Commons Sitting of 28 January 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (no Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Marriages Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Port Glasgow Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

ARMY.
Copy presented of Second Report of the Committee on Promotion of Officers in the Special Reserve, New Armies, and Territorial Force, together with a Note by the Army Council [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 950 (Bechuanaland Protectorate Report for 1916–17) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table
BOARD OF EDUCATION (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee for inquiring into the Principles which should determine the construction of Scales of Salary for Teachers in Elementary Schools [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CORN PRODUCTION ACT, 1917.
Copies presented of Regulations made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSEGTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order numbered D.I.P. 516, declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and an infected area for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed, with amendment, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:
Borough of Boston
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MINISTRY OF FOOD.
Copy presented of Mangels and Swedes (Prices) (Ireland) Order, 1917, Wheat (Seed) Order, 1918, Milk (Registration of Dealers) Order, 1918, Deer (Restriction of Feeding) Order, 1918, Meat (Maximum Prices) Orders 1917, Sugar (Rationing) Order, 1917, Meat (Retailers' Restriction) Order, 1918, Livestock (Restriction of Slaughter) Order, 1918, Sugar Order (Ireland), 1917, British Onions Order, 1917, Meat (Maximum Prices) Order, Personal Licence, 1917, Intoxicating Liquor (Output and Delivery) Order (No. 5), 1917, Cattle (Sales) Order, Oat Products (Retail Prices) Order, 1917, as amended by Oats Products (Postponement of Date) Order, 1917, and Oats Products (Retail Prices) Order (No. 2), 1917, Food Control Committees (Margarine Requisition) Order, 1917, Milk (Amendment) Order, Margarine (Registration of Dealers) Order, 1917, British Cheese Order, and Meat (Maximum Prices) Order (No. 3), 1917, Sheep Sales Order, 1918, Fish (Prices) Order, 1918, Dutch Cheese Prices Order (Notice), Ruin and Gin (Restriction of Sales) Order, 1918, Cattle Feeding Stuffs (Requisition) Order, 1918, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL DEBT.
Copy presented of Return showing (1) the Aggregate Gross Liabilities of the State as represented by the Nominal Funded Debt, Estimated Capital Liability in

1273
respect of Terminable Annuities, Unfunded Debt, and other Liabilities in respect of Debt, the Estimated Assets, and the Exchequer Balances at the close Of each financial year from 1875–6 to 1916–17, both inclusive; and (2) the Gross and Net Expenditure charged annually during that period against the. Public Revenue on account of the National Debt, and other Payments connected with Capital Liabilities [by Command); to lie upon the Table.

SUPREME COURT; PRIZE, ETC., DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, 1916–17.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 24th January; (Mr. Baldwin); to lie upon. the Table, and to be printed. [No. 178.]
HOUSING ACT, 1914.
Copy presented of Account showing the money issued out of the Consolidated Fund; the money borrowed and the securities created in respect thereof; and the expenditure of a capital nature incurred by the Local Government Board for Scotland and the Commissioner of Works, respectively, under the Housing Act, 1914, For the period ended 31st March, 1917; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 179.]
PUBLIC OFFICES, SITES, AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS EXPENSES ACCOUNTS, 1916–17.
Accounts presented showing the Moneys issued out of the Consolidated Fund, the Moneys borrowed and the Securities created in respect thereof, and the Expenditure, under the provisions of the Acts, to the 31st March, 1917; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 180.]
NATIONAL DEBT (GOVERNMENT STOCK REGULATIONS), 1918.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 25th January, 1918, made by the Treasury, in conjunction with the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland, under the Finance Act, 1917, for facilitating Transactions in connection with Government Stock [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Sixty-sixth Report of the Inspectors of Lunatics in Ireland for the year, 1916, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Rule amending the definition of "School" in the Rules of the Intermediate Education Board (Ireland) [by Act]; to, lie upon the Table.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 25th January, 1918, giving effect to Rules of Court [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) ACT, 1916.
Copy presented of Rules made by the Railway and Canal Commissioners in pursuance of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, and the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
The following Sessional Returns were ordered on the Motion of the DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:
ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 10.
Return of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during Session 1917–18 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 147, of Session 1916).
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Return showing, with reference to Session 1917–18, (1) the total number of days on which the House sat; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 148, of Session 1916).

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Return of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into

1275
the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in the Session 1917–18, classed according to the following subjects: Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water; Waterworks; Gas; Gas and Water; Lighting and Improvement; Local Legislation; Corporations, etc. (not relating to Local Legislation or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports; Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Markets and Fairs; Gaols and ether County Buildings; Inclosure and Drainage; Estate; Patent; Divorce; and Miscellaneous:
Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1917–18 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preamble of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1917–18, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:
And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.3363, of Session 1916).

PUBLIC BILLS.
Return of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other
1276
Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1917–18; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No, 0.3669, of Session 1916).

PUBLIC PETITIONS.
Return of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1917–18; with the total number of signatures in that, Session (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.3687, of Session 1916).
SELECT COMMITTEES.
Return of the number of Select Committees appointed to Session 1917–18 and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name. of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.3570, of Session 1916).
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Return of the days on which the House sat in Session 1917–18, stating for each day the date of the month and the day of the week, the hour of meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after eleven p.m.; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings.

STANDING COMMITTEES.
Return for the Session of 1917–18, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the four Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, showing, with regard to

1277
each of such Members, the number of sittings at which he was present and the number of Divisions in which he took part; and (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 0.123, of Session 1914).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the possibility that Russia may still play an important military part in the war, and considering also the danger that a policy of may turn that fighting force against one or other of the Allies, and in face of the fact also that in the visit of Ambassadors and Ministers to M. Lenin the absence of a British representative was conspicuous, he will now arrange for a special Embassy to Petrograd composed of distinguished men in sympathy with Republican ideals, and make all arrangements for the appointment of an Ambassador to succeed Sir George Buchanan?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is in the negative. Let me add that he is utterly mistaken in supposing that there is any policy of "ill-will" to Russia or Russians.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if in this question he will assert his own personality more, and rise out of the grooves of a hopeless Foreign Office?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman disagree with the action of the
    1278
    French Government, whose Foreign Minister has stigmatised the Russian Government as a set of usurpers with whom he has nothing to do?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should put that question to the French Minister.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I wish I could.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Home Secretary whether he exercises any powers of censorship over the telegrams arriving from foreign parts or over other communications concerning the actions of the present Russian Government?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): All telegrams from abroad have been since the beginning of the War, and still are, subject to censorship.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is it correct to say that whereas his Department keeps back telegrams from M. Trotsky, yet it allows currency to be given to the wildest rumours detrimental to the present rulers of Russia?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not know anything about that.

    CHINA (SHAMEEN ISLAND CONCESSION).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the legal questions in regard to which a decision is pending which prevent the buildings belonging to Germany in the British concession on the Island of Shameen, in China, being taken over and the leases terminated?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am still in communication with His Majesty's Minister in Peking on the subject-matter of this question.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    CHINA TEA.
    Sir ALFRED YEOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any representations from traders on the continued failure to arrange for the importation of China tea; whether the percentage of import has yet been decided; and whether, and how, the necessary tonnage has yet been provided?
    Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Representations have been received from traders asking the Ministry of Food to arrange for the importation of China tea. Arrangements have been made by which tea will be bought in China on behalf of the Ministry of Food for importation to the United Kingdom in neutral tonnage. If sufficient tonnage be available it is intended to purchase 3,000,000 lbs. in the present year. The arrangements for tonnage will be made by the Ministry's agents in China.

    BASIC SLAG.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether application was recently made by a director of the Staveley Coal and Iron Company, Limited, which is a manufacturer of basic slag, and of which the works are situated in Derbyshire, for permission sell basic slag to farmers in the above county, who having, in response to the appeals of his Department, put quantities of sulphate of ammonia on their land, are now urgently in need of basic slag or lime which they cannot obtain; and that the above application has been refused on the ground that 25,000 tons of basic slag must be sent to Ireland; and whether he will take steps to secure that the local and other English farmers shall, at any rate as regards securing a fair share of the available supplies of basic slag, not be put in a worse position than Irish farmers, who, owing to the policy of the Government, nave fewer difficulties to contend with in the production of food?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): It appears to be the fact that basic slag ground in Derbyshire and the neighbouring counties was reserved for a time, so as to meet Irish orders for this product supported by the Irish Board of Agriculture. With regard to the third and last part of the question, I should perhaps point out that English farmers are now receiving basic slag considerably in excess of the pre-war quantity which they used, and that Irish farmers have not received more slag than is their proper share having regard to their acreage of food crops.
    Captain WRIGHT: Is basic slag being held back to go to Ireland at the present moment?
    Mr. PROTHERO: At the present moment I believe it is not, but I am not fully informed on that matter because I do not quite know whether the requirements arranged with the Irish Department of Agriculture are yet complete.
    Mr. FIELD: Is the right lion. Gentleman aware of the fact that complaints have been forwarded to him from Ireland owing to the insufficient supply of fertilisers sent to that country?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I believe that is the case.
    Colonel YATE: If the right hon. Gentleman gives Ireland basic slag, will he ask the Irish Department of Agriculture to give us some butter?
    Mr. FIELD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman provide the butter; will he make it himself?

    LAMB SLAUGHTER ORDER.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that irritation is felt at the recently issued Lamb Slaughter Order; that it will prevent a quantity of animal food coming into the market in April and May, when such food is scarce; is he aware that this will prevent the dams which are too old for further breeding from being fattened for the market, resulting in the consumption of grass required for the use of the store draft ewes usually purchased for next year's lamb crop; and will he withdraw the Order?
    Mr. PARKER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given last Wednesday, to which I have at present nothing to add.

    COLD AIR STORES, MANCHESTER.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what is the total storage capacity of the Manchester Corporation cold-air stores as measured in 56–1b. mutton carcases; what proportion of that space was, on Saturday. 19th January, occupied with goods stored on Government account for military purposes; what was the total space occupied on private account; approximately what tonnage of goods was stored on private account; who were the four principal holders; and what was the character of their holdings?
    Mr. PARKER: The gross storage capacity of the Manchester Corporation cold-air stores is 391,000 cubic feet, equal to 146,000 carcases of mutton of 56-1bs. weight. On Saturday, 19th January, 26 per cent. of the space was occupied with goods stored on Government account and 14.5 per cent. was occupied with goods stored on private account, weighing, approximately, 533 tons. The four principal private holders and the character of their holdings were as follows:
    Armour and Company, of Liverpool, meat, 95 tons.
    Goodwin, of Manchester, Apples, 58 tons.
    Blackburn, of Manchester, apples, 47 tons.
    Park Brothers, of Liverpool, tripe, 14 tons.

    FOOD SHORTAGE, SOUTH WALES MINING CENTRES.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware of the food famine in the South Wales mining centres, and of the fact that the miners and other workers cannot get food to take during their working hours; and will he see that some better system of rationing is at once put in force?
    Mr. PARKER: The Food Controller is aware that there have lately been serious shortages of certain foods in the South Wales mining centres. Full details of these were laid before him last week by a deputation from the South Wales Miners' Federation. He is taking measures to accelerate the introduction of a local rationing scheme under his Order of 22nd December, which will, it is hoped, go far to remove the difficulties in question.
    Mr. EDWARDS: In view of the fact that the South Wales miners are fulfilling so important a part in this War by supplying the Navy with coal, will the right hon. Gentleman not make some exceptional arrangement for their benefit?
    Mr. PARKER: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "exceptional arrangement." I can only give him the answer I have given. I presume he does not desire that this part of the country should have a larger share than any other part of the country.

    WATER ICE.
    Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether
    1282
    he is aware that by the terms of the Ice Cream (Restriction) Order, 1917, the manufacture of what is known as water ice, which consists of water, to which arrowroot is added to whiten it, liquid saccharin to sweeten it, and fruit essence to flavour it, no sugar or milk being used, is wholly restricted; that water ice mixed with temperance drinks is sold at a price of 1d. to numbers of the working classes of this country; and whether, under these circumstances and with the view of encouraging the public to drink temperance drinks, he can see his way to amend this Order by excluding from its operation the manufacture of water ice?
    Mr. PARKER: The answer to this question was printed in last Wednesday's OFFICIAL REPORT (cols. 988–989).

    JAM-MAKING.
    Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that jam may be made with no sugar but using glucose, corn-sugar, or corn-syrup as a substitute; and whether supplies of these substitutes can be made available for growers of their own fruit who in the coming summer are prepared to make jam for home consumption?
    Mr. PARKER: I am informed that liquid glucose, corn-sugar, and corn-syrup can to some extent be used as diluents of sugar in the making of jam; but no considerable supplies of these articles are likely to be available for this purpose during the present year.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the desire of the private fruit growers to know if there will be a supply of sugar for jam-making, as at the present time the sugar which was issued last year is enabling a number of householders to restrict their demand for butter, margarine, etc.; and can he slate whether a similar supply of sugar will be available this year?
    Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have already stated that Lord Rhondda hopes to make a definite announcement on this subject at an early date.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the announcement is made as soon as possible, as the fruit growers want to know what they are to do?
    Mr. PARKER: I will convey the request of the hon. Member to Lord Rhondda.

    CONFECTIONERY AND BEER.
    Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether a reduction has recently been made in the amount of sugar allowed for the confectionery trade; if so, whether a corresponding amount of reduction in sugar and glucose has been made for the brewing trade; and whether the food values of confectionery and beer have been compared and considered in this connection?
    Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the rest of the question does not, therefore, arise.

    PESTS (DESTRUCTION).
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in the interests of home-grown food production, the Food Controller will fix a price for wood-pigeons, sparrows, and rats?
    Mr. PARKER: I presume the intention of the hon. Member to be that a reward should be offered for the destruction of the pests in question. This would be a matter for the Food Production Department.
    Captain WRIGHT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of people who have had experience of some of the Orders issued by the Ministry of Food arc of opinion that if the Food Controller would be good enough to fix a price for these pests they would at once disappear?

    TEA IMPORTS.
    Sir A. YEOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has decided the percentage of tea imports from India and Ceylon during 1918, and what is the basis of payment to the planters?
    Mr. PARKER: It is not yet possible to decide the percentage of tea which will be imported from India and from Ceylon during 1918. The basis of payment to the planters is their pre-war prices, subject to certain adjustments in view of war conditions.

    FLOUR SHORTAGE (IRELAND).
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of
    1284
    Food whether his attention has been drawn to complaints of the inferior quality of flour now being supplied in the North-West of Ireland and to its insufficiency and unsuitability for purposes of home baking; whether he is aware that a large number of the inhabitants of the more remote districts are entirely dependent upon home baking; and what provision is being made in the matter?
    Mr. PARKER: Government Regulation Flour now being supplied throughout Ireland is identical with the authorised standard for the whole of the United Kingdom. The Canadian and American flours imported into Ireland are likewise of the same types as the imported flours distributed in other parts of the United Kingdom. I cannot agree with the suggestion that the flour supplied is unsuitable for purposes of home-baking. In the industrial parts of England home-baking with this flour is extensively practised, with satisfactory results.
    Mr. LAW: Is the flour that is distributed in the North-West of Ireland the same standard flour?
    Mr. PARKER: The reply which I have received is that this is the only kind of flour sent to Ireland, and it is identical in character with that which is being distributed in Great Britain.
    Mr. LAW: But I understand that is only 15 per cent. of the flour used?
    Mr. PARKER: I hesitate to reply, but I presume that the remainder is local Irish flour.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the scarcity of flour in Ireland; and if he will state what steps he intends to take to secure a regular supply?
    Mr. PARKER: I have been asked to reply. The Irish Food Control Committee have received numerous complaints with regard to the scarcity of flour in different parts of Ireland, particularly the West and North-West portion, and in every case where investigation has shown that actual shortage existed steps have been taken by the Committee, in conjunction with the Irish Flour Millers' Association, to provide emergency supplies. The amount of flour milled in Ireland, together with that imputed into the country, is sufficient to meet the general needs of the population, and every effort is being made to secure

    1285
    equitable distribution. But the difficulties of this task are considerably increased by the practice of hoarding flour, and by its use for feeding calves and pigs, in contravention of the Food Controller's Orders.
    Mr. LARDNER: Is there a week's reserve of flour in Ireland, having regard to the difficulties of transport, and can the Department make transport arrangements to provide an additional reserve there?
    Mr. PARKER: I cannot answer myself, and my hon. Friend who represents the Food Department is away. The Food Controller's general statement is that there is at the present time a sufficiency of flour in Ireland, though there has been some slight breakdown in the distribution. If the Food Controller's arrangements are carried out, however, Ireland has sufficient flour, equally with the rest of the United Kingdom.

    MEAT.
    The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HARCOURT:
    31. To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that butchers refuse to enter the names of new customers in view of the recent Order limiting their supplies; whether he is aware that butchers with whom substantial custom has in the past been placed by an individual also refuse to accept orders unless the person comes within their definition of a regular customer, which adjective they appear to interpret in some cases as having dealt with one firm exclusively and uninterruptedly in large amounts; whether it is the wish of the Department that for war purposes consumers should register with a single butcher near their residences; and, if so, will he explain how persons who have changed their addresses in London or who have set up house in London for the first time are to get meat?
    Mr. HARCOURT: This question was put down before the announcement was made in reference to meat.
    Mr. PARKER: The Food Controller is aware that, owing to the present shortage, various difficulties of the kind indicated by the hon. Member have arisen in connection with the retail sale of meat. Under the rationing schemes now in preparation these difficulties should disappear. Customers will be given a reason-
    1286
    able liberty in their choice of retailers. Pending the introduction of the new scheme, persons who have changed their addresses in London should continue to draw their supplies from the butcher with whom they previously dealt; no special arrangements can be made for those who are setting up house in London for the first time.
    Mr. HARCOURT: Does the hon. Member mean that all persons who have changed their address anywhere in the administrative county of London are to deal with the last butcher with whom they dealt and are to fetch the meat wherever they are situated? That affects a good many people.
    Mr. PARKER: I realise the difficulty, and I know that distance means a great deal, but I have made inquiries in regard to this matter, and I am assured that nothing further can be done at the moment.
    Mr. HARCOURT: Do the Department realise the fact that some persons may have given very substantial custom to their butcher a considerable time ago, but very small custom recently? I ask this question for the general convenience of the butchers and all concerned.
    Mr. PARKER: I can only bring the matter before the notice of the Food Controller.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Who is to choose the meat when it is rationed—the butcher or the purchaser?
    Mr. PARKER: That is a difficult question.
    Mr. GULLANDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that in many towns Wednesday is the market day, on which country people come in to do their shopping for the week; and that, as Wednesday is a meatless day, it is now impossible for these people to buy any meat; and whether he will allow such towns to fix the meatless day on another than a market day?
    Mr. PARKER: The restrictions imposed by the Public Meals Order only affect public eating-places. It is, therefore, still possible for people to purchase meat for household purposes. It would considerably lessen the economy of consumption

    1287
    sought to be effected by the Order if different towns were allowed to choose different days.

    FOOD PRODUCTION (IRELAND).
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that the small holders and working men in the vicinity of Callan, county Kilkenny, are unable to secure any further acreage for food production owing to the fact that the owners of grass lands are leasing to large graziers on the eleven months' system; and, in view of the need for increasing the food supplies for the poor in the town, he will state whether he has power to stop the practice referred to; and, if so, what steps will he take in the matter?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I am not aware of dissatisfaction among small landholders or working men in the vicinity of Callanat not being able to obtain more land for tillage, and the Local Government Board have not received any communication as to the necessity for providing allotments. I am told that the owners of several cottages in the Callan district have left their plots of land untilled.
    Mr. FIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction all over Ireland in consequence of the difficulty of obtaining land for allotments owing to the Regulations that the local authorities have to administer?
    Mr. DUKE: The Bill which I introduced and the Regulations produce no difficulties; they provide facilities.

    FISHING INDUSTRIES (IRELAND).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will take steps to secure additional facilities for those engaged in the fishing industries in Ireland; if he is aware of the difficulties placed in the way of those engaged in fishing and fish-curing; and if, in order to procure additional supplies of fish which can be cured and preserved for emergencies, he will remove all the pre-war restrictions, reduce the price of licences, and allow fish to be caught everywhere possible?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture arc always ready to take any possible steps to secure additional facilities for those engaged in the fishing industries of Ireland, and the Congested Districts
    1288
    Board are also prepared to take such steps as, in their opinion, are practicable to increase the facilities for sea fisheries in the West of Ireland. Fishing and fish-curing are suffering from special difficulties at the present time. The preservation of fish by curing is chiefly a question of supply and demand, and until the demand for fresh fish can be satisfied, no increase is likely to take place in the quantity cured.
    The Licence Duties now in force are not onerous, and their maintenance is essential for the protection of the fisheries. The Department would regard a general removal of pre-war restrictions on fishing as certain to cause permanent injury to the fisheries.
    Mr. LYNCH: Could not something be done to foster this industry; for instance, on the West Coast of Clare, where it could be increased tenfold, with great advantage to the whole community?
    Mr. DUKE: We are fostering the industry on the West Coast and on the South Coast.
    Mr. H. LAW: Has any progress been. made in the matter of facilities for fishing harbours within the last couple of months, and have not certain negotiations been got through?
    Mr. DUKE: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

    HUT CONSTRUCTION, SOUTH MOLTON ROAD, DEVON.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether seventeen men were sent to South Molten Road, Devon, and are paid £1 each overtime and found all food; whether, in seven weeks from 8th December, they have built two huts, 50 feet by 30 feet, of wood already cut; and whether, if so, steps will be taken to check this waste of money and man-power?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Wardle): Inquiries are being made, and I will acquaint my right hon. Friend of the result.

    RAILWAY COMPANIES (PENSIONS).
    Colonel Sir CHARLES SEELYasked the President of the Board of Trade

    1289
    whether his attention has been drawn to the hardship caused to men who are in receipt of superannuation pensions from the railway companies by the rise of prices due to the War; and whether he will take into consideration, as the railways have been taken over by the Government for the term of the War, the grant to them of some moderate increase?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am afraid that the rise in the cost of living must necessarily cause some hardship to ail persons in receipt of fixed incomes. Superannuated railway servants are paid from funds in the hands of the railway companies, to which the recipients have contributed on the basis of a fixed return, and I doubt whether they can be treated differently from persons in a similar position in other classes of the community.
    Sir C. SEELY: Considering that the Government have made a very large profit out of their dealings with the railway companies, why could they not let a little of this profit go to these men who are suffering in consequence of the War?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am not so sure about the profit.
    Sir C. SEELY: It is the case. It is a very large profit.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. WINGasked the Pensions Minister if he is aware of the suspension of pensions for several weeks and neglect of his Department to reply to letters of inquiry; why such suspensions take place; and is he aware of consequent distress arising from such inaction?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr.Hodge): The answers to the first and third parts of the question are in the affirmative. Sometimes suspension of pension payments is due to the failure of the pensioner to comply with certain limited but necessary formalities, and sometimes to accident or carelessness. Every effort is made to reduce, and with some measure of success, the number of cases in which suspension or delay occurs.
  Mr. HINDSasked the Pensions Minister whether, in the contemplated appointment of additional inspectors, he will give an assurance that those appointed for Wales will have a knowledge of the Welsh language?
  Mr. HODGE: All other conditions being equal, certainly.
  Major DAVID DAVIESIn making these appointments will the right hon. Gentleman give preference to applicants who are discharged soldiers and sailors?
  Mr. HODGE: That also is my intention.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister whether the pension to widows and children is to be increased?
  Mr. HODGE: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement with regard to a revision of the Royal Warrant which would deal with the matter referred to in. the lion. Member's question.

  DISABLEMENT TREATMENT.
  Mr. RICHARDSasked the Pensions Minister what is the number of cases of permanently disabled sailors and soldiers who have already received disablement treatment in South Wales and Monmouthshire who are now receiving such treatment, and who are awaiting treatment, respectively; what institutions under direct control of the Government exist in Wales for affording such treatment; whether, having regard to the dissatisfaction which exists in consequence of the delay which is taking place in the treatment and training of sailors and soldiers. in Wales, the immediate provision of further institutions is contemplated; what are the functions of the South Wales Joint Pensions (Disablement Committee; whether it has been provided with any Imperial funds for carrying on its work; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of entrusting the committee and other similar committees with the spending of Imperial funds in the provision and maintenance of after care and training institutions, with a view to the Ministry of Pensions, whilst retaining its full right of supervision, being relieved of work which can be better and more expeditiously undertaken by such committees in the several areas over which they exercise jurisdiction?
  Mr. HODGE: I have no information as to the number in a given locality of discharged men under treatment who are permanently disabled as distinct from those temporarily disabled. The number of disabled men of both classes who are at present receiving treatment in South Wales and Monmouthshire under conditions which entitle them to the full

  1291
  allowances proided by Article 4 (1) of the Royal Warrant is 418, but the total number of men under treatment, including out-patient treatment, would be substantially larger than this figure. The institutions available for such treatment which are at present directly under the control of a Department of State in Wales number eighty-six, but it is given also in many civil hospitals and institutions. As regards the provision of further institutions to which the hon. Member refers, this is in hand and will. I hope, presently secure another 500 beds.
  The South Wales Joint (Disablement) Committee possesses under the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, 1915, such functions as may be delegated to it by the constitutent local committees, and these functions include that of making arrangements for treatment or training with institutions which are designed to serve extended areas. It is the policy of the Department to use the joint disablement committees as agents for the provision and maintenance of new institutions.
  Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: In view of the fact that these joint disablement committees in South Wales are so heavily involved in work, can the right hon. Gentleman not see his way to give them some financial assistance?
  Mr. HODGE: I understand they do get financial assistance.
  Mr. EDWARDS: Not to the extent they have asked for.

  MUNITIONS.

    CONTRACTS (COST PLUS PERCENTAGE).
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether contracts are now entered into by his Department on the principle of cost plus percentage; and, if not, will he say at what date that system was abandoned?
    Sir WORTHINGTON EVANS (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): The cost plus percentage form of contract is adopted only where there is great difficulty in fixing prices owing to the amount of work being indeterminate. The undesirability of this form of contract is recognised and its use is restricted to the minimum, e.g., for experimental work, repairs, and certain build-
    1292
    ings, particularly where it is impossible to prepare detailed designs in advance. To minimise the objection to this form of contract a stipulation is now made that the percentage shall not be calculated upon the amount of any increase of wages awarded after the date of the contract.
    Mr. WATT: Has it been found in practice that this system of cost plus percentage is not a money-saving device?
    Sir W. EVANS: It is not a money-saving device, but sometimes it is inevitable because you cannot save the money in any other form.

    ALCOHOL (PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS).
    Mr. McKINNON WOODasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Report of the Special Committee appointed by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) to inquire into the physiological effects of alcohol has been completed for some time; and, if so, will he say when it will be published?
    Mr. KELLAWAY (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions): I am informed that the Report was settled for publication early in the present month, and that it is expected that it will be published before the middle of February.

    TEMPORARY OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, whilst Regular officers employed at the Ministry of Munitions receive promotion from time to time, temporary officers employed under the Ministry of Munitions are not promoted whatever their technical qualifications and active service experience may be; whether there is any Regulation or informal understanding to the effect that temporary officers employed at the Ministry of Munitions are not to be promoted; and whether promotion for all persons employed by the Ministry of Munitions rests with the Ministry of Munitions. or the Secretary of State for War?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): All officers who hold permanent commissions, namely, Regular, Special Reserve, and Territorial Force officers, employed at the Ministry are eligible for promotion. Temporary officers, that is, those who hold commissions for the period of the War only, are not so eligible, but they are by special

    1293
    arrangement permitted to retain their commissions although they have ceased to do duty as officers. All military promotions are dealt with by the War Office.

    CONVALESCENT PATIENTS (NAVAL HOSPITALS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what Regulations are now in force in regard to the grant of short leave to convalescent patients in naval hospitals; whether, at the Royal Naval Hospital, Plymouth, twenty-five married patients only, whose homes must be in the vicinity, are allowed out on Sundays from one to five p.m.; and, if so, will he consider the possibility of extending to patients in naval hospitals the same privileges in the matter of short leave as are now enjoyed by patients in military hospitals upon whom no such restrictions are imposed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Regulations now in force in regard to the grant of short leave to convalescent patients in naval hospitals generally are as follows:—
    Leave is granted

    (1) For motor drives.

    (2) For entertainments, tea parties, etc.

    (3) For married men to visit their homes if in proximity to the hospital at the discretion of the medical officer in charge of the case.

    As regards the last Regulation, Orders have been given that it shall be applied more extensively in future and shall be applicable to single men, so that naval and military practice as regards short leave shall be assimilated as far as possible.
    Mr. BENN: When were these Orders put in force?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not very long ago, because the matter has been the subject of discussion between the medical officers and myself during the last few days. They are the result of suggestions which have been made in several quarters.

    DESTROYERS' BOATS (CANVAS COVERS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his Department in
    1294
    placing contracts for the six or eight small wooden boats wanted for each destroyer still insists that each of such boats should have a canvas cover attached to it; if so, is he aware that each of these covers now costs £10 or thereby, that the boats are never covered in war time, and that the canvases at the earliest opportunity are thrown overboard as an encumbrance; and will he see that all orders for equipment are now made on a war and not on a peace basis?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Only three small wooden boats are carried on modern destroyers—namely, a motor boat, whaler, and dinghy—and for these boats covers are supplied, being as necessary in war as in peace time. In order to reduce the cost, however, these covers are now made of cotton canvas. When lying alongside wharves and when undergoing repairs, etc., these covers are always in use, and even at sea the motor boat and dinghy are kept covered. Furthermore, there is no case known of covers being thrown overboard; they are on store charge, and any losses have to be accounted for by the officers concerned.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the men freely state that they will throw these things overboard at the first opportunity?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: All I can say is that if any officer or non-commissioned officer loses things in his charge he has to pay for them.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    POST OFFICE SERVANTS, GLASGOW.
    Mr. WATTasked the Postmaster-General whether it is by his instructions that postal servants in Glasgow who have been exempted from military service on the ground of conscientious objection and who are performing work of national importance in the Post Office are suffering a reduction of wages to the rate paid to temporary assistants, which is equal to a reduction of 20s. 6d. a week from wages already low; whether he is aware that these men only took advantage of a right given them in an Act of Parliament; and whether he will alter this instruction at an early date?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I would refer the hon.

    1295
    Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 16th instant.
    Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that his Department has made a breach of contract in regard to these servants? Are you to make their contracts scraps of paper?

    ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Local Government Board for England and Wales issued, some weeks ago, an instruction to tribunals that men called to the Colours who are owners of one-man businesses are to receive certain considerations from the tribunals; whether he is aware that a similar instruction has not been issued to Scotland, and that, as a consequence, tribunals there are not giving the same consideration to owners of one-man businesses as elsewhere in the Kingdom; and will he explain why this preference according to locality should be given?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The reply to the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's question is in the affirmative. Instructions in a form appropriate to the Scottish conditions have been under consideration and negotiation during the current month, and will, it is expected, be issued this week.

    CENTRAL APPEAL TRIBUNAL (ANGUS CHASSELS).
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Central Appeal Tribunal in the case of Angus M'Nab Chassels, Coatbridge; what was the constitution of the tribunal which gave the decision; whether this decision reversed the unanimous findings of the local and county Appeal Tribunals; whether the case put before the Central Tribunal by the military representative contained statements which had been disproved in evidence at former hearings; whether the local tribunal has protested against the decision of the Central Tribunal; whether the treatment given to Mr. Chassels, as compared with other men in the same trade in Coatbridge, has given rise to general dissatisfaction; and whether, in these circumstances, the case of Mr. Chassels will be
    1296
    reopened by the Central Appeal Tribunal, so that he may have an opportunity of being legally represented and thus disproving the untrue statements put forward as the basis of the appeal by the military representative?
    Mr. MUNRO: My attention has not been previously drawn to this case. I ant informed that the appeal was decided in the ordinary course of the proceedings of the Central Tribunal. I am aware that the decision of the Central Tribunal was contrary to the decisions of the local and Appeal Tribunals. Every opportunity was afforded to Mr. Chassels to submit to the Central Tribunal representations in support of his ease, and the representations put forward by him, which dealt with the alleged inaccurate statements made by the National Service representative, were very carefully considered by the Central Tribunal when arriving at their decision. Representations relative to the alleged misstatements by the National Service representative were also received from the local tribunal after the case was decided. They were very fully considered, but the Central Tribunal saw no reason for altering their decision. I am unaware that the decision of the Central Tribunal has given rise to dissatisfaction in the district. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that the full facts of the case were before the Central Tribunal when they arrived at their decision. The case has been very fully considered by the Central Tribunal, as I am informed, on no fewer than three occasions, and they see no reason for reopening the matter.

    INDENTURED APPRENTICES.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Minister of National Service whether, in view of the hardship on masters and men involved in the calling up of indentured apprentices who have paid a premium and Served part of their time, he can see his way to having Section 96 of the Army Act again put into operation?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): It is not possible to exclude men of military age from the operation of the Military Service Acts on the grounds stated in the question of the hon. Member. This is only one of the many hardships which are inevitable in a great war.
    Mr. WING: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the War Office to reconsider the ques-

    1297
    tion of the premium in such cases as these, which is a hardship additional to the one already named in the question?
    Mr. BECK: I think that my lion. Friend had better ask the War Office himself directly.
    Mr. WING: I have already done that.

    OFFICERS' PAY.
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the Army Council intend to grant retired pay to those officers who have served during the War and, having attained the age limit of fifty-five, have been compulsorily retained in the Service; and whether he will thus make the treatment of officers the same as that of non-commissioned officers and men, who receive their pension in addition to their pay after twenty-one years' service?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I can add nothing to the answer given my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton on 6th December.

    CADET UNITS.
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, at present, owing to the large number of candidates sent home from overseas for admission to Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry officer Cadet units, candidates from home sources are not accepted for such admission except in a limited number of special cases, and the general rule for candidates, both from home and abroad, is that their rank must not be below that of corporal?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The answer is in the affirmative. Preference is naturally given to candidates who are recommended while serving in the face of the enemy. Recently the course of training in officer Cadet units has been lengthened. Consequently it has been found necessary to cut down the supply of candidates from home sources, and to restrict, as a general rule, admission to these units to candidates who have already been promoted to the rank of corporal. It is felt that candidates who have shown the qualities of leadership in the field will be readily selected for corporal's rank, and these are the men to train for the position of platoon leader. We have found as the War proceeds that we are able to raise our standard, owing to the experience gained by candidates for commissions as non-commissioned officers.

    1914 STAR.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in the issue of the "1914 Bronze Star," the men of the Indian Expeditionary Force, who were landed at Marseilles, will be entitled to the medal, while the men who were on the water and sent to England to form further divisions for embarkation will not; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of issuing the medal to all the men?
    Mr. MACPHERSONIn accordance with Army Order No. 350 of 1917 the "1914 Star" will be awarded to all officers, warrant officers, and non-commissioned officers, and men of the British and Indian Forces, who actually served in France or Belgium on the establishment of a unit of the British Expeditionary Force between the 5th August, 1914, and midnight of the 22nd–23rd November, 1914. Unless individuals comply with the conditions of this Army Order they are ineligible for the award of the Star.

    RUSSIAN SUBJECTS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the many men of low physical standard sent as Russian subjects, under the Russian Military Service Convention, to Maid-stone, and especially of such cases as J. Dloogatz, suffering for years from tuberculosis, and Mark Kravetz, a cripple with a, wooden leg, both presumably sent there for drafts to regiments; and whether, to prevent useless men being drafted into the Army, lie will cause full inquiry to be made?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have called for a report, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    DRAFT LEAVE.
    Sir A. YEOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether men placed on draft for the East are usually given four clear days' draft leave; whether he is aware that all the leave granted to the men in the Royal Engineers, Wireless Section, at Hitchin, is forty-eight hours; whether this leave was granted before the men were placed on draft, and was in cases quite inadequate; and whether he will see that proper draft leave is granted to all the men concerned?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 10th December to my hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston. If my hon. Friend will give me the details of any case he has in mind, I shall be happy to make inquiries.

    12TH ROYAL WELSH FUSILIERS.
    Mr. HINDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the reasons why the 12th Royal Welsh Fusiliers, 62nd Training Reserve Battalion, was changed into the 53rd Cheshire Regiment; whether he is aware that this change has caused dissatisfaction to the Welsh officers and soldiers attached to the division, which is comprised of only 12 per cent. Cheshire men; and whether it is contemplated to draft any further Welsh Territorial regiments to other units?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This battalion is a young soldiers' battalion, specially organised to receive young soldiers of eighteen years and one month. Three young soldiers' battalions were formed in the Fourth District, and were affiliated to regiments, this one being affiliated to the Cheshire Regiment, and the other two to the Welsh regiment and the South Wales Borderers. This battalion was formed from a Training Reserve Battalion, which ceased to have any connection with the Royal Welsh Fusiliers as long ago as September, 1916. It is not posted to a division, and the latter part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

    TELEGRAM DELAYED.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Postmaster-General whether he can explain why a telegram dispatched from Dakar on or before 7th January was not delivered to the addressee at Liverpool until noon of 18th January, seeing it only contained the two words, "Left, Williams''; whether lie can state when this telegram was received in Liverpool and who was responsible for the delay in delivery; and whether lie is aware that a telegram of a similar nature handed in at Dakar on the afternoon of 20th January was delivered to the addressee at Liverpool on the early morning of 22nd January?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I sent him on the 24th instant, namely, that the telegram in question was not received in
    1300
    this country until the 18th January. It was not forwarded over British cables, and I am unable to say to what cause its delay was due.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman ascertain who is responsible for this improper delay in the delivery of an important cable, and can he say whether there is greater chaos in his Department than in any Government Department?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: If the hon. Member desires, I will ask the foreign Government why the delay occurred?

    SUB-POST OFFICES, LONDON.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Postmaster-General if it is the intention of his Department to close any of the sub-post offices in London; and, if so, can he state on what plan he proposes to deal with this matter; and whether, in view of the increase of soldiers' allowances, pension, and other similar work at post offices, he will carefully consider the matter before closing any offices?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: It has been necessary during the War to close a number of sub-offices in London, and the matter is considered whenever an office falls vacant, the points to which the hon. Member draws attention being invariably allowed due weight. There is no scheme in view at present for closing offices which are not vacant. Recent paragraphs in the Press to a contrary effect had no foundation.

    REGISTER HOUSE, EDINBURGH (DEED COPYING).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the system of copying deeds into volumes by handwriting is still in force in the Register House, Edinburgh; whether the Government intends and, if so, when, to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, which reported in 1915, that these volumes should be typewritten by women, thereby releasing men for work of national importance; and whether men so released will be pensioned as recommended by the Royal Commission?
    Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative so

    1301
    far as the General Register of Sasines is concerned. In the Register of Deeds and the Extractors' Office typewriting has already been in part introduced; and the question of extending it to the Register of Sasines is receiving consideration. It is complicated by the necessity of considering the interests of the engrossing clerks whom the new system would throw out of employment on the one hand and the cost of carrying out the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the other hand.
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is three years since the Report was issued?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am quite aware of that.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether the principle of self-determination will be now applied to Ireland; and, if so, whether he will state the means by which he proposes to ascertain what form of government this self-determination implies and what steps he will take to realise the policy thus indicated?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I can make no statement on the subject.
    Mr. LYNCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, in these days of economy, the good principles of the Prime Minister are not for home consumption as well as for foreign export?
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a statement as to advice which he has received from the United States pointing out the urgency of a settlement of the Irish question; and whether communication will be given to Members of this House of all messages, official or semi-official, emanating from high quarters in Washington bearing on this subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second part, no messages of the kind alluded to have been received.
    Mr. LYNCH: Have no semi-official messages been received from Washington? Even on this Irish question, has not the time come for the open air and sunlight of honesty?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, on this question as on everything else.

    EDUCATION BILL.
    Mr. WINGasked the Prime Minister what the immediate intentions of the Government are in hastening or otherwise the passing of the Education Bill into law?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have repeatedly stated that it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill as rapidly as possible.

    TITLES DEPRIVATION ACT (COMMITTEE).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will give the names of the Committee appointed under the First Section of the Titles Deprivation Act; whether all the material available for its consideration has been prepared; how many persons with British titles are concerned in the material submitted to the Committee; and whether a Report from the Committee is to be expected shortly?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The names of the Committee are as follow:—

    The Lord Chancellor,

    The Lord President,

    The Marquess of Lansdowne,

    The Marquess of Salisbury,

    The Marquess of Crewe,

    The Earl of Desart,

    The Earl of Beauchamp,

    The Viscount Sandhurst,

    The Lord Newton,

    The Lord Stamfordham,

    The Lord Sumner, and

    The Lord Carnock.

    Inquiries are being made with a view to ascertaining what material will be available for the consideration of the Committee; until that is known, the number of persons concerned cannot be definitely stated, nor can a date be named for the Report.
    Mr. KING: Is there any particular reason why no Member of this House has been appointed on this Committee, and all Members of the other House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that, jut I think that the Committee was appointed in strict accordance with the Bill which was passed in this House.
    Mr. LYNCH: Why on that Committee have there been appointed men who in the House of Lords defended these enemy principles?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of that. In any case, I suppose that Members of the House of Lords have got the same right to express their opinions as the hon. Gentleman.

    LIQUOR TRADE (STATE PURCHASE).
    Mr. McKINNON WOODasked whether the Reports of both the English and the Scottish Committees appointed to consider the terms of purchase of the liquor trade have been completed for some time; if so, why they have not been circulated to the Members of this House; and when these Reports will be circulated?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Report of the English Committee was received some time ago and the question of publishing it was deferred until the Reports of Scottish and Irish Committees were presented. I understand that the Scottish Committee have presented their report to the Secretary for Scotland recently, but the Irish Committee have only just completed their inquiry. I cannot, therefore, make any statement at present.

    RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE (REPORTS).
    Sir WILLIAM PRIESTLEYasked the Prime Minister if he has received any further Reports from the Whitley Reconstruction Committee; and, if so, will he authorise their publication?
    The MINISTER for RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison): Two further Reports relating to the application of the first Report to less organised industries and to Workshop Committees have been received. They are now under consideration. I am not at the moment in a position to make any statement as to publication.

    ARMY PENSIONERS.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked if, as the continued rise in the price of food is pressing on many old Army pensioners, the Government will afford them some relief by an increase in the amount of their pensions?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards service pensions I would refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on the 7th December last in reply to the hon. Member for Leeds. For the rest, the question of the pensions payable to the pensioners of former wars is receiving the consideration of the Government.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the Government consider the matter, in view of the pathetic letters that one is receiving, and see that something is done to keep these men out of the workhouses?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have said that the Government are considering it, but that must not be regarded as in any way an undertaking in the matter.

    PENSIONS MINISTRY (PREMISES).
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether the War Cabinet upheld the decision of the First Commissioner of Works in refusing to commandeer the premises of the British-American Tobacco Company for the purposes of the Pensions Ministry; and, if so, for what reason?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): Matters of accommodation are referred to the War Cabinet Committee on Accommodation, of which I am chairman, and not to the War Cabinet, unless it so decides. The British - American Tobacco Company placed at the disposal of the Government five floors of their premises, free of charge, which are now occupied by the Canadian Forces Record Office and the Ministry of Pensions. The value of the premises occupied is estimated at £6,500 per annum. There was, therefore, no necessity to commandeer these premises, and arrangements were made to allow the company to retain a certain portion of its offices to carry on its business. The War Cabinet Committee has expressed its gratitude to the company for the generous manner in which it has come forward to help the Government.

    WAR CABINET.
    Mr. HARCOURTasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Ministers state that they are unable to say why certain executive action has or has not been taken on the ground that they

    1305
    cannot answer for the War Cabinet; whether it is intended that the War Cabinet should be a body irresponsible in the ordinary Parliamentary sense; and, it not, whether, in cases when individual members of the War Cabinet are unable to be in their places owing to pressure of work, the representative of the Department will either be furnished with an answer or be instructed to say that in the public interest no answer can be given, and not reply that he is ignorant of the facts?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The responsibility of the War Cabinet and the method of dealing with discussions in Parliament are precisely the same as in the case of any other Cabinet.

    STOCK EXCHANGE.
    Mr. H. MORISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under the temporary regulations of the Stock Exchange no security is a good delivery unless accompanied by a declaration that it has remained in physical possession in the United Kingdom since the 30th September, 1914, and has not, since the outbreak of war, been in enemy ownership; whether such regulation applies to stocks and shares which are put up for sale by public auction; and, if not., will he consider the advisability of extending the regulation to such sales?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Treasury have frequently drawn public attention to the fact that it is most undesirable in the national interests that securities which have not been in continuous physical possession in the United Kingdom since 30th September, 1914, should at present be sold in this country either through the Stock Exchange or through any other channels. The Treasury's wishes have, in general, met with loyal acceptance. The importation into this country of securities (other than maturing bonds and coupons payable in the United Kingdom) is prohibited under the Prohibition of Import (No. 21) Proclamation, and for a long time past no securities could be imported from neutral countries without a declaration that they had not been in enemy ownership since the outbreak of war.

    POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
    Sir J. SPEARasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the
    1306
    desirability of increasing the interest on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank from 2½ per cent to 3 per cent., in order to encourage thrift and provide additional funds for national purposes?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This matter has been frequently considered, and, for the reasons set out in paragraph 11 of the Report of the Committee on War Loans for Small Investors, I do not think it possible to make any change.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
    Mr. WATTasked whether the Treasury now pays for all the purchases of the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Ministry of Munitions, or whether these Departments pay their own accounts for purchases made and services rendered; if the latter, whether this is a new system since the beginning of the War; and what check the Treasury has over these Departments in the proper expenditure of the money of the nation?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In accordance with the established system of public finance, the Admiralty, War Office, and Ministry of Munitions are responsible for the expenditure incurred by them. As regards Treasury control, I would refer the hon. Member to the reports of the Select Committee on National Expenditure and to my statement of the 14th instant.
    Mr. WATT: Do these Departments make contracts quite freely without the Treasury intervening in any way?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is a certain amour t of control. It is quite obvious that I cannot define what it is.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division> whether he can state why private soldiers are not included in the provisions of The Hague agreement as to the release of British prisoners of war from Germany and their internment in Holland?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): The reason is that the German delegates at The Hague refused the proposal out forward by the British delegates that privates should be included in the transfer, to Holland of prisoners who had been over eighteen months in captivity.

    HOUSING LOANS (IRELAND).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the increased expenditure incurred by county boroughs and urban sanitary authorities in the carrying out of schemes for the better housing of the working classes since the commencement of the War on account of the higher rate of interest charged by the Treasury on loans granted for the purpose and the increased cost of materials owing to war conditions; whether he is aware that, in the case of a housing scheme recently completed by the Blackrock Urban District Council, for which a loan of about £21,000 was sanctioned by the Local Government Board about the commencement of the War and the money advanced by the Treasury, the higher rate of interest charged on the loan, together with the increased price of materials, represents a charge on the rates of close on £200 per annum for a period of sixty years over and above what the cost of the scheme would have been at the pre-war rate of interest and cost of materials; and, seeing that any addition to the rents at which the houses are now let to meet this extra cost would be prohibitive, whether provision will be made by the Government in the proposed scheme for national housing after the War by which a money Grant would be made available to relieve the increased burden imposed on the local ratepayers by reason of the War in this and similar cases throughout Ireland, so that those public authorities who have realised their obligation in regard to the better housing of the working classes would be at least in no worse position than others who have deferred action in a matter of such vital importance to the welfare of so large a section of the community?
    Mr. DUKE: Except in Dublin, only a few small loans have been granted to urban authorities in Ireland for housing purposes since the outbreak of the War, and these were granted at a slight increase on the rate of interest for loans made prior to the War. The cost of materials has also increased owing to the War conditions. I am informed that the consequent increase chargeable in the case of the Blackrock Urban District Council, to which the hon. Member refers, is about £180 per annum. As to the last inquiry in the question, I would refer to my answer to a question by the hon. Member on the 22nd October.
    Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration, as this is a very peculiar case, and will he let me have a copy of that reply?
    Mr. DUKE: I will, Sir.

    SECONDARY TEACHERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the registration council of secondary teachers in Ireland on the 13th October last sent in to the Lord Lieutenant, for his approval, a draft of their rules revised in accordance with the requirements of the Irish Government; that the council have not yet received the rules approved by the Lord Lieutenant nor even a formal acknowledgment of receipt of draft; that the whole work of the council has been held up for more than a year by delay in dealing with these rules; and what is the cause of the present delay in returning the rules?
    Mr. DUKE: The regulations were submitted for approval on the 13th October. I regret there has been some delay in dealing with the matter. The regulations deal with questions of a complicated nature which require careful consideration owing to a difference as to the functions of the Intermediate Board and the council in the matter of keeping and controlling the register of intermediate teachers. The draft regulations are now before the Intermediate Board, and when their observations are received a decision will be given without any avoidable delay.

    DUBLIN RECONSTRUCTION (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT.
    Mr. H. LAWasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what precautions have been taken in the rebuilding of those portions of Dublin that were destroyed during the rising of 1916 to ensure due regard both to architectural considerations and to the rehousing of the poorer classes of the people?
    Mr. DUKE: I would refer the hon. Member to Section 2 of the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916. Under this Section the city architect is empowered to exercise full control over the rebuilding of houses in the destroyed area, and he may require such

    1309
    reasonable alterations to be made as respects the design, line of frontage, and materials, as he thinks proper; and may require the plans, sections, and elevations to be amended accordingly. The Local Government Board always satisfy themselves that plans have been approved by the city architect in cases where they issue certificates to owners of houses who desire to borrow money from the corporation under Section 3 of the Act. The plans for the rehousing of the poor outside the destroyed area have also to be submitted to the Local Government Board.

  ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS (FRANCE).

    COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Committee of Inquiry presided over by General Sir Francis Howard has now concluded its labours; and whether it is proposed to give any information to the House of Commons with regard to the questions upon which it has deliberated and reported?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Report has been received and is now under consideration. I am not in a position to make any statement.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether be will institute periodic conferences of medical officers representative of the staffs in the various commands, in order to discuss matters connected with the efficient and economical administration of military hospitals?
    Mr. FORSTER: There exists already a special machinery for this purpose in the War Office, which is in close touch with the hospitals and staffs of commands, and in communication with the Food Controller.

  AIR SERVICES.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT (WHOLE-TIME) WORK.
    Major DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to replace night-time volunteers engaged upon anti-aircraft work by whole-time mm on active service; whether the efficiency of the anti-aircraft service in London is prejudiced by the employment
    1310
    of part-time men; and, if not, whether, having regard to the demands of the Army on the man-power of the country, the services of part-time men can be continued?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In regard to the first and second parts of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on the 23rd instant to my hon. Friend the Member for Hag-gerston. The answer to the last part is in the negative for the reasons given, except to the extent to which it is proposed still to employ part-time men for duties which can be performed efficiently by them. These part-time men are not volunteers, but belong to the Naval Volunteer Reserve, and are paid as such.

    GOVERNMENT WOOL STORES, DUBLIN.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to improve the conditions of the male and female workers in the wool stores taken over by the Government in Dublin; if he is aware that the wages paid to workmen are 27s. 6d. and women 15s.; and if he will see that they receive the same rates as are paid in England for similar work, namely, men £3 and women 30s. and a bonus on output?
    Mr. FORSTER: I understand that the rates of pay for unskilled labour employed in time wool store taken over by the Department in Dublin are 27s. 6d. to 29s. 6d. per week for men and 15s for women, for a forty-four hour week, and compare favourably with those paid for similar classes of work by other trades in that locality. Overtime is paid for hours worked in excess of forty-four.

    HOSPITALS IN SCHOOL BUILDINGS.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken by the military to vacate school buildings and adapt other buildings for hospitals; if he is aware that in Plymouth, owing to the commandeering of certain schools by the Army and the Admiralty, there are 9,041 children working on the double-shift plan, and only doing in three years what was formerly done in two years; and if, with the need for more, rather than less, education for

    1311
    young people after the War, the Government will treat this matter as urgent and make the necessary arrangements
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The desirability of surrendering these schools is recognised, and a promise has been given that they shall be surrendered as soon as the military authorities can arrange to forego their use. Up to the present the need for extra beds has had to be met constantly, and it has not been found possible to make other arrangements.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman say if his reply applies to Johnston Terrace School, in the Devonport Division, which has been taken by the Admiralty for the sleeping accommodation of men, with the result that temporary premises have had to be rented by the Education Committee, and Ford School converted for the first time into a double-shift school?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say. Perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate with me privately.

    ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT, DEVONPORT.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Admiralty to the effect that all permanent employés in the clerical departments at home dockyards in receipt of a salary of £250 per annum and under are to receive art additional bonus; that boy writers of eighteen are to receive an extra 9s. per week and boys under eighteen 7s. a week; and that women clerks are to have an additional 4s. per week; and will he say whether it is the intention of the War Office to make the same concessions to the clerical staffs employed by the Army Ordnance Department at Devonport and Bull Point?
    Mr. FORSTER: Instructions are about to be issued as regards the further bonus for permanent employés of the clerical departments under the War Office, in accordance with the recent awards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board.

    SOLDIERS' PAY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware
    1312
    that the increased pay to soldiers was granted on the ground that increased cost of living rendered the increase necessary in the vital interests of wives, children, and dependants; and whether, in view of soldiers in the Non-Combatant Corps having the same family tics as other soldiers, he will state why the increase is not payable in their cases?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The increase was given, as I have previously explained, mainly to raise the pay of the fighting troops.
    Mr. KINGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether proficiency pay has been paid to men entitled to it in the Non-Combatant Corps; and, if not, under what Order or Regulation is it withheld?
    Mr. FORSTER: Men of the Non-Combatant Corps are not entitled to proficiency pay.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the fact that ninny of the soldiers at the front have not yet received the full amounts of the newly increased pay, and that in the circumstances of the War many men and officers arc not yet aware of the statement made in this House when the increased pay, allotments, and allowances to dependants were dealt with, will he state the reason for the delay in this matter and the steps to be taken, if any, to disseminate the information desired?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have been inquiring into this matter and have not succeeded in finding anything to corroborate the statement that many men and officers are not yet aware of the increase of pay, etc., granted to soldiers. An Army Order was published on the 4th December last and sent to every unit, and all commanding officers were enjoined by special order to give attention to it. They are fully aware that it is their duty to make it known to the men.

    AIR RAIDS (STEEL HELMETS).
    Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether steel helmets are supplied to every member of the special constabulary force within the Metropolitan area; whether the existing supply is kept at the headquarters of each district;

    1313
    whether members of the force, when summoned during an air raid, have to make their way from their homes to their headquarters exposed to risks often as great as those to which they are exposed when actually on their stations; and, seeing that it is the duty of the Government to protect them, so far as possible, from these risks by providing helmets, will lie see that every member of the force is so provided with a helmet which he may take to his own home?
    Sir G. CAVE: A supply of helmets is kept at each police station for the use of such members of the regular and special constabulary and air raid relief parties as may be sent out when the guns are firing or likely to fire. Helmets are not issued to the regular or special police as part of their general equipment, and the circumstances would not justify such a general issue.
    Mr. MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men are exposed to serious risks when summoned on the occasion of an air raid in going from their homes to the headquarters?
    Sir G. CAVE: No doubt that is a statement of fact, but the men have warning some time before the raid occurs.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    Mr. WILESasked the Home Secretary whether, in the public interest, he will consider the advisability of granting to the rank and file of the Metropolitan Police Force the privilege of conferring together from time to time with regard to matters affecting their work and conditions of service, as well as allowing them to make collective representation to the authorities; and, if so, will he authorise the use of the library or some other convenient room in the various stations for this purpose?
    Mr. GILBERTasked if he has yet come to any decision as to allowing representative committees of the Metropolitan Police to approach the Chief Commissioner in order to lay before him any grievances or to discuss matters affecting both officers and men in the service?
    Sir G. CAVE: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to a question on this subject on the 28th February, 1917.

    PRESS CENSORSHIP.
    Major NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an article that appeared in the daily Press of the 23rd instant, purporting to forecast a policy of interference in the right of the United Kingdom to the self-determination of its political life whether under a united parliament, a union, or a federation on the part of a foreign legislature; and did this article come before the Press Censor or any similar body before publication, or are the activities of the foreign correspondents of the papers in which the article appeared exempt from their authority?
    Sir G. CAVE: I presume the hon. Member refers to an article in the "Times" on the subject of the feeling in the United States with regard to the Irish Convention. The article was submitted to the Press Bureau, but, in accordance with the announcement made by the Foreign Office in the Press on 12th December, 1915, the Press Bureau stated that the responsibility for publication must rest with the publisher.

    ALIENS.
    Major HUNTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that numbers of Russians and Poles in this country are advocating revolution; and whether the police have direct instructions to attend the meetings at which they speak and arrest them if they break the regulations of the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Sir G. CAVE: No meeting of Russians or Poles in connection with a movement of the character described has come to the knowledge of the Metropolitan Police; if such a meeting should he held the police will be ready to deal with it.
    Major HUNT: Did not M. Litvinoff, the agent for the Revolutionary Government in Russia, exhort British workmen at Nottingham to go in for revolution here, and are not some of these Russian Jews really German, and are these Russian Jews and Poles still allowed to come freely into this country?
    Sir G. CAVE: No one is allowed to come to this country without full inquiry and without giving the fullest possible information.
    Major HUNTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Russians and Poles now in this country are taking the businesses and occupations of our own men called up for service; whether these businesses and occupations will be restored to our men after the War; and can he say when Russians and Poles of military age will be compelled either to join our Navy or Army or to go back to their own country?
    Sir G. CAVE: I would refer the Lon and gallant Member to the Convention entered into with the late Russian Government wider the Military Service (Conventions with Allied States) Act.
    Major HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentle-man answer the first part of the question?
    Sir G. CAVE: No; it is too general for me to answer, but if my hon. Friend will state any particular case I will endeavour to ascertain the facts.
    Major HUNTasked the Home Secretary if he can say how many people of alleged Swiss nationality have been granted permits to reside in the United Kingdom since the beginning of the War?
    Sir G. CAVE: No such permits to reside are required by aliens of Allied or neutral nationality.
    Major HUNT: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to ascertain whether some of these people claiming Swiss nationality are not really German-Swiss or German aliens, and is he aware that there is a great feeling that a great many of those people are really German?
    Sir G. CAVE: Aliens have to register, and are required to produce satisfactory proof of nationality.

    IRISH CONVENTION.
    Major NEWMAN (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he has requested leave to address the Irish Convention to place before them the views of the War Cabinet, and, if so, whether Defence of the Realm Regulation 27A will be suspended, and a full report of the proceedings made available to the public?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have received no nom n whatever of this question. As a matter of fact the Prime Minister is re-
    1316
    ceiving some of the members of the Convention and is doing so in the hope that some good may result from it—I am sure with the full approval of the House of Commons.
    Major NEWMAN: What I want to know is will the proceedings be made public—that is the really important part of the question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should think that very unlikely and very undesirable.

    ENEMY SUBMARINES.
    Mr. FIELD (by Private Notice)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state what measures are being adopted to further safeguard, by convoy or escort, merchant vessels and sailors engaged in the cross-Channel traffic between Ireland and Great Britain?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is manifestly not possible to make public the measures adopted for protection of shipping in the Irish Sea, but the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the subject is one which is constantly engaging the attention of the Admiralty, and that, so far as our resources allow, every possible step is taken to provide for the safety of the cross-Channel traffic.
    Mr. FIELD: Am I to understand from that reply that greater precautions will be taken in future for the protection of vessels?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: All I can say is that, within our resources, every means are taken and will be taken.
    Mr. BOLAND: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the statement put into his hand by the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) referring to the loss within the last few days of a slop on this line, and may I ask whether special precautions will be taken to safeguard them in the future?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have the statement before me, and, although I have not the official detailed report, the telegraphed report shows that the statement is true that a vessel was sunk by submarine quite recently. As regards the last part of the question, within the means at our disposal every possible step is taken to safeguard them

    Anthrax.
    Sir J. SPEARasked the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will state the number of cases of anthrax in cattle for the year ending 29th September, 1917, and the number occurring in the previous year, and also the number of outbreaks of swine fever during the same periods; and whether the serum treatment of pigs is of value and should be extended?
    Mr. PROTHERO: Five hundred and sixty-seven cattle were attacked by anthrax in the year ended 29th September last, as against 583 in the previous year. The corresponding figures of outbreaks of swine fever are 2,531, as against 4,424. The serum treatment of pigs is undoubtedly of value; but until a trustworthy system of vaccination against the disease can be brought forward, the Board is not prepared to make the serum treatment compulsory. As a voluntary method it is now being carried out to the fullest possible extent.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    James Rolston Lonsdale, Esquire, for the County of Armagh (Mid-Armagh Division).
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.
  As amended, considered.
  NEW CLAUSE.——(Consent of the Director-General of National Service to Prosecutions and Provision as to Continuing Offences.)
  (1) A prosecution for an offence under this Act or under the principal Act shall not be instituted in England except with the consent of the Director-General of National Service.
  (2) Sub-section (3) of. Section thirteen of the principal Act shall have effect as if there were inserted at the end thereof the words "after conviction."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I beg to move '' That the Clause be read a second time."
  The object of this Clause is to minimise as far as possible prosecutions for offences against the Act. It was rather feared by some, when considering the Bill in Committee, that prosecutions might be initiated 'very freely, and heavy penalties imposed against young people and discharged soldiers who had omitted' to register under the Act, merely because they were unfamiliar with the Act, and with the necessities of conforming to it by registering their names. I have endeavoured to meet that view, although it is not shared here, and to minimise as far as possible prosecutions for any omissions under this amending Bill, or, indeed, under the principal Act. There have been, as a matter of fact, very few prosecutions under the principal Act. They have been very rare. I have said before, and I repeat again, our object is not to exact fines. Our object is to get the most perfect and the most accurate register
  1334
  you can possibly get with as few prosecutions as you can have, and as. few penalties as possible, and if this Clause is accepted by the House, no prosecutions can De set on toot except with the consent of the Director-General of National Service, who is not likely to consent to a prosecution for a mere act of negligence or a mere act of omission on the part of a discharged soldier, or lad, or anyone else. If this Clause is acceptable, as I think it will be, the House may feel safe not only as regards discharged soldiers, but as regards persons generally who honestly have not made themselves acquainted with the Act or with the necessity of registering under it.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I have studied the Order Paper to see what Amendments the right hon. Gentleman has put down to carry out the pledges he gave in Committee, and when I consider that this Amendment is designed by the right hon. Gentleman to meet the objections that were offered, not for a few minutes, but for some hours, against the heavy penalties which might fall upon children and which would fall upon discharged soldiers and sailors for breaches of this Act, I am very much surprised indeed that the right hon. Gentleman should think that this in any way fulfils the pledges that he gave. Because what were the criticisms that were directed in connection with the matters raised by this Amendment in the Committee stage of the Bill? The objections were that the Bill was drawn to include people of every age between fifteen and sixty-five, including a considerable number of discharged soldiers. It was pointed out that the Bill departed from the principle observed in the original Act under which a census was taken, forms were left at the individual households, and they were merely required to be filled up; whereas in this amending Bill no census is taken, but the duty is placed upon all those affected by the Act themselves to obtain forms, fill them up, and return them to the appropriate registration authority in a few days. It was pointed out that a soldier might return from, say, Mesopotamia, and know nothing at all about this Act, and yet within seven days after landing in this country, it may be wounded or permanently disabled, if lie did riot register he would be subject on conviction to a fine of £5, and a continuing penalty of perhaps £1 a day for breaches of the Act. It was pointed out that that was the way in

  1335
  which you were going to treat discharged soldiers under this Bill, and the same objection was made to the heavy penalties which, as the Bill was introduced, would fall upon school children of the age of fifteen years.
  What was the attitude that the right hon. Gentleman took in committee? And let me remind the House that the amazing provisions of this Bill are only just beginning to be realised. It is not that many people may not accept the principle, but there has been a widespread ignorance of the amazing machinery which is suggested for carrying out the object aimed at in the Bill. There was on the Committee stage the most serious. objection taken to the whole question of the penalties which would fall upon people who did not observe the provisions of this Act, and the right hon. Gentleman, not once in the course of that discussion, but again and again—and his words were echoed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board—promised, in view of the strong feeling that was expressed in Committee, to consider between then and the Report stage the whole question of the penalties upon young persons, upon discharged soldiers, and upon everyone affected by the Bill. I speak in the recollection of the Members who were present at the Committee stage, and I am sure the general feeling was that the right hon. Gentleman intended, if not entirely to remove these penalties, at least to mitigate them very greatly. Has he done so? He has not. He brings forward a new Clause dealing with this question, and the only difference between his new proposals and the proposals of the Bill is that the consent of the Director-General of National Service has first to be obtained by the local authorities before any prosecution is commenced under the provisions of this Act. That has not adequately met the views expressed in Committee, and has riot adequately met the objections to the extraordinary machinery proposed. I suggest that there will not be a few instances of a breach of the provisions, but that where you are placing upon 1,000,000 persons between the ages of fifteen and seventeen and a half the day the Bill passes the duty of registering themselves, of finding out where the local authority is, of getting a form and filling it up and returning it within seven days, and, where you are doing that, too, in regard to the whole of the soldiers
  1336
  as they are discharged from the Army or disbanded, it is quite obvious that, not in individual cases, but in thousands of cases, there will be breaches of the provisions of this Act, particularly so because cry young person, as every discharged soldier, if he changes his address is committing an offence, unless be registers the new address with the local registration authority, and if the discharged soldier or any other person fails to report any change in his occupation he is committing an offence.
  4.0 P.M.
  It is not sufficient to say that you protect the persons affected by this Bill from prosecution by first requiring the assent of the Director-General of National Service. The numerous hotels that are daily being commandeered for the different Government Departments would certainly be necessary for the Director-General of National Service to consider all the eases that will reach him from every registration area over the whole of the country; and the fact remains, therefore, that after this new Clause, which the right hon. Gentleman has moved, is incorporated in the Act, it will still render liable to heavy penalties all persons, certainly over eighteen years of age, whether they be discharged soldiers or others, providing that the local registration authority has first obtained the assent of the Director-General. I think this proposal to penalise by unusually heavy penalties. and by continuing penalties, persons who may through sheer ignorance even of the existence of the Act, fail to carry out these provisions within the very limited time allowed—such penalties for such trivial offences!—is alien to the spirit of modern legislation in this country and repugnant to the feeling of the country. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how he is going to redeem the promise that he made to consider the question of penalties? He did not dispute—
  Mr. FISHER: The only promise I made was to consider the whole question of penalties. I have considered it, and have made a great concession to those who criticised the Bill from the point of view of the hon. Member. He may not be satisfied, but I am inclined to think that the Amendments will meet with the approval of the House.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman will really forgive me if I

  1337
  say that his interruption is not relevant. I will try to show him why. If the right hon. Gentleman reads his own words in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that he did not, when dealing with the question of these penalties, dispute the criticisms or arguments or the positions taken up by the critics that the penalties were very heavy, nor did he meet the feeling that the large fine in the first instance, and a continuing penalty afterwards, of £1 per day for each day the offence continued, would mean, or might mean, an intolerable injustice upon the men and women upon whom they fall. He did not dispute this. He never said, in reply to the critics, when they pointed out how heavy were the penalties, that they were too heavy. He met the arguments of the critics by saying: "I will carefully consider the whole question' of penalties, and will see what can be done by the time the Report stage is reached."
  Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member has invited me to explain this to the House. I did say that I would consider the question of penalties. I have done so. I think even the hon. Member will admit that the proposals I make very largely minimise the amount of penalties that can be taken from those who have committed a breach of the law; because, after all, the continuing penalty is only provided for "after conviction,'' and will only be put upon those who really are contumacious, and who deliberately, after conviction, go on defying the Act of Parliament.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman is heardly treating the points that I am making fairly—if he will forgive me saying so—because he made no allusion whatever, in moving this new Clause, to the second part of the Clause. Everyone thought, on reading the original Act, that the penalty was first a fine of £5 and then a continuing fine of £1 per day for each day that' the offence was continued. Anyone reading the original Act would take that meaning, that the continuing fine could not be imposed until after conviction. The only difference, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman makes in the Amendment that he now moves is to make it clear that the continuing penalty of £1 per day only counts after the defendant has been convicted of the offence—that is to say, a man is summoned for not having given his new address, or new occupation, or
  1338
  for having failed to register, or for any other breach of this Act, and he may now, if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is incorporated in the Bill, be fined £5 for the offence, and after conviction be subjected to a continuing penalty of £1 per day. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will for a moment think that I have misinterpreted the effect of his Amendment, or what will be the position after it has been incorporated in the Act. So that the position stands like this: You are making a new statutory crime for failure to observe duties which most people, nay, a great number of people, affected by this new Bill, will not know they have to observe. You are making these statutory crimes fall upon discharged soldiers and sailors, may of whom will not know, within seven days of their reaching this country, that they have to observe the Regulations of any such Bill. For these trumpery offences, committed in ignorance, you are imposing upon people, guilty in this technical sense, fines up to £5, and a continuing penalty of £1 per day. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is carrying out his promise to reconsider the whole question of penalties, I can only say, with much respect, that I entirely disagree from him as to what reconsideration means. In face of the very strong feeling expressed in the House during the progress of the Bill through the Committee stage, I very much hope that the Bill will not be allowed to go through with these extraordinary penalties falling upon people who ought first to be protected against such penalties. I believe this provision, when it is generally known, will meet with general reprobation.
  Mr. KING: There are just one or two points of this new Clause which have not been touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Lanark. In the first place, the fact that under the principal Act there were very few prosecutions and fines quite natural, and a fact that we might have expected, because as has been pointed out, this was a Census, a single registration was sufficient, and then the thing being done, and once done, by everybody in the Kingdom, no offences arose. It was, therefore, quite reasonable to expect that there would be very few offences in any case. Now, however, you are dealing with quite a different matter. You are making a continuous

  1339
  liability to registration, and a great number of people will have forgotten that two and a-half years ago they registered in the first instance; they will have forgotten that they have cards, and they will not know where their cards are. In many cases they will have altered, not only their residence, but employment, and will be quite unaware that they arc liable to register the change. I believe it is most unlikely that you will have this register kept up-to-date, and therefore correct. I believe it is far more than the public are prepared for at the present time, or than the officials are prepared to carry out. Therefore I am sure you are going to have a great number of failures, perhaps inevitably so. It may be the case that in certain areas it is very desirable, in the view of the Ministry of National Service, to get particulars of certain industries and certain conditions of those industries. Emergencies may arise making this information very desirable to be had, and for the registration to take place. It may be found that this information is not forthcoming. Is the Ministry of National Service going to put in force its powers of fining everybody? Are notices to be issued that unless everybody registers they will all be fined? That is what is quite likely to happen. That is, if any real use is to be made of this register.
  Another matter Candidly, I should have preferred that it should be the leave of the Local Government Board and not the leave of the Ministry of National Service which should be taken before prosecution is undertaken. I do not trust any Government Department very much at the present time. I think I trust the Ministry of National Service least of all. To give the Local Government Board its due, I think it has really been carrying on its work, on the whole, quite as respectably as we could expect under the circumstances. Therefore, I would point out, because it might be possible to alter this, of which we are complaining, in another place. As to continuing offences, I readily admit that the second part of this Clause is a most distinct. improvement and gain. I sincerely thank the President of the Local Government Board for Sub-section (2) of this new Clause. Here arises a point which might have the attention of the Secretary for Scotland, or the legal authorities at the present time on the bench opposite.
  1340
  This new Clause refers to Section 13 of the principal Act. Why does it not refer to Section 9 of the new Act? It amends the continuing offences set up by the principal Act. Does it really cover the continuing offences set up by Section 9 of this Act? If the President of the Local Government Board is considering the whole question of offences and fines created by this Act, why does not he introduce the Amendment into Section 9 of the Act we are now considering? I hope the Secretary for Scotland sees the point which I am raising. If he does not, I hope he will read my remarks tomorrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT, because I believe he will then see that there is a real doubt and difficulty in this connection. If he does so, I am sure he will consider the matter of setting it right in another place. I trust we may have some reply from the Secretary for Scotland. Even if he does not think fit to reply, I trust that at any rate he will consider the points I have made.
  Mr. MORRELL: I was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman moved this Amendment, and I do not know on what grounds he thinks it is sufficient to fulfil the pledges he gave during the Committee stage. It certainly does not seem to me to be quite adequate to the purpose, and I still hope he will reconsider the subject. This question of penalties is the most important matter that arises under this Bill. In many ways this measure is unprecedented because it puts on unofficial persons the liability of carrying out official duties. In the past when you took a Census or made up a register you always had official machinery for the distribution of the forms, and it has always been their duty to fill up the forms and return them, and they were liable for these duties. The initiative in all other legislation lay with the official persons, but in this Bill the initiative lies with private persons. It is the duty of a private person to discover whether he has to be registered, and this duty is imposed upon lads of fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen years of age who have to get their own forms and fill them up. Therefore it is very necessary, as this duty is imposed upon private persons for the first time in the history of legislation, to see that these persons shall not be subject to heavy penalties. I would like to know whether it is intended to carry out the pledges which have been given with regard to lads

  1341
  under eighteen. The pledge of the right hon. Gentleman was quite specific on this point. He said:
  "We shall mould the Bill so as to he perfectly certain that no penalties in the ordinary sense of the word shall be so imposed"
  What the right hon. Gentleman meant by the "ordinary sense of the word" I do not know. What I think the House desired was that no penalties whatever shall be imposed upon boys of eighteen and less for not filling up these register forms correctly. I should like to know whether this new Clause is intended to cover the pledge as regards boys of less than eighteen. As regards discharged soldiers, it does not seem to me that this is really a reconsideration of the subject at all. The penalties remain as before, and the discharged soldier or sailor who fails to carry out the difficult duties imposed by this Bill is still liable in spite of this new Amendment to a fine not exceeding £5, and if the offence continues to a continuing penalty of per day. I think that is an outrageous penalty to impose upon men of this character who have already served their country. When the right hon. Gentleman said that he w as going to reconsider that point I understood that he was going to reconsider the amount of the penalty. I submit these penalties are out of all proportion to the offence that will arise, and I would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to get rid of the continuing penalty for continuing offences considering that there is no criminal motive in it, and to see that the penalties do correspond with the offence that is committed under this Bill.
  Mr. KILEYI would like the President to give the House a little more information as to the delegation of power to the Director-General of National Service. Does it mean that the Director-General can transfer these powers to his representatives in all the districts of England? If that is so, it somewhat modifies the sense of security which some of us might desire. I am quite willing that this measure should be administered by the Director-General and his office where he has a legal staff to advise him, but if he intends to hand them over to the local authorities in every little district in the country it alters the state of affairs very considerably. I would like to express my regret that the President has not seen his way to go more deeply into the under-
  1342
  taking which he has given, for he made us understand that he was inclined to modify the penalties which were mentioned in the Bill. I would suggest even now that he should consider whether for the first offence a nominal fine of 40s. would not be sufficient, and then he can take a larger penalty for a repetition of the offence. That would be more reasonable and would satisfy me.
  Mr. WATT: This Clause deals entirely with England, but I wish to ask what arrangement has been made for dealing with similar cases in Scotland. These penalties are of a serious nature, and some of us object very strongly that they should be placed on discharged soldiers and sailors who have done their bit. The consent of the Director-General in England has to be obtained before the prosecutions can be taken, but I want to know what provision is made for Scotland in regard to prosecutions for any breach of this measure. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain that the Lord Advocate's protection deemed to be sufficient, but I wish to have a statement in the House to that effect so that the soldiers and sailors who are resident in Scotland will have the protection which I desire.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): During the Committee stage apprehensions were entertained and expressed to the effect, in the first place, that there might be unnecessary prosecutions by virtue of this provision; and, in the second place, that penalties of undue severity, continuing penalties, might be imposed upon a class of persons whom I shall term unwitting sinners against the Bill. These fears were expressed, and my reply is that ray right hon. Friend, by the new Clause he proposes, has quite fairly and completely met the apprehensions which were then expressed. The first point was that there might be unnecessary and indeed vindictive and reckless prosecutions. I think there is a complete answer to that suggestion, inasmuch as my right hon. Friend provides that the consent of the Director-General of National Service shall be necessary for a prosecution under this Bill. The point has been raised as to whether the Director-General will personally consider every case—and I am quite unable to say, but one must remember that he is placed in the same position as the Attorney-

  1343
  General and the Lord Advocate, and as, I think, in some cases, the Director of Public Prosecutions. Whether or not these officials personally consider each case, we must remember that those officers are responsible to this House for the manner in which they administer their Departments. How the Director-General of National Service may exercise these powers is riot for me to say, but what I think is sufficient for the House is that here we have full control over him, and he is responsible for the exercise of his discretion. It seems to me that the exercise of such discretion on his part affords a complete answer to the case put by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse), of a soldier coming back from Mesopotamia, being ignorant of this Act, and being prosecuted under it. Does my hon. Friend suggest that in such a case it is likely that the Director-General of National Service would consent to a prosecution? If he does not think so, then his case is met, and if he does think so I would like to hear him say so.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Objection was taken not only on the point which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but also to the fact that the penalties were far too heavy and preposterous to attach to these offences, and how does the right hon. Gentleman contend that this proposal meets the pledge given to consider the extent of the penalties?
  Mr. MUNRO: I should have much preferred it if my hon. Friend had answered the question I put to him, but instead of doing that he has asked another question. I will just say, in reply, that the hon. Member is assuming that the maximum penalty will be inflicted in all cases. Now I think that is quite an unwarrantable assumption, because magistrates will exercise a fair discretion. As to the fear of unnecessary prosecutions, I think that point has been met.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I do not think so.
  Mr. MUNRO: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his own opinion, but he has adduced no arguments in support of it, and I have adduced arguments in support of my contention. On the question of whether or not a penalty might be inflicted on a person guilty of a continuing offence, although unaware of it, that
  1344
  point has been completely met by the second part of the Clause which my right hon. Friend has proposed, and therefore I do not need to labour that point. By virtue of the second part of this Clause, no person will be penalised for the commission of a continuing offence until he has been fully apprised of his guilt—that is to say, until he has been convicted. Any subsequent breach, therefore, will be totally inexcusable and will be committed with full knowledge that he is breaking the provisions of an Act of Parliament. I submit that these two arguments have been completely met, and I should rather have expected my hon. Friend to show a little gratitude towards the President of the Local Government Board, instead of looking a gift horse in the mouth as he has done, and criticising this proposal with some asperity and some unreasonableness. The legal point raised was with regard to the omission to refer to Section 9 of this Bill, as well as to refer to Section 13 of the principal Act. I have looked into that point, and I do think that it is unnecessary that I should read the Official Report of the hon. Member's speech to appreciate the point. I think it is a bad point, for this reason—I read that my hon. Friend is a lawyer as well as a politician—he will find that the two Acts are to be read as one, and, further that Clause 13 in the original Act is the only Clause which imposes penalties for a continuing offence. There is no other Clause which imposes a penalty for a continuing offence, and, inasmuch as the two Acts are to be read together, I think the Clause entirely meets the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If he desires it, however, I will have it looked into further, and if it should be found that I am wrong and that he is right I have no doubt that my right lion. Friend will take steps to have the matter put right in another place. With regard to the point that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Watt) has raised as to Scotland, the matter stands really as he anticipates. Protection is accorded in England by the words, "with the consent of the Director-General of National Service." In Scotland, as my hon. and learned Friend well knows, the Lord Advocate is responsible for all prosecutions which take place. I see, according to the provisions of this Bill, that the prosecutions, if any are to take place in

  1345
  the Sheriff Court. The Sheriff Court prosecutor is a public prosecutor, responsible to the Lord Advocate who, again, is responsible to this House. Accordingly, the protection which is afforded by this Bill to any persons liable to prosecution in England is afforded to any persons liable to prosecution in Scotland by the existence of the Lord Advocate and his office, and the right which he enjoys to direct and control and be responsible for all prosecutions which are public prosecutions, and there are practically no others, as my hon. and learned Friend knows. Probably he will be content with the assurance that I have given in public that everyone in Scotland will be protected by virtue of the immemorial right of the Lord Advocate to control and direct prosecutions, to direct them if he chooses, and also to refuse to direct them if he so pleases.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the next Clause—"No discharged sailor or soldier shall be subject to penalties under this Act"—standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanarkshire (Mr. Whitehouse)—there are two Clauses in the Bill which impose penalties. One imposes penalties upon employers and the other upon employés. I presume that the hon. Member's Clause is intended to apply to employés only. In that case, it ought to come as an Amendment to Clause 6. With regard to the next Clause—"No penalty under this Act shall fall upon any person under the age of eighteen"—also standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanarkshire, think it is already provided for in the Bill.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: No, Sir.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member -will look at Clause 6, Sub-section (4), as passed in Committee, he will see that it reads
  "If any person over the age of eighteen fails to comply with the provisions of this Section … he shall be liable."
  Does that meet the hon. Member's point?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: No, Sir. May I address you on a point of Order? This is a matter about which very contrary views were expressed in Committee, and
  1346
  no final decision was reached, even by the representative of the Government. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 reads
  "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 result of that Section is to transfer the penalties from the original Act to this Act in the following way. Section 13 of the principal Act relates to penalties. It sets forth the penalty for failing to fill up a form. The result of this Section being in this Bill is to make the person who fails to fill up a form under Section 13 of the original Act liable to a penalty under this Act, the two Acts being construed together. This point was argued at very great length in Committee, and this view was put forward again and again. It was in connection with the arguments that took place on this Section that a promise was given for consideration. I am not suggesting that the case I made was admitted. I speak with great respect, but after careful examination I feel quite sure that the effect of Sub-section (2) is to bring the penalties from the original Act and to put them also into this Bill. That is why it becomes necessary to move the new Clause standing in my name, and I now rise to move it. There is no disagreement on the point of principle between the Government and myself. The Government in Committee admitted that if this Clause did not, certain other Clauses in this Bill did, impose penalties upon persons between the ages of fifteen and eighteen. They modified the obvious Clause that imposed these penalties under this Bill by inserting the age "over eighteen," but they left this Section with which I am now dealing unattended to. The whole difficulty that has arisen is duo to the very involved and obscure, and, I think, faulty draftsmanship of Subsection (2) of Clause 2. It is a very difficult and subtle point of law for lawyers, and I should be very grateful for the opinion of my right hon. and learned. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, but to a layman trying to understand it without a life's experience of legal terms behind him it is especially difficult. The House and the Government were agreed

  1347
  that no penalties under this Bill should fall upon persons under the age of eighteen, and that was the policy that was declared by Parliament when the original Act was going through this House. The right hon. Gentleman again and again said that he would remould the Bill in order to make it quite certain that no penalty would fall upon any persons under the age of eighteen. We have, therefore, no point of principle to argue. We are reduced to the consideration of the question whether Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 brings the penalties from the original Act and puts them into this Bill. I can express the matter in its simplest form by reading Sub-section (2) as though it referred to Section 13 of the principal Act only, omitting needless words—
  Section …. 13 of the principal Act … relating to penalties shall have effect as if reference therein to forms included a reference to forms under this Act."
  I think it is quite obvious—I only want to be shown where I am wrong—that if you are going to construe the penalty Clause in the original Act side by side with the provisions of this Bill, you do bring the penalties, no less than the duties of filling up the forms, into this Bill. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers feel that the Section as drawn is an extraordinarily difficult Section. It is most involved, but if it does not mean what I submit that it does mean, I suggest that it has no meaning whatever. It, therefore, becomes necessary to make provision against penalties falling upon young persons between the ages of fifteen and eighteen. I want to put one question to the Secretary for Scotland or to the President of the Local Government Board. May I ask what is the objection to putting the simple, clear, non-ambiguous words of my Clause into this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman himself, not once or twice, but half a dozen times in Committee, said that it was his intention so to remould the Bill as to prevent any penalties falling upon persons under the age of eighteen because that was the deliberate policy of Parliament, expressed after a very long Debate on the principal Act.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have followed the arguments of the hon. Member, and I think he is answered by Section 13 of
  1348
  the National Registration Act, 1915, which is limited to persons over eighteen years of age. No penalties, therefore, could be imposed upon persons under eighteen years of age. The penalties must be imposed either by this Act or by the original Act.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Yes.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Very well. They are limited by Section 6 of this Bill to persons over eighteen years of age, and under the original Act they are limited to persons over the age of eighteen by Clause 13. Therefore, the provision the hon. Member is seeking to obtain is already in the Act and in the Bill.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I address you on a point of Order? The last Clause of the present Bill states that the two Acts shall be construed together. That is why I say, with great respect, that it brings the penalties from the one Act to the other. May I also say that in another Clause of the present Bill definite penalties were imposed upon persons under the age of eighteen, and that was modified by the addition of words in Committee?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is what I say. The hon. Gentleman has been met by the alteration made in Committee.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Except as to the last Clause, which says that the two Acts shall he construed together.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, and if you bring in the other Act, the penalties under Clause 13 are limited to persons over eighteen.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I move my first Clause: "No discharged sailor or soldier shall be subject to penalties under this Act"?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have already ruled that Clause out and told the hon. Member the place where it must be dealt with.

  NATIONAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of Classes of Person 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 one of that Act, include the following persons:

    (a) All male persons who, not having been liable on the fifteenth day of

    1349
    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 ceased to be members of any such forces,

    sand 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. FISHER: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word passing," and to insert instead thereof the word "commencement."
    The Bill, as drafted, made it the duty of every person coming within the scope of it to be registered either immediately or within a period of twenty-eight days after the passing of the Act. The Government undertook that the necessary forms should be placed at all the principal post offices, and should be there available as soon as possible for those whose duty it was to be registered. It is well known to all Members of this House that the Stationery Office and the Post Office have unusual and exceptional difficulties at the present time. There is very great difficulty in getting matter printed and in getting it delivered in large quantities after it has been printed. We are informed by the Stationery Office and the Post Office that it is improbable that they will be able to place these forms at the principal post offices at the time of the passing of this Bill into law. Therefore, I am going to move an Amendment which will bring this Bill into operation, not at its passing, but at a period of twenty-one days after its passing, in order that a longer time may elapse which will give the Post Office and the Stationery Office an opportunity of obtaining and delivering the forms so
    1350
    that they may be available for all those who are called upon to register themselves. It would be unfair to call upon anybody to register himself and then that he should find the forms will not be available for some considerable time. I ask the House to consent to several formal drafting Amendments, so that we may carry out the Amendment I shall move in substance at the end of the Bill.
    Mr. KING: I think this is a good idea put forward by the Local Government Board, and I consider I am entitled to say that, because it meets a point which I raised on the Second Reading, that there would be difficulty, both at the Post Office and at the Stationery Office, in obtaining the forms. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is taking sufficient time for this purpose. I understand he is taking twenty-one days after the passing of the Act.
    Mr. FISHER: Yes.
    Mr. KING: Although the Stationery Office may say they can supply the forms in twenty-one days, my experience is that every person—every Government Department—that offers to supply a thing within a certain time most assuredly takes twice the period to do it. No doubt, in this matter, the Department will secure priority for their demand, but I think we should have a definite assurance that the forms will be available twenty-one days after the passing of the Act.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (b) leave out the word "passing," and insert the word "commencement"—[Mr. Fisher.]

    CLAUSE 2.—(Duties of Persons to Register.)
    (1) 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 purposes 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 Section.
    (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.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the word "passing" ["failed so to do before the passing"], and insert the word "commencement."—[Mr. Fisher.]
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,
    "together with particulars as to whether he is or is not a person who has been discharged from His Majesty's Forces, and if lie is such a person as to the portion of the forces from which he was discharged, and as to such further matters (being matters with respect to which it is desirable that information should be given by persons on registration with a view to their obtaining advantageous employment) as may be prescribed."
    It was pointed out at an earlier stage of the Debate that it is desirable that a discharged soldier or sailor should be able to make the local registration authorities aware that he was a discharged soldier or sailor with a view to his getting any benefits from the registration as such I think that that was quite a good suggestion. In the form in which the principal Act was passed there is nothing to reveal the fact that the man is a soldier or sailor or that he has any particular qualification, and the words which I propose to acid to this Sub-section will, I think, supply that omission. He will he able to state if he is discharged from the Army, whether he is accustomed to deal with horses, whether he has any mechanical skill, whether he knows anything about aeroplanes, whether he is a motor driver or transport driver, and whether he is possessed of any qualification making him particularly useful for certain employments, and when an employer
    1352
    applies to the local registration authorities for extra hands at certain times when there is a good deal of pressure in his business, he will be able to look over the local authorities' list and ascertain whether in that particular area there are men with special qualifications who may be exceedingly useful to him in carrying out his particular class of work. If the discharged soldier or sailor avails himself of the opportunity of giving information as to his special qualifications for certain work, then I shall have carried out my promise that this form of registration may be a very useful means of securing to the discharged soldier or sailor some preference, it may be, in the way of employment.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I want to make a suggestion to the President of the Local Government Board with regard to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will remember what caused him to promise consideration of this point on the Committee stage. It was indicated to him that when you had registered a soldier under the Bill there was no legal power to ask him if he was a discharged soldier, and the forms would riot disclose whether he was or not. But the right hon. Gentleman has gone very much further and in a vague way, and I want him to consider a new proposal which, although it cannot be acted upon at this stage of the Bill, might be introduced in another place. The original Act defines the questions you may ask; you may inquire as to the man's name, residence and age, whether he is single or married, the number of his dependants, his occupation, the name and address of his employer, the nature of his employer's business, whether the work he is employed on is Government work whether he is skilled, if he is willing to perform any work other than the work he is doing at the time, and, if so, the nature of that other work. It was clearly necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to introduce an Amendment giving the power to ascertain whether the registered person was a discharged soldier, but he has gone further and indicated a number of questions to he put. I suggest to him that the powers contained in the original Act if applied here would supply all the information required, and therefore, instead of introducing this very vague form of words, "such further matters, being matters in respect to which it is desirable that information should be given by

    1353
    persons on registration"—words which might cause a great amount of friction—the nature of the questions proposed to be put to discharged soldiers should be set forth in this Bill precisely as they are stated in the original Act of Parliament. We know that this provision is going to affect some hundreds of thousands of persons, and it might well happen that questions put under this vague wording would be resented. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept my suggestion, I think it will make for the much smoother working of the Act in its practical application.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), paragraph (2), leave out the word "passing" ["date of the passing of this Act"], and insert the word "commencement."

    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 as registered in his certificate of registration, 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 ill 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 profession or occupation is not as 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.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "as registered in his certificate of registration," and insert instead thereof the words "so that it ceases to correspond with his profession or occupation as specified in a certificate of registration or, if his profession or occupation is not so specified, with his profession or occupation as on the date when he was registered."
    In Sub-section (1) paragraph (2), leave out the word "passing" ["at the date of the passing"], and insert the word "commencement."
    At the end of the same Sub-section, leave out the word "passing," and insert the word "commencement."
    In paragraph (3), leave out the words "twenty-one" ["twenty-one days"], and insert the word "fourteen."
    In the same paragraph, leave out the word. "seven" ["seven days"], and insert the word "fourteen."
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "passing" ["occurred before or after the passing of this Act"], and insert the word "commencement."—[Mr. Fisher.]

    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 fourteen days," and for the purpose of the said Sub-section 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 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.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "passing," and insert the word "commencement."
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "passing," and insert the word "commencement."
    5.0 P.M.
    In the same Sub-section, after the word "Act," insert the words "and who on or before that date had not given notice of arrival in accordance with the provisions of the said Sub-section."—[Mr. Fisher.]

    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-
    1356
    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 over the age of eighteen years 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).
    This is the paragraph which gives power to any police constable, without any special authority, to stop any person between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five and demand his certificate of registration, or, failing its production, that that person shall give an account of himself, that is to say, name, address, occupation, and so forth. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fisher) does not need ma to remind him that a. prolonged debate took place on this question on the Committee stage of the Bill, and for my own part I have no intention of merely repeating for the sake of repeating the arguments used on that occasion. I regard this provision, however, as being one of the greatest defects in the machinery which is suggested in this Bill to carry out its object. I want to remind the House that no such provision was inserted in the original Act, and the only analogy to this provision is the analogy which is afforded by the Clause in the Military Service Acts, which gives a somewhat similar authority to authorised persons. It was said, I think, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, on the last occasion on which this matter was under discussion that that had worked with great smoothness. I think he said that, and I think, at the same time, he drew a very moving picture of the affection that we all have for the police and of what a very important feature they were in the con-

    1357
    solidation of our social life, and so forth. I must remind the House that the only analogy which we have for this provision has certainly not proved to be acceptable to the public in the way in which it has been worked. I assume that I should be out of order if I made more than a passing reference to that matter, but the right hon. Gentleman will well remember the outbreak of indignation that took place at the police interference at railway trams, at meetings, and with the general public in the ordinary discharge of their peaceful duties. That is the only analogy we have.
    The right hon. Gentleman now proposes in this civil Bill to give every policeman the right to stop every person between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five. It is a provision which, I repeat, is alien to the traditions of this country, and one which is bound to give rise to a great deal of friction and trouble if it is attempted to be carried out. As the Bill stands at this moment this provision affects also females between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five. but I gladly hasten to point out that the right hon. Gentleman promised at least to mitigate the matter to the extent of not allowing this police provision to apply in the case of females between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five. I believe he is going to give effect to his promise by an Amendment which he will move at a later stage of the proceedings to-day, and I may therefore assume that the power of the police in this matter is to be limited to males who are affected by the Bill, between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five. Although I think it was very offensive that it should have been suggested, and contemplated that time provision should apply to females, I think it is scarcely less offensive if it applies to males, and I wholly question the necessity for introducing this provision. It was, I repeat, not introduced in the principal Act. Why then introduce it into the amending Act? This paragraph that I am moving out of the Bill is extraordinarily wide in its application. The policeman has not to get special authority for his action, and the result is that any male person within this wide limit of ages may be accosted in the street, in any place of public entertainment, on the railways, at the station, or lie may even be visited at his private house by the police in order that it may be seen that he is registered.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Walsh): No.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I do not wonder that lion. Members smile when I repeat this amazing provision, and I think they smile because they really do not believe that such a provision is within the pages of this Bill. When they look at the Bill, however, they will find that there are no limitations placed on the place or the manner in which this provision is to be carried out. We may, for instance, have great round-ups at the railway station as was done in the ease of the Military Service Acts and which, let time House remember, were only stopped because of the gust of indignation which burst out in connection with those military round-ups which, by the way, proved to be wholly unnecessary. Are you seriously going to allow similar police round-ups to take place on all male civilians between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five? Is it really believed that the people of this country will welcome—notwithstanding the tribute which everyone pays to the manner in which the police, on the whole, do their duties—this kind of police supervision extending to almost all the public relations of life, so that on any day, in any place, and in practically army circumstances, we may be stopped, either as individuals or in crowds, by the police, required to produce our registration certificates, and, if we have no registration certifications, required to give an account of ourselves? I believe this is an extraordinarily drastic proposal. It is a proposal of the nature which we generally refer to as Prussianism, and I think you will find such a proposal existing in no other country except those countries which we do not usually hold up as examples for us to copy. The Secretary for Scotland well knows that when I dealt with this matter before he thought, as he himself said, that I was getting rather bankrupt of adjectives in describing this Clause, and I am bound to say that I think there was a measure of truth in what he said. I certainly do not propose on tins occasion to attempt to use adjectives which would adequately describe the character of this proposal. I believe that to state this proposal and to get it understood by the public is the surest method of finding out whether it is approved or not. I believe it is a proposal which, if you put into force in any wide form, would meet with general condemnation by all those who arc affected by it. It introduces a very disturbing clement in our social life, and

    1359
    it threatens—and I think this is a very serious point—the very harmonious relations which have existed in the past between the public and the police, for certainly the public are not going to welcome this kind of government through the instrumentality of the police. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to make any concession in this matter or not. Happily, he has promised to remove women from the operation of the proposal, and I am sure he will carry cut his pledge to do so: but I ask him to go further and to abolish this remaining proposal, so far as it affects men. In doing so he will certainly not hinder his Bill, but will, in my opinion, improve it.
    Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so on grounds different from those which have been brought forward by my lion. Friend (Mr. Whitehouse). I do not say that I do not agree with him, because I think he is quite justified in making a speech and adducing the grounds that he has done. My point, however, is this: Is it really going to help you to give to any police constable, at any time, without any special authority, or without any written instructions, the power to stop any man, woman, or child—that is what it is in the Bill—and to make inquiries? That is the way to make the Bill unpopular, and I want this Bill, if it is going to be passed, to be popular. Moreover, is it going to give the assistance which you want; is it going to produce the information that you require? T offer my advice, believing it to be sound, and I say that if I had been drafting this Bill I should have allowed anybody to make inquiries at the house or the place of employment about any person. Really, it is very much easier and much more reliable, if you want to find out information about a young boy, to go to his home and ask for it there, rather than to stop him in the street, because if he is up to a lark he will tell you just the wrong thing. The information you will get from the boy as to age, place of employment, and all you want to know, will not be as reliable as if you go to his parents at home. In the same way, I should have given opportunities for getting the information wherever a boy or a girl is employed, and that would have been quite unobjectionable. No one would have raised any difficulty about it, but this vague power to a policeman to stop anybody anywhere
    1360
    is naturally resented. I will just call to mind the great number of speeches from ' Members who are quite respectable and who do not often intervene in Debates which were made on the Committee stage—I remember very well the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. A. Allen) making a most vigorous protest, on behalf of Scotland, I think, as to the feelings that would be excited in Scotland by this provision I am not., therefore, without hope that this paragraph will really be dropped.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) said the effect of this Bill has only to be stated for it to be condemned. Well, I will state it. The effect of it is that, first of all, everybody between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five must register, and, being liable to be registered, he is then liable to be accosted by any policeman—that is quite true—at any time, and called upon to show his certificate of registration. If he cannot show his certificate of registration he has to give particulars as to his name, his address, his age, and his occupation—and the hon. Gentleman said that this is alien to all the traditions of this House and of this country!
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—
    Mr. FISHER: No; I will not give way. The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark said that this is alien to all the traditions of this House and of this country—
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Hear, hear!
    Mr. FISHER: That this is really an insult to the people which they will bitterly resent, and which may produce serious trouble, and riots.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I did not say that.
    Mr. FISHER: I turn round and look at the condition of this House when this Clause is being discussed. There are exactly fifteen Members in the House, arid yet the House has had the fullest possible notice that this Clause had passed through Committee, and that it was going to be discussed in the House to-day. There is not a single Member on the Front Opposition Bench, there is not a single member of the Labour party present, except my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board. We are the great defenders of the freedom and liberty of the people, and there are fifteen Members present out of a House consisting

    1361
    of 670 Members! Really; it is difficult to deal seriously with the hon. Members of the House who use this extravagant language about a mild proposition of this kind. When it is said that it is alien to the traditions of this House and of this country, let the House remember that it is only a short time ago since we passed the Military Service Act, 1916, under which any policeman is empowered to demand of anybody a certificate of exemption granted under the principal Act, particulars as to the authority by which it was granted, and the ground upon which it was granted. If anybody resists the policeman and says, "I will not produce the certificate. I do not intend to comply with the law," he is subject, not to a minimum penalty of £5 as provided by this Bill, but to a penalty of £20 and to imprisonment for three months. The hon. Gentleman debated this question at great length with his Friends when we were in Committee. There were then, within the precincts of the House, 128 Members, and the hon. Member, after all his inflammatory oratory, only succeeded in taking eleven Members into the Lobby with him. So that twelve Members in all stood up for these great rights and the freedom and liberty of the people. Every hon. Member of the House knows perfectly well that this provision is a very mild copy of the Section in the Military Service Act, 1916, and that the whole design of this Bill is not to persecute or penalise, but to get the most direct form of register we can possibly obtain. As a means of doing that, it is absolutely necessary to have some such penalties attached to those who break the law, and it is absolutely necessary that we should be able to demand from those who ought to be registered and who ought to have their certificate a proof that they have a certificate, that they have duly complied with the law, and have carried out the simple registration imposed by an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: The right hon. Gentleman called attention to the fact that on the last occasion when this matter was discussed 116 persons voted against and twelve for the exclusion of this provision from the Bill. He also called attention to the fact that only fifteen or sixteen Members are present here now. One reason why the Division took the form it did was that those who voted for the retention of this provision in the Bill had not heard the Debate. The right hon.
    1362
    Gentleman admits that this makes an alteration in our existing law and practice. He says that it is applying to persons in civil life the principles of the Military Service Act, as if the Military Service Act could he set up as part and parcel of our normal legal system, and that it is going on for ever. That Act was passed for the period of the War.
    Mr. FISHER: 'This Bill is limited to the period of the War.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: It may be, but the probability is that it will be perpetuated for a long time after that. You are establishing by the Registration Bill a register of the people; you are establishing an organisation for that purpose. Do you think that the. National Register is likely to be abandoned once it has been introduced? It is introducing quite a. new system into our civil life. It will be said by those, who favour it that it will be necessary to keep it up to date, of course for the philanthropic purpose of finding employment for particular persons after the War is over. For the first time we are to become registered people, just as. people are registered in Germany. This provision puts on the police a duty that they have never had to perform hitherto. It is their duty to see that the register is. correct, and for that purpose to accost people in the street whom they see and do not know, and who may be complete strangers to them, for the purpose of finding out whether or not they are on the register. It means that persons going to a strange place, being seen by a policeman, it will become the normal duty of the policeman to find out whether that person is or is not a registered person. Of course, if the Clause is never put into operation, there need be no complaint about it; but if the policeman, who begins: by only occasionally exercising his power, gradually gets accustomed, as police authorities all over the world do get accustomed, to exercising these powers, and he makes it part of his normal duty, people moving about the country will be liable to be accosted in this manner. An amount or feeling will be developed of which the right hon. Gentleman has little conception at the present time. He has taken the same line which his subordinate took in the last Debate of pouring contempt on the attempt of ourselves to get some of our own opinions accepted. Much of our freedom has gone, and when the War is over we shall find that we have very little

    1363
    freedom left for which to fight. This is a new power which the police have not hitherto exercised.
    Mr. FISHER: Nobody was bound to register under the Act of 1915; that was a voluntary, Act.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: This gives a new power, and therefore puts a. new duty on the police which they have never exercised before. It brings them more into the normal life of the people than they were formerly. It is a strengthening of the police system, which might develop into a system of espionage on the ordinary life of our people. That is against all our traditions, and an undermining of our liberties. It is a thing which, if understood by the people of this country and if it is exercised, will arouse a good deal of feeling which may, I hope, lead to the complete abolition of this kind of legislation as soon as the end of the War enables us to resume our normal life. I am not one bit less opposed to the provision than when the right hon. Gentleman's assistant poured contempt on what we had to say in the last Debate. I believe as strongly to-day as I did then that it is an evil principle to put into a Bill dealing with the civil population, whatever it may be with regard to the Military Service Act. It will create resentment of which the right hon. Gentleman thinks very little now, but of which he will hear more later on. I therefore support the Motion of my hon. Friend, and shall go with him into the Lobby against this provision.
    Mr. MORRELL: I confess I was much disappointed to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill. We were taunted a little while ago by the Secretary for Scotland on the fact that we had not shown sufficient gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the concessions he has made upon this Bill. I quite freely admit that, in deference to the criticisms urged on the Committee stage, there have been new Clauses and Amendments introduced which, so far as they go, are an improvement, but I cannot see why we should show particular gratitude when the Government make concessions in deference to a sense of justice and to real criticisms. I am quite ready to make any sort of recognition which the Secretary for Scotland thinks adequate as regards, the concessions
    1364
    already made, but I am sure he will not require us to continue our gratitude in respect of the speech to which we have just listened from the President of the Local Government Board. When he made that speech the right hon. Gentleman must have been aware that on the Committee stage there was a considerable expression of opinion from all quarters that this was an undesirable, and in some respects unprecedented provision in a Bill of this kind. It is quite true there were few people who went into the Lobby against the Government, but everybody knows that if you go into the Lobby against the Government on a Bill of this sort you are always likely to have your motives misrepresented, and you are supposed to be interfering with the prosecution of the War. How this Bill will assist the prosecution, of the War, nobody has yet explained. We might have heard some better arguments in support of this almost unprecedented provision than the cheap sneers and taunts of the right hon. Gentleman to the people who speak up for liberty in this House, who are at present a very small body. It is quite true that in. this House we are a small body, but is the right hon. Gentleman so sure that those who administer the present law, who are always engaged in suppressing free speech and putting people into prison for all sorts of small offences at the present time in the name of patriotism, have, at the present moment outside this House, a very large body of public opinion behind them? I am not at all sure that even the small despised minority who speak in this House for liberty have not a better hacking than some of the right hon. Gentlemen who occupy the Treasury Bench. I decline to be put clown by such taunts, cheap sneers and the kinds of arguments we have had addressed to us.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that this provision, which gave the right to policemen to stop unoffending people in the streets and to demand of them all sorts of particulars about themselves, their occupations, their birth, their wives, and what not, was absolutely necessary to the construction of this register. The plea of necessity is a very old one. If the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read his own Bill he would know that it is unfounded in this case. It would be perfectly easy to work the Bill without giving any such power to the police as is here proposed.

    1365
    It would be perfectly easy to insist, under this Bill that if you gave proper notice to any individual to produce his certificate, as is suggested in one of the Clauses, that they should have power to inquire at the house regarding that individual. But why should they have the power of rousing up in the public streets, and stopping anyone who conies along? That is an unprecedented power, and is the kind of thing which, before the War, was always known as Prussianism in Germany and elsewhere. It is the kind of power which tended to make life for those who travelled or lived in Berlin a perfect nuisance. It is the kind of power which enables policemen to bully and victimise an unpopular man or woman in their neighbourhood. It is the kind of power which puts the private citizen under the heel of the Government and under the heel of the police. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should defend a power of that sort, because he belongs to the extreme section of a party which has always gone in for this sort of autocratic power for the Government and has always desired it. What is surprising is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, who belongs to a different section of political thought, should have thought it necessary on the Committee stage to support this provision, as he apparently does. We asked what precedent the right hon. Gentleman could give us for a power of this kind which enabled the policeman to go up to a man or woman in the street and demand of them all these particulars and ask that they should at once produce their registration card. What precedent did the right hon. Gentleman give? No other precedent than the Military Service Act, which was passed as an emergency measure in order to fasten Conscription very quickly upon the country.
    How has that Act worked? We all know, in spite of what the Secretary for Scotland said on the Committee stage, that the rounding up which took place, created intense resentment, rightly, as I believe, among a large section of the people. The Secretary for Scotland appeared to have enjoyed being rounded up and stopped in his business, shut up in a pen and kept there until he had satisfied the police that he was a registered and well-conducted person. People will object to being stopped in that way and cross-examined by the police. It
    1366
    is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman could not give us any better precedent than that of the Military Service Act. After all, in the case of that Act, you might advance the plea of necessity. You might say that it was necessary in order to make Conscription effective, when it was being adopted for the first time, that you should give these exceptional and extraordinary powers to the police, but no one suggests that there is any such urgent necessity for complete registration in the case of this Bill. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fisher) tried to make out that this was not so much a military measure, but rather one for advancing the interest of the people in time of peace, for collecting vital statistics and things of that sort, than for regulating the supply of recruiting. For that purpose we are to have this sort of power given to police constables in order to stop ordinary men and women in the course of their peaceful duties. The unhappy part of this Bill is that it has the trail of the criminal law and the policeman all through it. It is an attempt to make a register not in official ways by proper means, but by imposing penalties on private persons. If the right hon. Gentleman really wanted to make a correct and effective register his right course was to have it prepared by officials, as the Census is prepared. The worst way of all is to make a register by the imposition of penalties on people who do not understand these forms, and one of the worst of these penalties is that to which ordinary men and women will be subjected of heir g stopped and accosted and worried about their private affairs by policemen.
    Mr. KILEY: If laws are made it is the duty of this House to give proper authority to those concerned with their administration to see those laws carried into effect, and on that point most people are agreed that proper power should be given to those concerned. But the point of disagreement, as I understand it, is in the methods to be adopted. Shall this House give into the hands of any police constable absolute power at any moment he chooses to stop any individual who is coming along and ask him, "Have you got your registration card? If you have not, or even if you have, come with me to the police station so that I can verify it."
    Mr. FISHER: It does not say that.
    Mr. KILEY: It did not say that in the Military Service Act, but I know of cases where a man was accosted by a policeman

    1367
    and although he produced his military service card he was taken to the police station and kept there for several hours till the police verified his statement. It is to prevent the repetition of such cases that I am intervening. I suggest most seriously whether some form of words could not be put in which would limit the possibility of what I have just described. Would it not be possible to limit it to a police constable of the rank of sergeant? I am bound to say, with considerable knowledge of the police, that I find the vast majority of them are thoroughly reliable men, but now and again you come across a case in which that description could not be applied. Why should the public be at the mercy of any constable at any time, under any circumstances, to be worried and bothered whenever he chooses so to do? If the right hon. Gentleman would place some limitation upon the drastic powers which he proposes to give to the police, I am sure he would remove a good deal of misgiving.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to enter my protest against this Sub-section being passed into law. It is a most drastic measure to pass. I gather from the speeches that have been made that the subject was well thrashed out in Committee, but I was not present then and I have seen this Subsection for the first time to-day. It gives the right to any police constable to interfere with any person within the ages of fifteen and sixty-five at any time and in any circumstances, ostensibly to ask him whether he is registered, but in reality to bully him with that excuse. This power is not in the principal Act. Why then is it to be put into this amending Bill? Was it found that the principal Act was a failure in administration, and was not drastic enough? Were the powers which were given there not sufficient to elicit the information which was necessary? The right hon. Gentleman has constantly told us that the principal Act was a great success and that no fault was to be found with it at all, and that this was simply an extension of that measure to rope in discharged soldiers and those who have arrived at the age of fifteen since the passing of that Act. But when they come to amend the Act they take this most drastic power of enabling a policeman on any occasion and in any circumstances to come up to any of us and demand our registration papers. The right hon. Gentleman always looks upon that action
    1368
    of the constable as if it were properly done in order to get information regarding registration. My hon. Friends and I look upon the illicit application of the Act when the policeman is not really wanting that at all, out using it as something with which to browbeat any man in any circumstance. A man who does not do anything to the satisfaction of a policeman can be badgered and bullied on that plea. I remember a power such as this being put into a Bill dealing with the importation of plumage. It was backed up by all the powers of a Government with a good majority, but When the Committee learnt that the policeman in any circumstance was to have the right to stop anyone on the plea of importing plumage the measure had not the ghost of a chance and it was lost. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that only fifteen Members were present while such an important matter was being discussed. The first answer to that is that it has apparently already been very well discussed in Committee, and the Government with a majority behind it would not listen to reason, but insisted on putting it in. It is only those persistent Members who stick to the right course to the end who are here to fight it. But the number in this House is no indication of the importance of the measure. The other day £650,000,000 were passing through the House and the benches were conspicuous by the absence of Members. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman will say that it was unimportant that £650,000,000 should be exacted from the taxpayer, but whether there are few or many here I desire to enter my protest against this power being handed over to the ordinary wayside policeman to accost any of us in the street. I prophesy to the Secretary for Scotland that this will not get on to the Statute Book, because it has to run through the criticism of the other House, which has unfortunately nowadays become the protector of the rights of the people. I think this Government does not protect the rights of the people, but the House of Peers will not allow this Sub-section to pass without some qualification of the power of the constable.
    Mr. MUNRO: I have listened with great care to the arguments with regard to this Clause, and I listened with equal care to the arguments which were used in Committee, and if repetition of an argument strengthens it, hon. Members have very considerably fortified their position, because I have been unable to find a single

    1369
    new argument from beginning to end of the Debate. The case was very fully presented in Committee. It was also argued on the Second Reading and fully replied to by the Under-Secretary to the Local Government Board. Much of the argument that has been used rests upon distrust of the police force. That is particularly so with regard to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Watt), who spoke about policemen badgering, bullying, and browbeating people in order to get this information. That is not my conception of the police force either in England or in Scotland, and I am rather surprised to hear from my hon. Friend that it is his. However, when I hear that he relies upon another place to put things right which are wrong in this place, I am prepared to hear anything from him. The speeches that have been made have really exaggerated the importance of the provision which is under discussion. I can imagine my hon. Friends resenting even the attentions of a ticket-collector as being an outrage upon liberty.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Do treat the matter seriously.
    Mr. MUNRO: I have been endeavouring to do so.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: You are not doing so now.
    Mr. MUNRO: That is a matter of opinion. If the hon. Member objects to the slightest observation of a humorous kind—
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I did not know it was humorous.
    Mr. MUNRO: I am going to treat the matter quite seriously if the hon. Member will permit me to proceed, but it is impossible for two Members to address the House at the same time. I have made inquiry into the matter, and I am advised by those who know and are in a position to advise, that this is a necessary power in order to complete the register, and it is a necessary power also in order to keep the register up to date. If it is necessary for those two purposes and if the register cannot be at the outset completed, and if it cannot be kept up to date without this power, then I think we might as well have no register at all unless the power is given. We want an accurate register and a complete register, and according to the advice I have received the exercise of this power
    1370
    may be necessary to secure that result. I do no; think it would be possible to restrict the operation of the Clause in the way suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Kiley) by confining its exercise to a sergeant of police. Speaking for myself—and I have had a good deal more to do with the police than hon. Members who have spoken—I should be quite prepared to confide this discretion to an ordinary constable and to entrust him not to misuse the powers so confided to him. The power is already in existence in regard to certificates of exemption, and I do not see why it cannot be applied to certificates of registration. One cannot foretell how often the power may have to be exercised. It may be frequent or it may be infrequent, but one's experience teaches one that the conferring of a power upon an individual or upon an organisation may not infrequently render its exercise unnecessary. That is to say, that in such cases as this if it is known that such a power exists and has been conferred by this House upon the police force that may probably render its exercise less frequent than some of my hon. Friends think will be the case. At any rate, if it be necessary in order to have an accurate and complete register to give this power, then so far as I am concerned I regard that as a sufficient argument for inserting the power in the Bill.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I regret very much to find my right hon. Friend defending this indefensible provision. It is strange to what lengths Liberal Ministers can be driven by the stress of circumstances. Here is a provision which in fact makes every male person above a certain ago in this country a ticket-of-leave man. I hold that to confer such a power is absolutely unnecessary, and if it were necessary it would be a complete condemnation of the measure which requires it. We were understood to be fighting against Prussianism, but if there is one timing more than another which is the badge, the emblem, and the symbol of Prussianism it is this ticket-of-leave system which is embodied in the provision we arc now discussing. It is an extraordinary doctrine that it is well to put an objectionable power into a Bill even although it will not be exercised, because its presence in the Bill may render the exercise if it is necessary.
    Mr. MUNRO: The hon. Member uses the word "objectionable." That is the point of difference between us.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think my right hon. Friend, on reflection, will regret the quarrel over my adjective. He certainly brought forward no argument to indicate that it was not objectionable. This power is contrary to the instincts and the traditions of the British people. No man would ever suggest a provision of this kind in ordinary times nor would it be suggested in this House now were it not for the extraordinary conditions under which the House acts at the present time. In the days of the Coalition we had a National Register Bill which did not include this provision. We were told that that Bill was adequate for the purpose of securing in the first place a National Register and also for keeping it up to date. But that was a Government which still contained ostensibly some Liberal elements. The present Ministry has so far lost itself that it declines to regard as objectionable a provision which is repugnant to the free spirit of every British citizen. The right hon. Gentleman has reminded us that this provision has been discussed on the Second Reading, in Committee, and now on the Report stage, and he took some objection to its iteration, although the forms of the House provide for these means of iteration, in order to prevent objectionable provisions of this kind being inserted. Right through all these discussions not a single attempt has been made by any representative of the Government to prove that this provision is not objectionable. It is justified on two grounds. First of all, that it is necessary for the purpose of having a complete register. Necessity, in other words, is used as an argument to overcome the objections which, on other grounds, everybody would urge against this provision. We do not accept the ground of necessity. There is no necessity for it. No such power should be conferred upon an ordinary constable, and I am surprised that my right hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the administration of the criminal law, should exalt the ordinary constable to the pinnacle to which he has exalted him. I think it is preposterous. He does not expect any of us to believe that the argument which he put forward on that head is the result of his experience as Lord Advocate.
    Mr. MUNRO: Most emphatically.
    Mr. PRINGLE: My right hon. Friend says most emphatically. He amazes me more and more. Some of us know some-
    1372
    thing of what police evidence amounts to, and the right hon. Gentleman, both as prosecuting and as a defending counsel, must know something about it. Yet he asks the Committee to believe that, as a result of his experience in both capacities, he finds the ordinary constable is a man upon whom these powers can with safety be conferred. It seems to me that we have reached a stage when it is impossible for us to treat any arguments or any contention coming from a responsible Minister with anything but contempt. They are willing to put the most indefensible provisions in their Bills, and they are willing to defend those indefensible provisions by the most contemptible and indefensible arguments. They will tell us that this is done to win the War. It would be a subject matter of some humour were it not for the serious position in which the country is standing. Nothing will convince the great majority of the people of this country when the time comes to look over the restrictive and punitive legislation which has been passed, that there has been any justification for half the legislation which this Government has imposed.
    I would like to deal with the argument, if I can dignify it with that name, that this provision ought to be kept in because it will never be used. That is the most extraordinary doctrine that has ever been put forward. Why should we in this House say that every man is going to be subject to be badgered by any policeman who may have a grudge against him, because that is what this power amounts to We know perfectly well the extent to which in many other spheres of life policemen in the past have used powers conferred upon them under police legislation and regulations to badger people who were not servile enough and who did not please them. We know that men have been persecuted under the Lighting Regulations by policemen. Because some person uses possibly a sharp word to a policeman, he has been got at for a purely accidental offence against some Regulation, and has been brought into the Police Court and subjected to a heavy penalty. If you give this power, you render a large number of people subject to the same kind of persecution. I do not think this House has any right to set up this kind of petty tyranny and to put it in such hands. I believe that in the majority of cases the power will be quite

    1373
    useless as a means of keeping the register up to date, because in a large number of cases the police will not trouble to put it into operation, in view of the many other duties they have to perform; there will be other cases where policemen undoubtedly will use this power for the purpose of persecution. That is the kind of thing which the Government is opening the door to now, and it is a thing which they should set their faces against at all costs. It is absolutely unnecessary. It will bring in the worst features of the Prussian ticket-of-leave system, whereby the average citizen is exposed to all the espionage which in ordinary times has been inflicted upon the criminal.
    6.0 P.M.
    Colonel GREIG: I hardly think the hon. Member has done justice to himself. In a speech in which he has abused the police and a Minister of the Crown he has made use of the ability which evidently he possesses to advocate something which would make it difficult to carry out what is necessary in the abnormal times which he admits we are going through. Abnormal times they are, and it shows the patriotism of the people that they have submitted and are willing to submit to many of these abnormal regulations and restrictions which no one would think of imposing in ordinary times. The hon. Member does not hesitate to cast odium upon the police, who of all classes at this time of crisis have done so much for the country. Many of them have enlisted in the forces of the Crown and many of them have shown a patriotism which might be imitated by other people. I do not need to point out
    that this exaggerated language has nothing whatever to do with the Clause under discussion. It is a simple Clause dealing with the power of police constables to ask. for a man's registration card.
    Mr. WATT: At any time!
    Colonel GREIG: Just as a railway porter can at any time demand the hon. Member's season ticket when he goes up. the Clyde to Glasgow, and, if he does not produce it, can take his name and address. That is exactly the same power. Does the hon. Member for Haggerston, who, I dare say, has had a season ticket, think it an infringement of his liberty if he is asked to produce it? This is part of the contract between patriotic citizens and the community.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: The hon. Member has asked me a question. Will he allow me to answer it?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Do not bother; he has. his job to defend!
    Colonel GREIG: It is the job of every man who wants to defend his country and to see an end to the War, and I am saying,. what every man must feel, that I regret that the hon. Member, whose abilities and. acumen are as great as those of any other Member of this House, should put his great ability to the purposes which he has exhibited on that bench.
    Question put, "That the words proposed. to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 28.

    Division No. 148.]

    AYES.

    [6.3 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

    Henry, Denis S.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Alien, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cowan, Sir W. H.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Baldwin, Stanley

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Barrie, H. T.

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Bathurst, Capt. Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield).

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)

    Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

    Boyton, Sir James

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

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

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

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

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Bull, Sir William James

    Fleming, Sir John (Aberdeen)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Burdett-coutts, W.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Butcher, John George

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

    Lewis, Rt. Han. John Herbert

    Carew, C. R. S.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Cator, John

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Cautley. Henry Strother

    Griffith. Rt Hon. Sir Ellis J.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Cave, Rt Hon. Sir G.

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

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Cheyne, Sir W. W.

    Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

    Macmaster, Donald

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

    McNeill Ronald (kent. St. Augustine's)

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmanan)

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Watson, J. B. (Stockton)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Weigall, Lieut.-Col. W. E. G. A.

    Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Samuels, Arthur W.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Wills, Major Sir Gilbert

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

    Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Shortt, Edward

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Smith, Sir Swine (Keighley, Yorke)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Newman, Major John R. P.

    Stanier, Captain Sir Beville

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Norman, Rt. Hon. Major Sir H.

    Stewart, Gershom

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

    Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend)

    Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

    Wright, Capt. Henry Fitzherbert

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Yco, Sir Alfred William

    Partington, Hon. Oswald

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Younger, Sir George

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

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

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Thynne, Lt.-Col. Lord Alexander

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Tickler, T. G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

    Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Edmund Talbot and Capt. F. Guest.

    Pratt, J. W.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    NOES.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

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

    Bliss, Joseph

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Smallwood, Edward

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gilbert, J. D.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Watt, Henry A.

    Harris, Percy A (Leicester, S.)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Morrell, Philip

    Wilson. W T. (Westhoughton)

    Hinds, John

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Rowlands, James

    Chancellor and Mr. Whitehouse.

    King, Joseph

    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "Provided that no discharged sailor or soldier shall be subject to the penalties under this Act."
    This is an aspect of the discussion that ranged over a considerable time during the Committee stage of the Bill, and has been referred to during the present stage of the discussion; and I will, therefore, put the case for this Amendment as briefly as possible. The Bill places upon discharged soldiers and sailors the duty of registering under this Act. The President of the Local Government Board, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, made a special point of the fact that it was to bring within its purview the great numbers of soldiers who are being continually discharged from the Army by reason of wounds, sickness, age, or other cause. It is admitted that a very considerable number of soldiers will be affected by the Act. It places upon these soldiers not the duty of filling up a form that is sent to them, but, within a few days after their arrival in this country, the duty of knowing all about the provisions of this Act, and therefore being able to obtain a form from the proper authority, filling it up, and returning it; also the duty, if they change their address, of filling up another form within seven days, and, if they change their occupation or profession, the duty of
    1376
    returning the change on a form which they have obtained. If they fail to perform any of these duties placed upon them the discharged soldiers may, if prosecuted and convicted, be fined a sum not exceeding £5, and may be further subjected to continuing penalties of £1 a day, if they still fail to observe the provisions of the Act. That means that a soldier who does not register himself, or does not return a change of address or occupation, may be subjected to these penalties.
    I ant quite ready to admit that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced certain modifications by which it is necessary, before a prosecution can be begun, to obtain the consent of the Director-General of National Service. While that is a slight concession. it. fails entirely to meet the real gravity of the case. The right hon. Gentleman, in a very eloquent speech, spoke of the object of including discharged soldiers under this scheme of registration. He wished to assist them to obtain employment, to facilitate their re-entry into industrial life. It was an act of friendship to them. I can only say that the soldier who, because of his failure to carry out the trumpery provisions of an Act of whose existence he may have no knowledge, is first accosted by the police, under the provisions of this Clause, and then, after permission has been obtained, prosecuted

    1377
    for failing to obtain forms and returning them in time, or, for not returning his change of address or occupation, is subjected to these fines and continuing penalties. I can only say that the discharged soldier, sick or wounded, will look with very grave suspicion upon the professions of friendship and consideration and regard which are made with respect to him when he finds himself under police supervision and under drastic treatment of the kind proposed in this measure, even though it be said to be in his own interest. I regard the proposals to place these duties upon discharged soldiers or sailors as a drastic step, for if he fails to observe them he is to be placed under what are, to my mind, preposterous penalties. I look upon it as a great scandal, and I am very much surprised that any Bill should have been brought forward in this House which contains any such provisions. I know very well that the right hon. Gentleman will get up and complain of my repetition of arguments, that he will say that it is an extravagant picture that has been made of this Bill, that no prosecutions will take place, that we may trust the police, the Director-General, the local registration authorities, end, above all, his own Department. In view of his past speeches any speech like that will leave me entirely unmoved. I am only concerned with the provisions of this Bill, and the picture I have drawn represents what may happen under them. The right hon. Gentleman has again and again laboured the need for having a register of discharged soldiers. Why should this extraordinary method of having a register of discharged soldiers be adopted? I should have thought that the first duties of the Army authorities in discharging a man would be to take full details about him—the place from which he came and was returning to; and I should have thought, also, that information could have been communicated to the local authority in the district where the man was going to live.
    I object altogether to placing responsibility for registration upon the individual soldier. First of all, he is to be under police supervision, and, secondly, any failure to register is to be visited with what are extraordinarily drastic penalties. no matter bow they may be modified by quite small concessions that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman. It would
    1378
    be out of order within the limits of my Amendment to argue the effect of the provisions of this Bill on other people, because this Amendment is limited to the specific case of soldiers and sailors. I shall not detain the House by repeating the other obvious objections to the Clause; I will only say that I think all the provisions of the Bill will be especially repugnant to the country. I am quite sure that the last thing they desire is that the discharged soldier or sailor, who may be sick or wounded, should be subjected to police intervention, together with threats of penalties if he does not carry out the provisions of this Act. The first thing the public will desire is that these men should be met with the utmost sympathy and consideration; that it should be regarded as the first duty of the nation to help them back into civil life with every sort of friendly consideration. I submit that such consideration is impossible if you accompany the promise to help them with threats of penal legislation of this character. I am not deterred from moving this Amendment by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman will pooh-pooh all the arguments that I have used. He will point to the smallness of the numbers who have supported it before in the Division Lobby, and will repeat his speech, which has now become almost of stock form, in resisting the Amendment. should like to hear a new style of speech from the right hon. Gentleman, if I may respectfully say so; I should like him, with all respect, to address himself to the serious arguments which are placed before him. It is because I believe that the spirit of the country will be opposed to this Bill, it is because I believe it is a measure opposed to our traditions of toleration and of justice, it is because I think it introduces most alien and objectionable features into a class of legislation which should be free from them, and it is, above all, because it imposes harsh penalties for breach of pettifogging legislation, that I shall press this Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I shall endeavour to introduce new arguments, and only new arguments, into my remarks. I would urge that the War Office already knows all about the discharged men, and would be able to give you all information about them. They have at the National Liberal Club—the old National Liberal Club—a complete record

    1379
    of every discharged soldier. Further, you could get practically all the information you require from the Ministry of Pensions, where a record will be kept of every man discharged from the Army. Again, why can you not automatically send to the local registration authority the information obtained by the Army authorities when a man is discharged? I think the imposing of penalties in the case of discharged soldiers whom it is sought to register is most undesirable, and is likely to cause fear, suspicion, and friction.
    Mr. FISHER: The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment remarked that I introduce no new arguments into my speeches, but it will readily be seen that it is difficult to do so when one finds that no new arguments are advanced to which a reply can be made. The hon. Member has not introduced anything new in his speeches on the Second Reading of the Bill, in the long discussions in the Committee stage and, for several hours, on the Report stage. In all the speeches which he has made I have not heard him advance a single new proposition, and his observations were always supported with exaggerated epithets and wild denunciations of the Bill. Therefore, having thing new to meet., I have nothing new to introduce into my remarks, nor anything to add to the various arguments which I have brought forward in condemnation of everything the hon. Member has said. The hon. Member for North Somerset said that the knowledge obtained by the Army authorities about discharged men should be sent on to the local registration authority automatically—all the particulars about him should be forwarded for local registration purposes.
    Mr. KING: What I want is that the information about the discharged soldier should automatically be forwarded by the authorities who obtain the particulars for local registration. It would save a great deal of trouble.
    Mr. FISHER: What the hon. Gentleman wants is that the War Office is to send all these particulars to the local registration authority. or that the Ministry of Pensions might equally do so. But those authorities would not have the whole of the particulars which are required in connection with the form of registration proposed by the Bill. The War Office would not have the particulars we require, nor would the Ministry of Pensions. The latter body
    1380
    would only require such information as would relate to the granting of pensions, and the War Office would not obtain such information as is required for the register contemplated by the Bill. In order to have a useful register it must provide information as to the work which discharged soldiers and sailors had carried on previously, and as to the class of work they were prepared to undertake. A register which gave that information would show at once the discharged soldiers and sailors living in a particular area, and the kind of work, transport or other work. they were able to do, or the particular vocations they were fitted to follow. If a register of that kind were compiled. instead of being what has been described by hon. Members as a drastic measure of threats and penalties, it would be found to work to the advantage of these men. In the various localities large employers of labour in any particular area would be able to search the local register, and see the number of discharged soldiers and sailors living in the area, and to ascertain their qualifications and experience for particular kinds of work. Hon. Members have spoken of this register as detrimental to discharged soldiers and sailors. It will be nothing of the kind, nor is it what has been pictured by hon. Members. What we want, first of all, is to provide a register in the way now proposed, and, secondly, that there should be a systematic and accurate record of the available manpower of the country. Whether this register is going to be of such use as I think it will be, of course is a matter of question which may be introduced between me and the hon. Gentleman, but I am quite sure that the hon. Member will agree that if it is going to be of any use whatever it really must be an accurate register. How can it be an accurate register if the hon. Gentleman admits that hundreds of thousands of discharged soldiers and sailors in this country would be induced, so far as hon. Members could induce them, not to register?
    Every argument, every observation, made by hon. Members who oppose this Bill has been of a nature to make the soldier or sailor suspicious. They in effect say to a discharged soldier or sailor, "If you are well advised you will not in any way help to make the register accurate; so far as you are concerned, keep off the register." If hundreds of thousands of discharged soldiers and sailors do not find themselves on the register, then that

    1381
    would do very much to destroy the value of the register, from the point of view of the Food Controller, or anybody else who is going to make use of it, and who really ought to have accurate statistics of the available man-power—and woman-power, for the matter of that—in the country, and as to the numbers of different people following various trades, avocations, and so on. It is because we want the register to be thoroughly accurate, and as far as possible up to date, that we have introduced penalties into the measure, in order to see that people carry out what will be the law of the land, by not only registering themselves, but by intimating any change of address which they may make subsequently. There will not be constant prosecutions, as has been said, nor will the heavy penalties be imposed that have been spoken of. The maximum penalty of £5 will riot always be inflicted, though that would appear to be implied from what has been said. Nothing of that kind has been clone under the Act, and nothing of the kind will be done under this measure. As far as prosecutions of these men are concerned none of the 1,800 local registration authorities will be able to set on foot prosecutions against anybody, whether discharged soldier or sailor or other person, without the consent of my right hon. Friend the Minister for National Service, and does anybody believe that that Minister would sanction, even if it were put forward by a local authority, a prosecution against a discharged soldier or sailor who had been wounded in the service of his country and who had arrived here without knowing anything of a register? It is inconceivable that my right hon. Friend would allow a registration authority to initiate a prosecution of that kind, and I think it is equally inconceivable that a registration authority would propose to institute proceedings of that kind. I am really confident that not only is there no desire to prosecute or oppress either the discharged soldier or sailor or any other member of the community, but I am equally confident that it will in practice be found not to be any disadvantage to the discharged soldier or sailor to register in this way, but that rather it will be to his advantage in the way of employment, and possibly also to the advantage of my right hon. Friend the Food Controller and others who may have the need to consult the register for the local statistics which it will contain and which I hope will be valuable.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am surprised, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that he has not seen his way to accept this Amendment. The last of the arguments which he put forward was to the effect that a provision had been introduced that no prosecution could be undertaken by the local registration authority without the assent of the Minister of National Service, and he added that the last thing that the Minister of National Service would assent to would be the prosecution of the discharged man who had just returned from service overseas disabled. If that is the attitude of mind which the Minister for Prosecutions will take up, then surely it would be far better to accept the Amendment at once and do away altogether with the penalties which this Bill imposes upon discharged soldiers. If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, discharged soldiers are not to be prosecuted, why not take out the penalties from the Bill? He went on to say that speeches which have been delivered here were responsible for the suspicions with which the provisions of this Bill were regarded by discharged men outside. If my right hon. Friend really knew anything about the views of discharged soldiers he would know that he is under a complete misapprehension when he makes that statement. The suspicion of the discharged men in relation to provisions of this kind dates from a period long before this Bill was introduced. It is due to his experience of registration as it already exists. A great many of them thought it was their patriotic duty to register voluntarily before this Bill was thought of, and in every case where a discharged man took that course he found that he was prejudiced thereby in that he was called up for military service before the man who had failed to register. That is why he has come to regard these new provisions for compulsory register with suspicion. Indeed, he believes it is going to be a further weapon either for industrial or military conscription. I think it would be will if my right hon. Friend would entirely remove that suspicion by taking away the penalty. He says that this is a totally mistaken apprehension on the part of the discharged man. He says that, nothing will be attempted to his prejudice, and that no such thing is in contemplation, and all that they wish to do is to provide machinery which will actually operate to the advantage of these men; or, in other words, that all

    1383
    this local register will provide is a simple machinery for these men obtaining employment when they return to civil life, and that it would be also useful for other administrative purposes. If this provision is simply meant for his benefit, there is no need for a penalty to compel him to avail himself of its advantages. Let the Government, instead of throwing suspicion on the discharged man, and saying "unless there is a penalty you will not register yourself and so obtain these advantages," show their own bonâ-fide belief in the benefits which this register is going to bestow on the discharged men. They can only show that belief in their own professions by saying to the discharged men, "While other men may be forced by penalty to register we are quite willing to rely on your patriotism on the footing that the Government really intend to extend these benefits to you."
    As a matter of fact, I do not think that on the occasion of any of these Debates the Government has produced a valid argument for forcing registration upon the discharged men. My right hon. Friend has said that the War Office register does not provide the information which will be obtained under this Bill. I am surprised to hear it. I always understood that nearly eighteen months ago elaborate machinery was established by the War Office, for which special buildings were obtained which were said to be specially suitable for the purpose, in order to register the names of all the men in the Army for the purpose of demobilisation, so that the Government would have, when demobilisation came, a complete record of every man who had served and of their special aptitudes for various civil occupations. That was certainly the intention eighteen months ago, and I should be very much surprised if no steps have been taken to provide a central register of that kind. Obviously, if there is such a central register in existence, it is a very simple matter for those who are making up that central register to forward the particulars contained in it to the registration officer of the locality in which the discharged man is going to reside. There should be no difficulty at all. It is a very simple operation, and no speaker from the Front Bench has suggested that it is impossible if they have the particulars, and they professed here that they were making up a register containing these particulars. Under
    1384
    those circumstances why should it be necessary to ask the discharged man when he comes home to undertake this duty and to render him liable to all these penalties. Surely it is a very poor reward for the soldier who has been out of the country in any of the theatres of war fighting, as he believes, for liberty to come home and find himself a ticket-of-leave man, for that is what it really amounts to. The man has to carry this ticket-of-leave about with him in his pocket. He has, first of all, to register, and then to carry it in his pocket, and he is liable to be called on by any policeman to produce it. It is a strange paradox that this should be the first welcome he should receive on his return from making all these sacrifices. I think he would not look upon it in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I think an absolute case has been made out that it is unnecessary to place this indignity upon him, and if the right. hon. Gentleman knew nothing about the feelings of these men he would know that they resent it as an indignity. It is because they resent it as an indignity and because they deserve some better treatment from the Government of this country that I would appeal once more to the Government to withdraw these penalties.
    Mr. MORRELL: I listened with great pleasure to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I like him much better when he appeals to us in a spirit of sweet reasonableness, and as I listened to his persuasive language I felt almost induced to support him on this occasion. I cannot do so, not, as he supposes, because I do not desire to see the soldier and the sailor registered. I think in many ways it is desirable that he should be registered, and I should like to see him registered, but as an act of his own free will. I do not wish to see him compelled, as he is going to be compelled, under penalties to register himself under this Bill. This Amendment does not prevent him going on to the register, and would not discourage him from getting all the advantages promised by the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendment proposes to make the discharged soldier or sailor absolutely safe from prosecution. We are told that he will not be prosecuted, and that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred there would be no prosecution, and that the local registration authority, even if it wished to do so, would have to go to the Director-General of National Service for his con-

    1385
    sent, which, I agree, is a great improvement in the Bill. I want to go one step further, and I say if you are in earnest in the benefits which you are promising to the soldier and the sailor, then it cannot be necessary to retain this ugly provision by which you are to bring the discharged soldier or sailor into the Police Court and subject him to a penalty, if not of £5, at any rate of a substantial amount. I submit that is an unnecessary provision, and certainly in a military sense, because no one supposes you are going to use it, and we are assured there is no idea of using these men for military purposes. Therefore, from the point of view of the War, it cannot be necessary to have these particulars. What is the other argument brought forward in favour of retaining this ugly and disagreeable provision? We are told that the register will work to the soldier's advantage, and that it is very important that it should be a systematic and accurate record. The right hon. Gentleman must know that under this Bill you will not have a systematic and accurate record in the sense in which the ordinary Census is so. You cannot get it, because it is not being done in the right way. The forms are not going to be distributed, and it is to be left to the discharged soldier or sailor to go to a post office and get one. In the case of lads under eighteen there are no penalties, and I think it is quite right there should not be. The initiative is left to them to go to the post office to get the forms. It is inconceivable that all these hundreds of thousands of lads will fill up the forms correctly, and all the more so if they learn there is no penalty if they fail to do so. Most of them will be patriotic and wish to assist the Government, but you are certain to have a number who are not, and who will be careless about the registration and will not see the advantage of registering.
    Therefore it is impossible to suppose that the register is going to be a systematic and accurate record. If it is not going to be systematic and accurate, then what is the argument for rendering sailors and soldiers liable to these penalties? If you are really going to offer them preferential treatment, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they will hasten to register themselves. But why should you keep this ugly penalty up your sleeve? The reason the Government do not accept this Amendment, as they ought,on their own showing, is because they look forward to the time, and they are bound
    1386
    to anticipate the time, when it will become necessary to prosecute these men and enforce these penalties. If the penalties were never going to be enforced it would be absurd to put them in the Bill. The Government know perfectly well the time will come when the discharged soldier who has served his country, and it may be has been wounded, and who has done all that he thought necessary, will be brought up in the Police Court and prosecuted under this Bill. I say it will be a disgrace to this House and a disgrace to the Government when that happens.
    I am perfectly certain the right hon. Gentleman was very sincere in his professions of how anxious he was to assist discharged soldiers. We are all anxious to do all we can for these men, for we owe to them a debt we never can meet. I say that nothing in reason is too much to do for the men who have risked their lives for the sake of the country as these men have. When a soldier who has risked his life in this way is brought up in the Police Court he hay well say to the right hon. Gentleman, "Why do you kick me downstairs? Why do you treat me in this way?" It may be you cannot get all the benefits for these amen that they ought to have. It. may be impossible to find in every case suitable, desirable, immediate employment. It may be impossible to treat them as we should all wish. At any rate, it is possible to see that under no circumstances are they subjected to penalties because owing to ignorance or prejudice, or whatever it may be, they fail to register themselves under this Bill. It seems to me this is a most necessary, a most reasonable, and a most just Amendment to this Bill, and if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. He is going to lose nothing by it, and if he knew how difficult it is to deal with labour matters just now he would do nothing which would be a cause of unrest. This week-end I have had an experience of how little it would take a very important section of the working men of the country to down tools. It has been avoided for the time being. I certainly do think that with the records there are of men discharged from the Army and Navy, there is no necessity whatever for imposing a penalty upon them if they forget or neglect to register under this Bill. I am certain that under this Bill you will get all that is useful

    1387
    without penalising the soldiers and sailors. Therefore, I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. I believe that it will help to smooth the working of the Bill. It will certainly remove a cause of resentment and remedy something that may lead to bad feeling in the country. The right hon. Gentleman has not quite the same experience in connection with the feelings of working men in the works that I have. If he had I am quite satisfied he would not hesitate for a moment to accept the Amendment and so remove from the Bill any cause of resentment, bad feeling, or friction or anything that would cause unrest and upset in the country. Therefore I do join with hon. Members who have spoken in appealing to him to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to enter my protest against the non-acceptance of this Amendment by the Government. It is in my view a very necessary Amendment to the Bill, and I think the Government will regret the. day that they have not listened to the voices of my hon. Friends opposite and accepted this Amendment and similar Amendments. The Amentment, as the House knows, is that soldiers and sailors should not suffer the penalties under this measure, and the first reason why they should not so suffer is that the penalties are extraordinarily severe. In the second place, I think they should not be penalised, because under the Bill lads from fifteen and a-half to eighteen do not suffer these penalties. They are excluded from the penalties, and I venture to think that the sailors and soldiers who have done so much for us should be put in that category also. I have a tremendous respect for what these chaps have done for us. I do not think the country realises yet what they have done in the way of keeping back the Germans from our shores, fighting for our liberties and risking their lives, limbs, eyesight, and health. I ask, therefore, that these men should not be brought into this Bill: but it is practically fighting an uphill and a hopeless battle against this Government. My plea now is that, although they have been put in the Bill, they ought not to be penalised.
    My hon. Friend who has just sat down indicated that if these sailors and soldiers, for whom the country has such
    1388
    respect, are persecuted and harassed there will be trouble in the country, because they are determined in some instances at any rate not to come under this measure. I have been handed a copy of a resolution passed by the London branch of the Federation of Discharged Soldiers and Sailors to the effect that they will not register under this measure. The reason they will not register under it is that they consider it either means industrial conscription or military conscription. These views, being held by discharged soldiers and sailors, no doubt, trouble will evolve. We are told by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure that it is entirely for the benefit of the discharged soldiers and sailors, that a beneficial result will accrue to them, and that they need have no fear. If so, these soldiers and sailors will get to know it, but they do not see it at the moment, as this resolution indicates. If they do see it, they will come forward voluntarily; but I do not believe, notwithstanding observations to the contrary, that the result of this measure will be beneficial to these men. At any rate, as this resolution indicates, they have a suspicion that industrial conscription or military conscription is hidden under this legislation, and I think the Government have been ill-advised in not accepting this Amendment to put these soldiers and sailors outside the penalties in the same way as boys from fifteen to eighteen have been put outside.
    Mr. MUNRO: If I rise for a single moment at this stage, it is to deal with the point my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) has raised, because the speech made by my right hon. Friend at an earlier stage dealt so fairly and fully with all the arguments that he almost, but not quite, made a convert of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell). My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire said, "Have you not got a register at the War Office which renders the compilation of this register, so far as soldiers are concerned, quite unnecessary?" I do not really think so. That register, so far as my knowledge of it goes, does not keep the information up-to-date. It may give the first particulars of the discharged soldier, but the War Office has neither a right nor a duty to keep itself in touch with his subsequent career when he returns to civil life, when

    1389
    he may frequently change his address, and not infrequently his views with regard to the occupation he desires to follow, or for which he is best fitted. So that, even assuming the existence of that register, it would not be of any benefit for the purpose for which this register is particularly designed.
    As regards the rest of the Debate, as I have said, my right hon. Friend dealt with it very fully. It is surely not necessary to say that he and I are not behind others in this House in fully appreciating what our sailors and soldiers have done for the country. But when one is compiling this register one wants to make it, as my right hon. Friend says, complete and accurate, and it would be very difficult to leave out of the ambit of the register one class of persons—to exclude one class of the community from all penalties under a British Statute. Really that is a very difficult thing to do, and one does not detract in the least from the services of sailors and soldiers in saying so. I think it would be a very difficult and dangerous thing to distinguish between classes when dealing with a matter of this sort. The fullest protection, I think, is given against the evil and dangers which are appre-
    headed by the new Clause which any right hon. Friend proposed and the House accepted to-day. Is it, conceivable in any case where a sailor or soldier returning home from service has, through ignorance of the law, omitted to register under this Act, that any right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service would give his consent which is now required before prosecution? If these are the only cases—and they seem to be the only cases—my hon. Friend apprehends, then I really do not think there is any reasonable prospect of such cases arising, whereas on the other hand the benefits that would result—
    Mr. PRINGLE: Why not take away the penalties altogether?.
    Mr. MUNRO: That raises a much. larger question, with which my right hon. Friend has already dealt, and I should not; he in order in dealing with it on this Amendment, The Government desire this provision to remain in the Bill to ensure the completeness of the register and for the benefit of these men themselves.
    Question put, "That. those words be. there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 46; Noes, 113.

    Division No. 149.]

    AYES.

    [7.1 P. M.

    Anderson, W. C.

    Hodge, J. M.

    Smith, H. B. Lees- (Northampton)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Smith, Sir Swlrc (Keighley, Yorks).

    Baker. Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    King, Joseph

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Bliss, Joseph

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Ctickiade)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Buxton, Noel

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Chancellor, Henry George

    O'Grady, James

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

    Fleming, Sir J. (Aberdeen, S.)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Gilbert, J. D.

    Rowlands, James

    Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

    RunCiman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbuzy)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Smallwood, Edward

    Pringle and Mr. Morrell.

    Hinds, John

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Coats, Sir stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Griffith, Rt Hon. Sir Ellis J.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Colvin, Col. Richard Beale

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

    Barnett, Capt. R. W.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Barnston, Major Harry

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

    Hamersley, Lt.-Col. Alfred St. George

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrinchamh

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

    Bann, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hanson, Charles Augustin

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Boyton, Sir James

    Edwards. John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mld.)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Falle, Sir Bertram Godfrey

    Higham, John Sharp

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Fell, Sir Arthur

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Bull, Sir William James

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

    Carew, C. R. S.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Cator, John

    Gardner, Ernest

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Cautley H. S.

    Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

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

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Greig, Colonel james Willam

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Gretton, Col. John

    Jones, W. S. Glyn (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Morgan, George Hay

    Stewart, Gersnom

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

    Swift, Rigby

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

    Terrell, Major Henry (Gloucester)

    Law, Rt. Hon A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

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

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. Herbert

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Tickler, T. G.

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Newman, Major John R. P.

    Watson, John Bertrand (Stockton)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend)

    Wills, Major Sir Gilbert

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

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

    Lansdale, James R.

    Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie G. (Reading)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Mackinder, Halford J,

    Pato, Basil Edward

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Macmaster, Donald

    Pratt, J. W.

    Wolmer, Viscount

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

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

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

    Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Wright, Captain Henry Fitzherbert

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Samuels, Arthur W.

    Younger, Sir George

    Marriott. John Arthur Ransome

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

    Meux, Adml. Han. Sir Hedworth

    Shortt, Edward

    Edmund Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Stanier, Captain Sir Bovine

    Question put, and agreed to.

    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.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, after the word "persons" ["extend to female persons"], to insert the words" (other than the provision requiring a person on demand by a police constable or any other duly authorised person either to produce his certificate of registration or give particulars)."
    This is to ensure that the empowering of a police constable to accost any person and ask for the production of his registration certificate, his name, address, occupation, etc., shall not apply to females. Considerable debate took place during the Committee stage, and I have a good deal of sympathy with the view that it is advisable to restrict the power of the police constable in the manner suggested. I have put down this Amendment to meet the complaint then addressed to me.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I rise to acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has very fully carried out the pledge which he gave in Committee to remove from the Bill one of its most objectionable features—amongst a multitude of objectionable features—that feature which gave any police constable power to accost any female between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five and demand their certificate of registration, or require them to give an account of themselves. This will make it unnecessary for me to move the Amendment which I have put down on the same subject. I am very glad that the discussion which we inaugurated on this point on the Committee stage has been followed
    1392
    with this measure of success, and that we have succeeded in convincing the right hon. Gentleman that it was urgently necessary to alter the Bill in this respect. I greatly regret that any Bill should have been presented to this House, drawn in the form which permitted the police of the country, without any special authority, to accost, at any hour of the day, and in any place, all women between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five. I trust that the reception of the proposal will prevent any such provision in the form of a Bill again being presented to this House for sanction.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert
    "(2) Every Order in Council made under this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the Order is laid before it praying that the Order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder."
    I promised to bring up an Amendment which will secure the point urged by the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King). The Amendment follows the same form in which similar power is controlled in the Representation of the People Bill, a form which the House has lately adopted. In the present instance, I think, it fully meets the point of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Somerset.
    Mr. KING: I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for seeing that, at any rate in

    1393
    this detail, though not in respect of the whole of the Bill, I am completely satisfied.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Short Title and Construction.)
    This Act may be cited as the National Registration (Amendment) Act, 1918, and shall be construed and have effect as if it were part of the principal Act, and that Act and this Act may be cited together as the National Registration Acts, 1915 and 1918.
    Mr. FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "This Act shall come into operation on the twenty-first day after the passing thereof."
    I have already explained to the House that the Government have received a communication from the Stationery Office and the Post Office expressing their doubt as to whether they can, immediately on the passing of this Act, provide us with the necessary forms to enable them to be distributed at the principal post offices. We are, therefore, moving this Amendment in order to secure that the Act shall not come into operation until twenty-one days after its departure from both Houses of Parliament and receiving the assent of the Crown. This will give the Stationery Office and the Post Office time for the work they have to perform.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I have no intention of delaying the Third Reading of this Bill, but there are one or two things which I will say within the briefest possible space of time. I opposed this Bill on the Second Reading upon principle. I opposed it in Committee because the machinery set up to carry it out was, in my opinion, preposterous and because it would introduce an entirely new spirit which I call the Prussian spirit into our system of civil government. The President of the Local Government Board, I admit, has listened, frequently with great patience, to the various Amendments suggested on the Committee and Report stages with a view of mitigating some of the novel provisions which this measure contained. Some of the most objectionable proposals we succeeded in inducing the right hon. Gentleman to mitigate. For instance the extra-
    1394
    ordinary proposal which gave police officers without special authority the right to accost women between the ages of sixteen and sixty-five at any time or any place and require them to give an account of themselves, that provision has disappeared. With regard to a number of other provisions the Bill still remains as offensive in its amended form as it was upon its introduction.
    This Bill makes a new series of crimes for very trivial offences, and it places upon young people from the age of fifteen and old people up to sixty-five the duty of seeing that they are registered, and it makes it in the case of persons over eighteen an offence punishable by very heavy penalties if they fail to get themselves registered. For the first time in our history it makes it an offence for any person between the age of fifteen and sixty-five to change his employment or profession or occupation without registering the change with the local registration authority. It also, for the first time in our history, makes it an offence to change one's residence without notifying the change to the appropriate registration authority. These provisions are to be carried out not only by the infliction of heavy penalties which may be continuing penalties, but also under the supervision of the police in regard to matters from which they have hitherto been excluded. It is true that this special provision of the Bill no longer refers to women, but police supervision is reserved over all male persons between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five, and all male citizens between those ages will be subject on any occasion and at any hour to be accosted by any police officer that he may meet. I do not believe, especially in the present state of public opinion, that it will ever be possible to apply the amazing provisions of this amazing Bill, and I believe many of its provisions will remain a dead letter.
    The fact that the Government will be compelled not to observe many of these provisions is no justification why it should be passed. I believe the object the Government had in view in bringing in this Bill could have been obtained in a much more efficient way by more simple machinery, without introducing these unique and very amazing provisions. There may be some people in this country who still nurse the delusion that we are at present ruled by a Government which still retains some Liberal elements, and

    1395
    some men who believe in the liberty of the individual, and who are true to the Liberal traditions. if there are any such persons, and I am beginning to doubt whether they exist, the provisions of this Bill will, I think, finally undeceive them. This is a Bill which could never have been produced had it not been for the time of excitement, passion, anxiety, and sorrow under which the lives of so many people in the country have to be passed. It is only possible to get such a Bill through the House in times such as these. I regret that the Bill has been introduced, and I regret its passage to-night. More than that I believe the Government themselves will in a very short time equally regret that it has been passed into law.
    Mr. MORRELL: I should not have thought it necessary to intervene on the Third Reading but for some remarks which were made on the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, who with others suggested that it was necessary in some way for the purpose of carrying on the War, and that those of us who have been engaged in criticising this measure and endeavouring to get it amended—I am glad to say in some cases with success—have been careless as to the situation of the country and have not behaved in a patriotic manner. Generally. I am myself quite indifferent to this sort of taunts, and I am prepared to justify my position at the right time before my Constituents. I protest against the monstrous assumption that this Bill is in some way necessary at the present time for the successful carrying on of the War. We all admit the critical situation of the country, but how is this Bill going to improve it? It is going to take a lot of officials, cost a lot of time and money, and this will only produce an incomplete and misleading register of people, most of whom cannot possibly be used in any way for military service. I agree that if you had a small and simple measure for registering young men as they came along at the age of seventeen when they would he required under the Military Service Acts, if it was done by official persons in a proper way, whatever your views may be as to the merits of Conscription, you would say, "So long as we have Conscription that is a necessary and reasonable measure," and I should not have opposed it, because I should have said it was necessary to carry out the Military Service Acts. You are dealing with young boys of fifteen,
    1396
    sixteen, and seventeen, long before they will be required for military service, and with discharged soldiers and sailors who will not be required under the present conditions of the country, and you are going to impose a lot of penalties on all sorts of persons for failing to carry out their obligations under this Bill.
    It is an attempt to make an elaborate register on the cheap. The right course was to get it done by official persons in an official way. The way it is being pro- posed is by putting a lot of penalties upon people for failing to register, and in that way trying to compel them by statutory threats to get the forms and fill them up. You will never make a complete or even satisfactory register in that way. You are only adopting the corbée system which made the French monarchy hated and despised, and which makes private persons do what public officials ought to undertake. If the right hon. Gentleman had met us as he might have done as regards the machinery, I should have had nothing more to say, but he has still left two blemishes of the gravest kind in the Bill. First of all, he leaves it still open to any policeman to stop and accost any person in the street, demanding their registration form or particulars of their name, address, occupation, etc. That is a most offensive, objectionable, and tyrannical provision. There are still left in the Bill penalties upon discharged soldiers and sailors who have already done their service. If it was for their benefit to he registered, it ought to have been a voluntary registration. If the discharged soldiers and sailors were convinced that it was for their benefit they would have registered themselves voluntarily. This is a tyrannical and a futile measure, and although in the present state of the House it does not look as if there would be any satisfaction in putting the House to a Division—
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am going to divide the House.
    Mr. MORRELL: Then I shall support my hon. Friend. I make this final protest against what I believe to be a bad Bill in order that when this Bill comes to be administered those who have to put it into force will be very careful and will take steps to see that all its most objectionable features are not carried into effect.

  REDISTRIBUTION. OF SEATS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I hope the Minister in charge of this Bill will give us some explanation, as the measure has taken a form which was not anticipated by the House when the arrangement was come to by which it was referred to a Conference of the representatives of the Nationalist and the Unionist Members of this House with Mr. Speaker as chairman and, so to speak, as arbitrator. I feel sure we are all heartily glad that an amicable settlement has been reached and that without delay. it has been possible to place agreed proposals before Parliament. It was, however, by no means anticipated that the outcome would be to increase still further the already admitted over-representation of Ireland in this House, and I think the country will be somewhat surprised to find that the ultimate outcome of the discussion on redistribution, so far as it affects Ireland, will be that the number of Irish representatives will be raised from 103 to 105, although it is well known that on the basis of population that representation should he in the neighbourhood of 60.
  The reasons why it cannot be reduced to that number have been repeatedly stated in the House by many of us, and I do not propose to go over that ground again. Particularly there will be disappointment when it is found that the settlement arrived at is such that not only are the Irish representatives to be increased by two, but those additional two are to be university representatives, although to many of us university representation is regarded as an anomaly and we should have been glad to get rid of it in tote. It has been the declared policy of the Liberal Party for many years past to oppose the creation of university seats, but I understand that this proposal has been adopted as part of the compromise agreed to at the original conference on electoral changes connected with the Representation of the People Bill. Originally the number of universities was nine, but under the Bill that number was increased by three, which brought the total up to twelve.
  There have been hitherto, and there are at this moment, five university seats in
  1398
  England, two in Scotland, and two in Ireland, a total of As part of the compromise agreed at Mr. Speaker's Conference, that number was raised to twelve, and we acquiesced in that as a portion, and an integral part, of the general arrangement. Two more university seats were to be added to England and one more to Scotland, making a total of twelve. It is now proposed that two further seats should be added to Ireland, and in another place—it is not irrelevant to state the fact; although we cannot discuss it yet —a further university seat has been added for Wales, making a total of no fewer than fifteen university representatives in this House, if all these proposals are agreed to. I must reserve to a later stage any statement as to any action which we may think fit to take with regard to the addition to the university membership of Ireland, but I hope the Home Secretary will tell us to-day how many graduates there are in the University of Dublin, in the Queen's University, Belfast, and in the National University at Dublin, respectively. If he has not the information at hand, perhaps he will state it. in answer to a question in the House before we come to the Committee stage, in order that we may have full information as to the character of the constituencies which are now to be enfranchised.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): This Bill is the outcome of a discussion which took place when we had the Representation of the People Bill before, this House. The Government then made certain proposals for the redistribution of seats in Ireland. Objections were taken, but ultimately the principle on which we are proceeding was accepted on all hands, namely, that all parts of that. country should have equitable representation, having regard to population. On that basis the matter was referred to a Conference representing both of the parties from Ireland, with yourself as chairman, with a view to a scheme being brought before the House. We are again much indebted to Mr. Speaker for having been good enough to take charge of this matter, and so complete his labours with reference to the redistribution of seats. and the reform of the franchise. We are also indebted to the members of the Conference and to Mr. Jerred who was good enough to act as secretary. I am very glad to find that not only was our principle accepted by the Conference, but

  1399
  that with small exceptions the Conference adopted the whole of the scheme which we brought before the House. The three exceptions are these: First, they recommended that, instead of the Borough of Waterford being thrown into the County of Waterford, the two together having two seats, the borough itself should remain as a separate constituency and the remainder of the county should have one member. That difference makes no change in the number of representatives. I do not know whether it is intended to commemorate the long connection of the present Member with the borough, but, if so, I feel it a privilege to have any part in giving effect to that suggestion. Secondly, there was a change made in the boundaries of the constituencies in County Down. I am not familiar enough with the circumstances in County Down to enable me to say exactly what is the effect of that change. I have no doubt that some result will be derived or that some reason for the change will be suggested, but I am not able or competent to say more than that about. it at. the present moment.
  The third change is that to which my right hon. Friend opposite has referred, namely, the recommendation that there should be two new members from Ireland—a member for Queen's University at Belfast and a member for the National University at Dublin. I say quite frankly that it came as a surprise to me to find that the two university members recommended were to be in addition to the existing Members from Ireland. I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I think hardly anybody in this House in his heart would deny that Ireland is adequately and, indeed, excessively represented so far as numbers go in this House at the present time, and I had hoped, if it were found desirable to provide representation for the two universities, which I know was very strongly desired in Ireland, that room would have been made for them by giving up two of the existing seats. Apparently, the members of the Conference could not agree as to the method of obtaining that result, and the recommendation, as I understand, comes as representing the unanimous agreement of the Conference. The fact that they are to be university members is to me not an aggravation, but a mitigation of the regret that I feel. I think that these two
  1400
  Irish universities are well worthy, if I may use the word, of representation, and have as good a claim as our new universities in England to be represented in this House. I believe that the numbers at present are something of this kind. I am told that in Dublin University there will be some 16,000 electors. Perhaps I am overstating it. It is between 14,000 and 15,000. It is a large electorate. As regards Belfast, the number is given to me as about 3,800 at present, and, as far as regards the National University the number will be less than that. I believe something like 3,600. Those are not very large numbers, but no doubt the universities will grow as time goes on, and justify the representation given to them.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: Will that be the electorate under the Bill, as amended?
  Sir G. CAVE: I understand so, but it is impossible to be quite sure. It may be that the numbers will be rather higher when the women electors are added. I am afraid the numbers are less in the university in Wales to which my right hon. Friend referred, but I do not wish in the least to prejudice that question before it comes before this House. I feel that the recommendations come to us with all the authority of the Conference, and with the support of all the parties in Ireland, and, speaking for myself, I hope that the House will give effect to them all.
  Mr. DENMAN: I want, as a private Member, to express my own extreme sense of surprise at the recommendations before us. We naturally receive them with mixed feelings. Of course, we always accept any proposition that comes to us with the united agreement of Irishmen, and, when the proposition takes the form of more Irish members in this House, we receive it with alacrity, but, recollecting the ancient controversy on the question of the representation of Ireland, I am very much surprised that the Nationalists, at all events, are willing to accept this particular suggestion. It has always been maintained that this House has very little right to deal with the numbers of Irishmen sent to this House, because the number was fixed in a contract which is regarded as binding on both parties. If this contract is capable of easy variation in the upward direction, it is obviously easy of variation in the lower direction, and it seems to me the case for maintaining the existing number of Irishmen in

  1401
  this House becomes very poor when once we alter the number fixed at the time of the Act of Union. I hope in the Committee stage the subject will be seriously considered. Of course, no one wants to raise any difficulty, but I think there will be a very wide feeling that if we could leave the numbers as they were before this Bill came before the House it would be advisable.

  BISHOPRICS OF BRADFORD AND COVENTRY BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Modifications of Principal Act.)
  1. An Order in Council under Section four of the principal Act may be made in relation to either of the new bishoprics referred to in this Act, whenever the Ecclesiastical Commissioners certify to His Majesty under their Common Seal that the annual value of the endowment fund of such bishopric (exclusive of the annual value of any episcopal residence but in other respects calculated according to the provisions of the said Section) with the annual value of the sum to be derived from the contributory bishopric (excluding any sum contingently to he so derived) is not less than two thousand' lye hundred pounds, and that a fitting episcopal residence has been provided to the satisfaction of the said Commissioners or a capital sum (in addition to the sum necessary to produce the annual clue so certified as aforesaid) sufficient n the opinion of the said Commissioners has been contributed for that purpose.
  Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "two" ["two thousand five hundred pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "one."
  It has been represented to me by one or two eminent Churchmen that it would e a very good thing to take this opporunity to reduce the salary of bishops, Lot the maximum salary—let that be as large as the diocese or their friends can
  1402
  get together—but the minimum salary. The effect of my Amendment will be that. when you want to establish a new bishop you will not have to collect £2,500 a year, but only £1,500. I can conceive many advantages in that. In the first place, everybody declares that one of the crying demands of the Church at the present time is for more bishops. If you have to get £2,500 as the minimum salary, it will be much more difficult than if you only have to get £1,500. I think that is a very important consideration in view of the financial position of the country and the increasing demand for new bishops in, every direction. Let us take this opportunity of reducing the minimum salary. The Bishoprics Bill fixes a maximum and` minimum. The maximum used to be £4,200; it is now reducing to £3,500, and therefore admittedly the trend of opinion in Church and State is towards reducing the maximum salary. The standard for bishops is evidently becoming more simple and more democratic. with consequent advantage to the Church. If you fix in this Bill a minimum, that minimum really sets the standard, and it is for these reasons that I propose to reduce the minimum by £1,000.
  Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the tendency is to fix a lesser salary for the purpose of founding bishoprics. In old days, not very old days, the minimum was set at £3,000. Some years ago it was reduced, but in the Act of 1878 it was £3,000. Since then there have been some Bills, three in all, in which the minimum salary has been further reduced and put at £2,500. We propose to adhere to that, and I do not think in view of the facts there will be any desire to further reduce it. The Committee will agree that we have taken a reasonable course in proposing this minimum, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
  Mr. KING: I am very glad to have the opportunity of stating that the view is. steadily growing as admitted by the Home Secretary that the standard should be reduced, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember this if he has occasion to draft any fresh bishopric Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman has taken no note of the strong point I made as to the financial position of the country and a greater difficulty in collecting money. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  WILLS. (SOLDIERS AND SAILORS) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Hewart): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  I can explain in two or three sentences the scope of this Bill. It amends the law with respect to testamentary dispositions by soldiers and sailors, and its object is to explain and extend Section 11 of the Wills Act, 1837. That Section provided that any soldier being in actual military service, or any mariner or seaman being at sea, may dispose of his personal estate as he might have done before the passing of the Act. In other words, so far as personal estate alone was concerned, a person to whom the Section applied might make a testamentary disposition of his property without writing and without the presence of two witnesses. The object of the present Bill is to accomplish four simple and useful things. In the first place, it explains that the Section I have just referred to not only authorises the persons to whom it applies to make an informal will, but authorises, and has always authorised them so to do, although they may be under the age of twenty-one years. The effect of the explanation is to remove certain doubts which have been raised by a recent judgment of a learned judge of the Chancery Division. The second object of the Bill is to extend the operation of the Section so far as mariners or seamen are concerned. The law already protects the soldier wherever he is, and whatever his ditty may be for the moment so long as he is in actual military service. But in the case of the mariner or seaman its operation is limited to the time when he is actually at sea. The Bill gets rid of this anomaly. It extends the benefits of the provisions of the Act of 1837 to a member of the naval or marine forces whenever he is so circumstanced that, if he were a soldier, he would be in actual military service. The third object of the Bill, and, in a sense, no doubt its primary object, is to assimilate in these respects the law relating to the disposition of real property to the law relating to the disposition of personal property. Section 11 of the Act of 1837 is limited to wills relating to personal property; this Bill gives the same
  1404
  enabling provisions with respect to the disposition of real property. And, finally, in order to get rid of the effect of another quite recent decision, the Bill provides that in the like summary form a soldier or a sailor may by will appoint a guardian of his infant children. This Bill has already been passed through all its stages in another place, and I need not dwell further on its useful and timely provisions. I hope that the House, in view of its simplicity and its urgency, may not only give it a Second Reading now, but may pass it forthwith through all its stages.
  Resolved, "That the House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—[Lord E. Talbot.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and Reported, without amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  SECRET SITTINGS.
  Standing Order No. 90 (" Withdrawal of Strangers from the House").
  Amendment made: At end thereof, add the words "Provided that an Order made under this Standing Order shall not apply to Members of the House of Lords."—[Mr. Boner Law.]
  Ordered, That the Lords Message [22nd November], communicating Resolutions relative to Secret Sittings of the House be now considered.
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Lords in the First Resolution.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to their Lordships to acquaint them therewith and to inform their Lordships that this House hath made the necessary amendment to its Standing Order relative to the withdrawal of strangers from the House.—[Mr. Boner Law.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes before Eight o'clock.