the age of sixteen years."
    We now come to this question of the bringing of females under the provisions of this Act. In the first place, I think we are entitled to ask the Government for some more definite expression of their intentions. Do they intend really at a com-

    931
    paratively near date to bring in the whole or some portion of the female population under the provisions of this Act by an Order in Council? From one expression used by the President of the Local Government Board I gather that when the amount of registration contemplated for the male population is complete, then by Order, or Orders, in Council it is contemplated to bring the female population in. Or must some emergency arise?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a point on the Clause, and not on the Amendment standing in the hon. Member's name.
    Mr. KING: I quite understand that, but perhaps I may say that it may make a considerable difference how far I may press this Amendment, which would put the age of females to be brought in at sixteen, if I knew the intentions of the Government. I think it is obvious that it will be quite early enough to bring females under this Act at sixteen years. It may, on the other hand, be felt that there ought to be uniformity, that if boys are brought in at fifteen, so girls ought also to be brought in at fifteen. I do not believe there will be anything gained by having a large number of girls, some 350,000 for England and Wales alone, and some 70,000 for Scotland, brought in under the provisions of this Act, and in any case I think it is well open to consideration whether, if women are to be brought in, it is not quite sufficient to bring them in at sixteen years of age.
    Mr. FISHER: The original Act named the period of fifteen to sixty-five, and I see no reason whatever for not adopting those two ages. I also see no reason whatever for adopting the age of fifteen in the case of girls and the age of fifteen in the case of boys. There may be something to be said as to whether Clause 7 ought to be put into operation at all. That is another matter, though when we come to it I shall be quite prepared to argue that the power should be given to the Government.
    Mr. KING: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "If any such Order in Council is issued Sub-section (b) of Section 6 shall not be applicable."
    932
    I may be too optimistic, but I understand that the Government is going to meet this point. The Parliamentary Secretary, in the absence of the President of the Board, said that the question of the application of the Act to females and the provision which relates to males at present, by which males between fifteen and sixty-five may be accosted by the police and certain particulars demanded—that as to the advisability of extending that provision to females it should be considered on this Clause. I hope very much that the President of the Local Government Board will accept the Amendment that I move, because it simply has this effect: The Clause that we are discussing gives power for an Order in Council to be issued making applicable to females between fifteen and sixty-five all the Clauses of this Bill which at present are applicable only to males. If, therefore, this. Clause passes without a change, an Order in Council may make applicable to females the particular provision which met with so much criticism and condemnation from the Committee earlier in the sitting, by which any policeman will have the power to stop all females between fifteen and sixty-five and to demand their certificates of registration or that they should give an account of themselves on the lines provided in the Act. We gathered from the hon. Gentleman's speech that the extension of these police duties to females should certainly be considered when we reached this Clause, and my Amendment will simply, while still giving the power to issue an Order in Council extending the provisions of this Act from males to females, in the event of the Order being is sued, present the extension to females between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five of the provision under which they can be accosted by any policeman, as provided in the earlier Clauses. I think I have fairly stated the exact object of my Amendment, and I feel that to state the object of the Amendment is also its justification.
    Mr. FISHER: The object of the Clause is to empower the police to stop a person and demand, if necessary, that he should show his certificate, or to state his name, address, occupation, and so on. In the great majority of cases the power will be properly exercised by the police, but there might be exceptions, and some requests by the police might be open to suspicion. If the hon. Gentleman does not press his

    933
    Amendment, I can promise that between now and Report to endeavour to meet his wishes.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making this promise to meet the point of the Amendment. Of course, I very gladly ask permission to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. KING: Now is the opportunity for the Government to tell us whether they are going to keep this Clause for an emergency, or whether, under present conditions, it is their intention, as soon as they have the opportunity, to put it into force. I rather gather that the latter is the case from some remarks that fell from the President of the Local Government Board. I think he might very well now just give us the intentions of the Government—no pledge, of course, is expected—but as to what is the object and intention with which this Clause has been put in the Bill.
    Mr. MORRELL: Is it really necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to press this Clause at all? After all, we now know what we did not know at the beginning, that as regards the great majority of the people that will be affected by this Bill, that is to say a million or so of lads between the ages of fifteen and eighteen, that the Bill is voluntary—that is to say, they will register themselves if they can be got to do it. I am quite prepared to agree that a large number of them will be so induced; but I think it is quite obvious, without taking a very low view of human nature, that, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, if these provisions are voluntary, there will be a very large residue who will not conform to them. There will be many who have not a high sense of responsibility towards the country in this class between the ages of fifteen and eighteen, and who will not take the trouble of going to the post office to get and subsequently to fill in these rather elaborate forms and send them in again. I assume that there will be no penalties imposed then. For that reason it is quite clear that this register cannot be a complete register. Therefore, all the arguments used as to the importance of having complete vital statistics concerning everyone between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five as being of importance to the Food
    934
    Controller to know exactly how many there are to be supplied throughout the country, would probably not have been served up for discussion if we had known at the first what we know now: that this is a voluntary measure. Throughout the first part of this Debate every one of us was under the impression that this was a compulsory Bill. We know now it is not. For that reason, in view of its being a voluntary Bill, the register will not be complete. Another point of the Bill is that it is only for the duration of the War. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the necessity and importance to the country of not having unnecessary officialism and unnecessary expense. I would ask, is it really desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should claim the power which he will then be tempted to exercise, to extend this Bill to girls between the ages of fifteen and eighteen? Can the right hon. Gentleman say that there is really any object to be gained by this Clause not for military but for social purposes? Can he say what social purposes will be served or what advantage will be obtained by the country during this extreme crisis by having an incomplete register of young women between fifteen and eighteen Is there any reason why he should ask the House to give him these powers? He may not exercise them himself, but his successor may be tempted to do so and thereby cause a lot of perfectly gratuitous expense and trouble to the country in time of war. This Clause seems to me to be totally unnecessary, and no sort of reason has been given for the Bill. Granting that it is for the purpose of the War and that the register must be incomplete in these circumstances I say that this is an unnecessary and a foolish proposal, and I suggest that it is a power which the Committee ought not to give.
    Mr. FISHER: There is nothing I regret more than the hon. Member's attitude to this Bill. He first abuses the Government because he thinks that the penalties are intended to apply to persons under the age of eighteen, and then he finds out that there are no penalties. He then suggests that the Bill is only voluntary, and that the boys affected have no sense of their obligations to the country. For my part, I believe that they have, and whether there are penalties or not I think the boys of this country, if they are required to be registered, will do their utmost to conform if they can in any way aid their country towards the winning of this War in the

    935
    crisis through which we are now passing. As to whether this Bill ought to apply to females, that is a question for the Minister of National Service. If at a later period he thinks it would be useful to have a continuous registration of girls of fifteen, then he may use the powers under Clause 7.
    No man here knows the extent of this War, or whether it is going to last one, two, or three years. No man knows what he may have to do yet in the way of organising the labour and industries of this country, and I think we should be ill-advised if we did not take every possible measure to prepare ourselves for a date at which we might have to utilise all our available labour, male arid female. hardly need point out that girls of seventeen to-day are doing some of the noblest work in the country. Wherever you go you see these young girls performing work which before the War you thought they were not, capable of performing, and they are now doing splendid service. Under these circumstances it may be exceedingly useful to have a record of these girls, the work they are doing, and what they are capable of, so that you may be able in an emergency to transfer their labour where it is most wanted. By this means the Minister for National Service will be able to find a large amount of labour which will not only be available, but will be willingly given in order to carry us through an extreme moment which may be the most vital moment for deciding the great issues of the War. For my part, I think that this House can quite well arm the Government with this Order in Council, conscious that it will not be used unless it can be used for a good purpose, and that no man will desire to put an extra duty upon the local registration authorities in this country unless by doing so he can confer upon the Government a means of information which otherwise is not at their disposal.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Duties of Local Registration Authorities.)
    It shall be the duty of every local registration authority to take all such steps as are necessary for securing the due registration of all persons within their district required by this Act to cause themselves to be registered under the principal Act, and for securing the performance by all persons of their duties under this Act.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "for" ["necessity for securing"], to insert the words "giving proper notice to and."
    We have had some sort of promise given that it will be the duty of the authorities to give notice to these young people and to discharged soldiers who, to a large extent, will be the persons to be registered under this Bill. I welcome this Clause, because it imposes definite duties upon the local registration authorities. The previous Act did not impose the work of registration as a definite duty. Here we have got the recognition of it being a duty imposed upon an authority, and that duty can, I suppose, be enforced in the ordinary way. That is all to the good, but I want included the duty of notifying the persons who are to be registered. We have had various criticisms of the Bill upon the lines that it imposes duties upon young people and discharged soldiers of which they may never be aware, and for not performing which they may easily find themselves heavily fined. This Amendment imposes upon the local registration authority the distinct and definite duty of notifying the people who have to be registered that they must be registered.
    Mr. FISHER: We cannot accept this Amendment. I have already explained that it is impossible to put upon the local authorities the liability of giving notice, because it is quite impossible for them to know the whole of the addresses of these lads and discharged soldiers. If my lion. Friend's Amendment were carried, it would put upon the local authority the liability to give "proper notice," whatever that might be, and that liability might be construed into a liability to actually send to every house within its district a notice that the Bill had been passed and that the forms could be obtained at the town hall or some other place. That is exactly the difficulty in which, as I have explained to the Committee, the Government is placed. We should have to send to every house a notification of the Act. It would necessitate the sending out or something like 8,000,000 notices, an immense amount of labour, and an amount of printing which I do not think we should get done. I would ask the Committee to realise the extraordinary difficulty under which the Government and all Departments are suffering at present in regard

    937
    to printing. This Amendment would throw upon local authorities a duty which we cannot put upon them.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
    "Any member or official of a local registration authority failing to take proper steps for securing due registration under these Acts shall be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding five pounds."
    We have had the doctrine laid down here to-night by the President of the Local Government Board himself that when you impose a duty you must give it the sanction of a fine. When we urged that discharged soldiers should not be liable to a fine if they did not register, the answer came very promptly from the Treasury Bench that when you impose a duty by Statute you must also impose a fine. That argument seemed to be a strong one. I did not want it to be applied in the case of soldiers, because I wanted it to be felt that this registration was, as was said by one of our Prime Ministers,
    "The free gift of a free nation."
    It is different when you want to put a duty on a local authority. I propose that when a local authority does not carry out its duty properly it shall be open to any person who sees that to summon and fine either a member or the officials.
    Mr. FISHER: I would point out to my hon. Friend that Section 13 of the original Act provides
    "(1) If any person employed under this Act makes wilful default in the performance of any of his duties under this Act, he shall for each offence be liable, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
    "(2) If any person employed in collecting, correcting, or completing forms, or otherwise acting in the compilation or maintenance of the register, or the tabulation of the contents thereof, or any person using the register, communicates without lawful authority any information required in the course of his employment, or from such use, he shall, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour, for a term
    938
    not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine."
    It is not usual in Acts winch impose duties on local authorities to include a penalty. It is quite true that in the Representation of the People Bill we did put a penalty upon registration officers who failed to carry out their duties, but it is more usual to proceed against local authorities by mandamus than by penalty. We should be wise to rest ourselves upon the general powers that we have over local authorities and to feel that as we nave power to compel officials of local authorities to carry out their duties so we have power under the general law to compel them by mandamus to carry out the duties which this Bill imposes upon them. I do not think the words are necessary and I trust the hon. Member will not press them.
    Mr. KILEY: It will be practically impossible for many local authorities to carry out the proposals laid down in this Bill so as to avoid coming under penalties. Take the case of the district of Stepney, or the Thames, where boats of all kinds are arriving and where many men will come tinder the provisions of the Act. It is impossible for the local authority to get in touch with them and to penalise them if they fail to advise these sea faring people of the provisions of this Bill. It is an impossible provision. I trust the hon. Member will not persist in Amendment.
    Mr. MORRELL: I find myself in the remarkable position of agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman and disagreeing with my hon. Friend (Mr. King). I have always thought there are too many penalties imposed by this Bill, and I certainly do not want to have another. I resented a good deal the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not think there has been any undue argument or obstruction.
    Mr. FISHER: I never accused the hon. Member of any obstruction or undue argument. I accused him of saying that the lads of this country have so little public spirit that they would not obey the law unless there was a penalty attached to it.
    Mr. MORRELL: I should be out of order in going into that, but that is not what I said on the last Amendment. I said a certain number would not obey the law, and I shall carry the common sense of the Committee with me. Obviously you

    939
    could not have a complete register. We do not want to have further penalties than those already put upon discharged soldiers under the Bill, and I think my hon. Friend would do well to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Certain Duties to be Continuing Duties.)
    The duty of a person to cause himself to be registered under the principal Act or when so registered to notify any change of his profession or occupation or of his place of residence or the loss of his certificate of registration shall be a continuing duty, and shall not be deemed to be extinguished by reason only that he has failed so to do before the appointed date or within the time allowed for the purpose and has thereby incurred a penalty.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the words "or when so registered to notify any change of his profession or occupation or of his place of residence or the loss of his certificate of registration shall be a continuing duty, and."
    The object of the Clause is to make certain offences continuing offences and to pile up the fines by daily additions. The object of my Amendment is to make the continuing offence apply only in one matter, but where an employer fails to register. That is a really important matter, but where an employer fails to register a man who comes and does a day's work and then possibly leaves without giving his proper name or address, or where there has been some slight neglect which has led to an infringement of the Act, it would be very hard indeed to impose continuing penalties. In such a case as I have mentioned if the employer could not get the information the penalty must go on till absolutely the end of the War. It is quite possible legally. If there is to be a continuing penalty, the case which I imagine would be a due and proper case would be the case of a person who fails to register himself and refuses to do so. Then you might say, "You shall pay a £5 fine, and £1 for every day you continue to be obstructive to the law and negligent of your duty." But where it is an offence which you cannot rectify, it would obviously be most unfair and undesirable to make the offence a continuing offence.
    Mr. FISHER: What the hon. Gentleman means is that it shall not be a. continuing duty to notify change of address or occupation. One of the objects of the Bill is that it shall be a continuing duty, and that you shall not be exonerated from performing that duty by the mere fact that you are outside the limits of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and that six months having elapsed puts you outside the obligation to notify. We desire that that shall be a continuing duty. Half the value of the register would be destroyed if it was not a continuing duty. Therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. KING: I must draw attention to this Clause. It means that a person who fails to register may not only be brought up and fined six months after, or any period after, but that there is to be a continuing fine imposed from day to day. In certain cases, like nuisances, something which is an offence against the health of a district, or which means loss or injury to some person, it is quite right that there should be a continuing offence in the sense of an additional fine for every day, but in a matter like this it is not necessary or desirable. I am not going to go to a Division against the Clause, but I hope my point is appreciated and that it will be considered. As the Clause stands it may well lead to injustice.
    Mr. MORRELL: We ought to be told whether it is the intention that there should be these very heavy penalties upon discharged sailors and soldiers who fail to register. Is there any reason why the ordinary law should not be enough, and that a man should not be punished for each offence—not merely by a fine of £5, but by a continuing fine of £1 per day? That seems to me to be undue severity. I wish hon. Members who take an interest in discharged sailors and soldiers, and who resent Members on this side interfering on their behalf, would consider the hardship to which these men are being subjected. I will give you a concrete example. You may have a man who has been a very gallant soldier, but who may have very peculiar views about what the right hon. Gentleman calls his public duties. He may be an Irishman who objects to all Government interference of any sort. I

    941
    have a great deal of sympathy with a man of that sort, especially in view of what I have seen of right hon. Gentlemen on that bench. Such a man, who may be a wounded soldier, may say, "There may be a chance that I shall be had as other men have been had before, and that I shall be taken under the Review of Exceptions Act." He may be perfectly wrong-headed, but he is liable to be brought before the magistrates and ordered to fill up the forms. If he refuses to do so, is he to be liable not merely to a penalty of £5, but to a penalty of £1 a day? It is said that magistrates will act reasonably. We cannot tell that. This is an unnecessarily severe provision. Considering that your register can in no circumstances he complete, and that this is merely registering for the duration of the War, there is a great deal of unnecessary harshness about the Bill, and this is one of the harshest provisions. I hope that we may have some reply from the Treasury Bench on this point.
    Mr. KILEY: I would ask the Government to consider between now and Report stage whether some action cannot be taken with reference to these continuing penalties. Take the case of the seafaring man who was not in the country at the time that this was done, and becomes liable to these penalties. It is possible that magistrates might take a reasonable view of such cases, but I have in mind cases which have occurred recently. Take the variations in penalty which occur in eases of exposing lights. In one part of London £5 is considered a proper fine, and in other parts of London £50 is considered a proper fine. I do not wish to leave the matter entirely to the discretion of magistrates, knowing the differences of view that prevail. A man who breaks the law should be punished, but I do not want the man to be punished simply according to the view of the magistrate. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might very well consider some new provision on this point.
    Mr. FISHER: As I have said, we intend to consider before the Report stage the whole subject of penalties. Our whole object in this Clause is not to punish anybody, but to get our register as complete as possible. We cannot do so if there is a constant refusal on the part of people who may say, "I do not mind paying a fine of 5s., 10s., or £1. When the fine is paid they no longer have power
    942
    to compel me to be registered." Our object is not to inflict fines, but to get a complete register. I will look into the matter from the point of view of not in the least desiring to exercise any vindictive action against any obstinate or stupid person who objects to register, but with a view to obtaining the most complete register that is possible.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of Act to Ireland.)
    Section fifteen of the principal Act is hereby repealed, and subject to such modifications as may be made by His Majesty by Order in Council the provisions of this Act and of the principal Act are extended to Ireland.—[Major Newman.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Major NEWMAN: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This is to repeal Clause 15 of the principal Act, and to bring Ireland within the scope of the Bill. When the principal Act was discussed in 1915 a similar Amendment to mine was moved by an Irish representative of an English constituency (St. Augustine's), who explained that he was not speaking for Ireland, and on the present occasion I am in the same position. The hon. Member for St. Augustine's on the former occasion spoke with great restraint, and also with great effect. I dare say this Amendment which I now move will not receive the support of a single member of this Committee. We in this House have now got so accustomed to except Ireland from our measures that it is now done almost without debate. But the country does not look at the matter in that way at all. It wants to know why Ireland is always being excepted from these measures, and I have determined to make it my business, on every single Bill, when Ireland is excepted, to ask the Minister concerned why it is excepted. That is the reason why I am now submitting this Amendment. I do not know who is going to answer for the Government. The Member for St. Augustine's had the honour of a reply, from the then Chief Secretary (Mr. Birr ell), at the time Ireland was drifting to rebellion,

    943
    and the then Chief Secretary was sitting by and watching. I imagine that the answer which was then given to the hon. Member for St. Augustine's will be the answer I will receive to-night, on the ground expressed by the old Latin tag, irritabis orabrones—or do not disturb the hornets' nest; otherwise, that it was not worth while, for a very small measure of advantage, to interfere with the legislative scheme. I dare say that is what I shall be told. The Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool told the Committee that the then Chief Secretary had at Dublin Castle a dossier recording the facts relating to any Irishman of eminence, and that with that record it would not be necessary to make inquiries as to particular persons from Ireland. He also told the Committee, and it was perfectly true, that that splendid body, the Royal Irish Constabulary, had a complete record of the country districts which they superintended and watched over. That, I think, is the case, though I do not think that record is quite so complete as the then Chief Secretary tried to make out. The gist of the matter is this, that the number of men in Ireland who were not engaged in agriculture was so small that we were told it would not be worth while causing irritation in Ireland by making registration compulsory in 1915. The Committee was at that time told that the numbers were something like 270,000 not engaged in agriculture or work of a necessary kind which would come within the scope of the Act of 1915. I dare say that that number has now grown to a great deal larger figure, and surely the Committee will realise that since the summer of 1915 a very great deal of water has flowed under Westminster Bridge, and that though it was not worth while to stir up trouble to get 300,000 men registered then and that under present conditions it is well worth while to risk a certain amount of trouble, and even a great deal, to get that number registered with a view to employment on National service if for no other purpose. Let us remember that in 1915 we were a nation of volunteers. In 1915I was marching through English villages at the head of men who had volunteered. We were watched by some young shopmen from behind counters who did not come forward to join us. Those young men have had to be soldiers, and. therefore, surely the con-
    944
    ditions are altered. What might not have been worth while in 1915 is surely very much worth while in January, 1918.
    11.0 P.M.
    I may be told that the Chief Secretary of the Irish Government can even now put his fingers on every young shopman serving behind the counter, whether it be in Belfast, in Dublin, or in Cork, and be in a position to get him for work of national importance, if necessary, without asking him to register. If that is the case let the Government say so, though I beg leave to doubt very greatly that they have that information at all fully at their command. Even supposing that the dossier is there up to date, I have some further points to put to show why my Amendment should be carried. By Section 7 of the principal Act it is enacted that every person within twenty-eight days of his arrival in the United Kingdom shall deliver to the local registration authority notice of his arrival and certain particulars. Observe, it does not say, "Great Britain," but "United Kingdom." Supposing a man arrives not in Glasgow or Liverpool, but in Dublin, according to the principal Act he ought to register himself; but actually, if we read Clause 15, Ireland is exempted from this Act, and therefore he need not. There is a discrepancy which ought in some way or another to be remedied. Take another point., which is notorious. There are a great number of shirkers who have from time to time gone, and are still going, across from England and Scotland to Ireland to evade military service. How on earth are the Irish authorities to deal with those people if there is no registration enforced in Ireland? It makes the work of the police in Ireland almost impossible. That is another reason why this Bill should be applied to Ireland in its entirety, and why we should repeal the permissive Clause in the original Act. There is a third point Everyday a certain number of Irishmen are coming across to Great Britain for work—it may be for temporary agricultural work, or to take up more permanent work in munitions, building aerodromes, and so on. There again, those men ought to be registered either before they start or when they arrive, but again, as I take it, they will escape. There is a danger. Of course, it is possible for a German to come over as a working man, get work in a munitions factory, and perhaps create some great disaster. Clause 15 of the principal Act, as I have

    945
    said, is permissive, and I want to make it compulsory. When that Act was passed we were living in the day of volunteers, and now we are in days of compulsion. Therefore, if we have compulsion in this country, surely in this small matter we may well have compulsion for Ireland too. May I just quote to the President of the Local Government Board a few words from his speech which he made on the Second Reading of the Bill? He said:
    What the Minister for National Service wants to do is to get a complete record of all the occupations of every male and female with a view to using their services to the fullest possible extent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1918, col.615,
    If he wants to get that of every male and female in Ireland this permissive Clause will have to be repealed, and a Clause inserted which will give him compulsory powers.
    Mr. FISHER: My hon. and gallant Friend proposes that this amending Bill should be applied to Ireland. He sees the consequences of that, and therefore he proposes in the same new Clause that the principal Act, which was passed in July, 1915, should also be applied to Ireland, and he probably is aware of the Clauses of that Act. If he is not, he ought to have studied them before he put down his new Clause. If he does study them, I think he will agree with me that there never was an Act of Parliament which was better designed for England, Scotland, and Wales, but which was wholly unsuited in its application to Ireland. Its whole local machinery is most ill-adapted for application to Ireland, where there is a different system altogether of local government. My hon. and gallant Friend is rather aware of that, because he says in his new Clause, "subject to such modifications as may be made by His Majesty by Order in Council." My hon. and gallant Friend opened this Debate to-day by a most vehement attack on Orders in Council, and said they were the greatest encroachment on the privileges of this House, prevented the country from knowing in the least what laws were being made for their benefit, and he had no good word whatever to say for an Order in Council. Yet, with all his objections to Orders in Council, he comes down now and advocates that an entirely new Act of Parliament shall be applied to Ireland by Order in Council, with very little notice. I think the first statement of the hon. and gallant Member is singularly inconsistent with the speech he has just delivered. But there is another and
    946
    wider answer to be given to his request. He knows perfectly well the circumstances which induced the Government of the day, in July, 1915, not to apply a national registration system to Ireland. He knows the circumstances which induced the Government not to apply military service to Ireland, and he is well aware that since then other circumstances have supervened. The Convention has been set up, and many of us—I believe the hon. Gentleman himself does so—hope that some settlement of this Irish controversy may be arrived at. At all events, whether or riot a settlement is arrived at I am sure the great majority of this house will believe it is wise to give the Convention every possible chance of coming to a decision by which some settlement may be reached by Irishmen themselves of this difficult problem, and, therefore, this would be a singularly ill-chosen moment if I, on behalf of the Government, were to accept this new Clause, and inform those interested in the Irish question that, although the Government of the day in 1915 rejected a proposal to apply national registration to Ireland, I, on behalf of the Government of to-day, at this critical moment in the history of Ireland, consent to an Amendment which will apply to Ireland in 1918 an Act which, in 1915, the Government of the day deliberately refused to apply to the country under the circumstances in which they then found themselves. Whether or not that policy was wise in 1915, everybody will agree that to-night is not a fitting opportunity to reverse the policy and apply this Bill for National Registration applicable only to England; Wales, and Scotland, to Ireland. If we are to do that it would be far better to bring in a separate Bill, by which it could be made applicable to the peculiar local machinery of Ireland, and not to do it by an Order in Council.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I am not going to argue in favour of the Amendment, but I must object to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. I really do not see why the Amendment should not be accepted. I am sorry that the Government thought it necessary to introduce the Bill at all, for the simple reason that the right hon. Gentleman must know that it cannot be enforced in this country if certain forces object to it. I do not think we are prepared—
    Mr. FISHER: Is it in order to argue on the merits of the Bill now, and as to whether the Government ought to have introduced it? If so, shall I be able to reply?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is a very simple question, whether Section 15 of the principal Act should be repealed and whether this Act should be applied to Ireland. The hon. Member is not entitled to go beyond that.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I quite recognise that, and I also recognise the force of my remarks by the right hon. Gentleman rising as he did. I cannot see why it is absolutely necessary in 1918 that the policy of the Government adopted in 1915 should not be revised. It is clear that it might be necessary to revise it and apply it to Ireland. I hope I am in order in making that remark, and that being so, I am very much inclined to think that the proposal of the hon. Member opposite has some substance in it. I am not going to argue that it is wise to apply it to Ireland, and I am not quite sure whether I shall be in order in making comparisons. If I am not, of course my remarks would really fall to the ground.
    The CHAIRMAN: That would involve going over the Bill as a whole, and that cannot be done now. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until the Third Reading. He can do it then.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Orders in Council to be Presented to Parliament.)
    Every Order in Council made under the provisions of these Acts shall be laid for twenty-one days before Parliament before coming into force.—[Mr. King.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The object of this Clause can be very briefly stated. It is to the effect that every Order in Council made under the provisions of these Acts shall be laid for twenty-one days before Parliament. This is the same provision as was put into the Military Service Bill on Monday, and I hope that it can be accepted.
    Mr. FISHER: I will not accept the hon. Member's particular Amendment, but I will bring up on Report the more usual form in which this can be put in.
    Mr. KING: I am greatly obliged to the right bon. Gentleman, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: We have already dealt with the remaining three Clauses on the Paper.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: No. I will not ask leave to move the Clauses dealing with the duration of the Act, and the imprisonment of young persons, but I will ask leave to move the Clause entitled (Penalties.)

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Penalties.)
    No young person under the age of eighteen shall be subject to any penalties under this Act.—[Mr. Whitehouse.]
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I hope I am right in assuming that the right lion. Gentleman will not oppose the adoption of this Clause, which reads, "No young person under the age of eighteen shall be subject to any penalties under this Act." The right hon. Gentleman has promised to examine certain debatable Clauses of the Bill in order to secure the object of this Clause, and to make proposals on the subject. I take it, therefore, that he can have no possible objection to simply inserting these words, and so place the matter beyond any doubt. I would call his attention to the fact that the debatable point in the Bill is Subsection (2) of Clause 2, which, some of us hold, transfers the penalties from the original Act to young persons in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has promised to examine the point and to introduce words, and we can save time on the Report stage if the right hon. Gentleman will adopt these words. I can see no possible objection to them, seeing that he has given a pledge in the most unqualified terms to the effect that no penalties of any kind shall fall on any person under the age of eighteen for failure to observe any provisions of this Act. That being so, I move this new Clause.
    Mr. FISHER: In the original Act no penalties are imposed on any person under the age of eighteen. Following the Act of 1915, no penalties are here imposed. It is quite unnecessary to add the words of the hon. Gentleman to the Bill. We should endeavour so to mould the Bill as

    949
    to secure, as in the 1915 Act, that there shall be no penalties under the age stated. If it was not necessary to put the words in the original Act, it is not necessary to put them into this Bill.
    Mr. MORRELL: I do not follow the views of my hon. Friend (Mr. Whitehouse) that it is absolutely necessary to put these words into the Bill, but I want to be quite clear how we stand. The right hon. Gentleman said, "no penalties in the ordinary sense of the word." I should like to know what he means by that?
    Mr. FISHER: What I say is that the Bill shall follow the Act of 1915 so far as penalties are concerned. In the Act of 1915 it is clear that any penalties imposed upon persons above the age of eighteen shall not be imposed upon persons under the age of eighteen. We shall mould the Bill so as to make it perfectly certain that no penalties, in the ordinary sense of the word, shall be so imposed.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: In any sense of the word?
    Mr. MORRELL: I only want to be perfectly sure that there is no misunderstanding. When the right hon. Gentleman uses the words "in the ordinary sense of the word," I do not know whether there is some special sense to which he made reference. My right hon. Friend says that his pledge is not quite met by the very valuable Amendment which he introduced into Clause 6, Sub-section (4), where he introduced the words "if any person above the age of eighteen …." That only applies to the exemption from penalties in regard to that particular Section.
    Mr. FISHER: What applies to the penalties under one Clause applies to those under the others.
    Mr. MORRELL: That being so—
    Mr. FISHER: I said it was distinctly covered.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman has expressly said that words will be found to mould the Bill so as to make it conform to the original Act in respect to the penalties Clause. I regret that he cannot deal with the matter in its final form, but in view of his very full and complete promise I will not press my Amendment to a Division, but will ask leave to withdraw it.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

  MIDWIVES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): This is a Bill which has been the subject of discussion between the Irish Executive and the Irish Members, and it has been strongly recommended by the public authorities in Ireland who have deemed it to be necessary. Amendments have been proposed which will be considered generally satisfactory. In these circumstances, and as the Bill is one which is much desired in the interests of public health in Ireland, I hope it will be allowed to pass through all its stages to-night.
  Mr. GULLAND: I have no objection to what the Chief Secretary says, but I notice on the Paper several Motions, by Irish Members, for the rejection of the Second Reading. If the right hon. Gentleman says that this measure has the approval of the Irish Members, I have no objection, but I would like to be assured that he has their approval for this course.
  Mr. DUKE: The Bill has been the subject of discussion between the Irish Office and the Irish Members for a considerable period. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows the circumstances of the discussion which has taken place. Otherwise it would be difficult to bring the Bill forward in this way.
  Mr. KING: In regard to the three hon. Members whose names appear on the Paper, and who have given notice of objection to this Bill, I should like to know if they concur in the line which has just been taken up by the Chief Secretary?
  Mr. DUKE: Yes; the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sligo has been satisfied.
  General M'CALMONT: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I know that certain members of the Irish party below the

  951
  Gangway did raise some difficulties, but I have been assured on several occasions that they were difficulties which can be adjusted, although I am not able to say definitely that they have withdrawn their opposition. Nevertheless, I have every reason to believe that those difficulties can be overcome.
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  Clauses 1 (Certification) and 2 (Provision for Existing Midwives) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes, after Eleven o'clock.