Commons Sitting of 6 May 1918

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Chepstow Gas Bill [Lords],
Morecambe Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, at a Quarter-past Eight of the clock.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM LOSSES (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Schedule to the First Report of the Royal Commission appointed to consider and report what compensation should be paid in respect of losses incurred through the exercise by the Crown of its rights and duties in the Defence of the Realm [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SWISS CREDITS.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 17th April, 1918, as to arrangements with certain Banks in connection with a Swiss Credit [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ROYAL OBSERVATORY (EDINBURGH).
Copy presented of the Twenty-eighth Annual Report of the Astronomer Royal for Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GREEK LOAN.
Account presented up to 31st December, 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
GREEK LOAN OF 1898.
Account presented up to 31st March, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1885.
Account presented up to 31st March, 1918 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
IMPERIAL OTTOMAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1855.
Copy presented of Account for the year 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE).
Return ordered, "relating to Imperial Revenue (Collection and Expenditure) (Great Britain and Ireland) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1918 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 133, of Session 1917–18)."—[Mr. Lough.]
Return ordered, "showing, for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1918, (1) the amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, to the Revenue collected by the Imperial officers; (2) the Expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the balances of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, which arc available for Imperial Expenditure (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 134, of Session 1917–18)."—[Mr. Lough.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    IMPERIAL CONTINENTAL GAS ASSOCIATION.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that an English concern in Germany known as the Imperial Continental Gas Association, which had a

    1833
    practical monopoly of the gas supply in Berlin and its suburbs, has been taken over by the German Gas Company, Limited, he can assure the English shareholders in this concern that they will be compensated for their loss out of the German business in this country?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): The question of compensating British subjects injured by the action of the German Government, out of German property in this country, depends on the decision which may ultimately be taken as to the disposal of such property as is now vested in the custodian. Meantime it is open to persons in this country to register their claims against enemy Governments with the Foreign Claims Office, and I understand that such a claim has, in fact, been registered by the Imperial Continental Gas Association.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not in a position to state that this company has, during the War, received a very large sum from Germany in respect of its properties at Frankfurt-on-Maine?
    Sir A. STANLEY: No; I am not aware of it.

    LIGHTING, HEATING, AND POWER ORDER.
    Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the rationing of coke as well as coal has had the desired effect of reducing consumption; whether he is aware that large stocks of coke are now accumulating in the yards of the gas companies owing to the fact that consumers prefer coal to coke for the ordinary purposes of fuel; and whether, in view of this fact, he can see his way to allow coke to go unrationed, providing that a certain proportion of the fuel used by the consumer for household purposes is coke rather than coal?
    Sir A. STANLEY: The whole question in regard to consumption and stocks of coke has been a subject of careful investigation, and steps are being taken to ensure that all coke produced shall be used, and corresponding economies effected throughout the country in the consumption of coal.
    Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the decision to ration gas upon the
    1834
    present lines has resulted in an increased consumption of coal; whether it is more economical for the nation as a whole that gas rather than coal should be used for ordinary heating purposes; and, if so, whether the decision to ration can be subject to some reconsideration?
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, when the first Coal-Rationing Order was made, many householders, in order to help the Government and to save the consumption of coal, had their houses fitted with gas stoves for heating and cooking purposes; whether ho is aware that, on the recent Order for gas reduction, many of those people will be forced to purchase coal for these purposes; will he state what is the effect the new Order on coal will have on these consumers; and, in view of the hardship these recent Orders on gas and coal will have on householders who have done their utmost to help the Government in these matters will he reconsider the whole matter and also allow this House to discuss it before any final decision is made?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am aware that a considerable number of gas appliances for heating and cooking were installed last year, and that in some of these cases householders may have lately reverted to coal. In connection with the proposed new scheme of coal rationing I am considering whether it may not be practicable to take into account the consumption of gas for heating and cooking purposes, but I must warn householders that whether their fuel is in the form of coal or gas a very material reduction in consumption is absolutely necessary.
    Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: In the calculations made, could not note be taken of the gas and electric current used in conjunction with the use of coal and coke—the whole taken into account—so that if there is a reduction of one of these constituents there may be an increased allowance of the other?
    Sir A. STANLEY: If the hon. Gentleman will recall my answer, he will recollect that his suggestion that consideration should be given to the users of gas—and probably of electricity—will be considered with the question of the rationing of coal.
    Mr. GILBERTasked what effect the new rationing Gas Order will have on people who use gas for motor cars; and

    1835
    whether their consumption is being cut down in the same way that household consumption has been reduced?
    Sir A. STANLEY: In the case of persons using gas for motor cars drawn from their own source of supply for other purposes, the restriction of the new Order will have effect, but this does not apply to the case of persons obtaining a supply for motor vehicles from other sources, and the method of dealing with this matter is under consideration.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that the gas companies have informed consumers who have their own charging stations for gas on their own premises, which is taken off the same meter, that no notice will be taken of the extra quantity consumed?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am not aware that any such notice has been given. As I indicated in my reply, we are taking the subject under consideration at once.
    Sir F. HALL: Owing to the importance of the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the gas companies?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I will look into the matter.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of motor cars and wagons for which permission has been given in London for the use of gas; if he will state if the quantity of gas per car is limited; and if any fresh licences have been issued since the recent Gas-Rationing Order?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I regret that, without an amount of labour which would not be justified, it is not. possible to state the number of motor vehicles in any particular area for which permission has been given for the use of gas. The permit does not limit the amount of gas which may be used, but the purposes for which the car may be used are restricted. The issue of new permits was suspended in London and other parts of England before the date of the Lighting, Heating, and Power Order.

    INSURANCE POLICES (MEN KILLED IN ACTION).
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that certain cases in connection with the insurance policies of men killed in action were lately examined by the Director of
    1836
    Public Prosecutions; whether in connection with these cases there was evidence of alteration of policies by means of forgery on the part of the servants of the Prudential Assurance Company; whether any recommendations have been received in relation to these oases in order that the agents of insurances companies who fraudulently alter policies of men killed in action may be made the subject of a criminal prosecution; and, if the recommendations have been received, will the matter be immediately dealt with by the authorities, in view of the many pledges given by the Government that the interests of the serving men will be protected?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am aware that certain complaints in connection with insurance policies, one of which was on the life of a man killed in action, have recently been investigated by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who came to the conclusion that the evidence obtained was insufficient on which to found a criminal charge. There is no reason why an agent fraudulently altering a policy should not be made the subject of a criminal prosecution if the evidence obtainable is sufficient, and no recommendation for an alteration of the law in this respect has been made.
    Major HUNT: Did not the right hon. Gentleman receive a recommendation from the Director of Public Prosecutions saying that there should be power to prosecute these people if they did alter these policies, and did he state that he did not appear to have the power to do so?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am not aware of any such recommendation made, but I will make further inquiry.
    Mr. WING: Is it not a fact that this company have paid very large sums of money to people insured on peace terms, and have given them the benefit of war risks without any extra charge; further, is there not in this question a reflection upon a very large class of men who have done their best for the country; further—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of some of those questions.

    MERCHANT SERVICE (RECOGNITION OF HEROISM).
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has

    1837
    yet come to a decision for recognising the heroism of merchant sailors, who although having been on board torpedoed ships, in some cases more than once, still carry on by going to sea?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am afraid I can only repeat what I have told the right hon. Gentleman on previous occasions, that there will be no available delay in dealing with this matter, and that he will be informed as soon as a decision is arrived at. If he wishes, I shall be very pleased to explain to him privately how the matter stands at present.

    RAILWAY TRAFFIC (RACE MEETINGS).
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can announce the arrangements that will be made to curtail tramp on the railways; and whether special railway trains will still continue to form part of the means of locomotion to racecourses?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I hope shortly to have an opportunity of making a statement with regard to the restrictions which I regret it is necessary to apply to railway travelling. The question whether horse-racing should be continued is now being considered by the War Cabinet.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will special railway trains still continue to form the means of locomotion to racecourses?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I have tried to indicate in my reply that until the War Cabinet has given their decision in regard to horse-racing I cannot give any definite reply as to the trains that may be run.
    Sir C HENRY: Are there additional trains at present in connection with race meetings?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Has the right hon. Gentleman not power to prevent special trains being run for race meetings?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I am not aware that any special trains are being run for race meetings. It is, I think, true that in order to deal with the traffic, which is probably increased by racing, extra trains are being run.
    Mr. KENNEDY JONES: Is it not a fact that you cannot go to a race meeting to-
    1838
    day except by train; you have laid down a regulation that you cannot use your motor car for that purpose?
    HON. MEMBERS: You can walk!

    COAL MINES (CONTROL).
    Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that claims have been made against the Controller of Coal Mines for sum due from him under his guarantee contained in the agreement scheduled to the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918, and that such claims have not been met; whether, in view of the assurances which were made in Parliament by the Government on the passing of the Act that the Controller would act reasonably in dealing with applications for payments to the coalowners on account of moneys due to them under the guarantee, he will direct the Controller of Coal Mines to make such payments accordingly; and whether the Controller of Coal Mines has any moneys in hand out of which to make such payments?
    Sir A. STANLEY: Payments of claims under the Coal Mines Agreement have been dealt with as promptly as possible, though delays have occurred in certain cases owing to the failure of the claimants to furnish requisite information. In cases of urgency in which are immediate settlement is not possible payments on account have been made.
    Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if any figures are now available showing what saving, if any, has been effected in the train mileage on the English railways by the Controller of Coal Mines' scheme for redistribution of output; what proportion of such saving is due to the reduction of output in the English area; and what proportion, if any, to the Controller's scheme?
    Sir A. STANLEY: I indicated in the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member on 3rd December that estimates had been prepared by certain railway companies of the saving actually effected, and these tended to confirm the original estimated saving for the country as a whole. Owing to the enormous amount of work involved and the necessity for economy in clerical work, some of the railways have not found it practicable to compile precise details as to the effect of

    1839
    the scheme, but are satisfied as to the help which the scheme has afforded in the present difficult state of railway transport. The estimated saving in train mileage in connection with the scheme did not include any saving which might be due to reduced output. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would care to do so, the Controller of Coal Mines will be delighted to go into the figures with him in greater detail than it is possible to do by way of question and answer.

  INDIA.

    OFFICERS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of his previous promises regarding Indian officers' pensions, he is now prepared to direct that no officer in the Indian Army shall be required during the War to draw less pay than the pension he has earned?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I am not aware of any case in which an officer of the Indian Army is required to draw less pay than the pension ho has earned. If the hon. Member has in mind the deduction made from the unemployed pay of an officer of the Indian Army when he is employed by the War Office, the aggregate pay drawn by the officer is always more than the pension he would receive were he on the retired list.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If I give the right hon. Gentleman a concrete case of a general officer, will he kindly inquire into it?
    Mr. FISHER: Yes.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Sir ARTHUR FELLasked if the whole of the missionaries of German nationality have been removed from India; if some missionaries now described as Swiss are of doubtful advantage in India; and why these persons should be allowed to move about the country?
    Mr. FISHER: Early in 1916 the Government of India, in accordance with a policy then decided on, repatriated the great body of missionaries of enemy nationality. Exceptions were allowed only in cases where, by reason of age, sex, prolonged
    1840
    residence out of Europe or other similar circumstances, removal from India was unnecessary and would have been a hardship.
    Missionaries of Swiss nationality in India, so long as their conduct is irreproachable, enjoy the same freedom of movement as other neutrals. The authorities have full powers. extending to removal from India, to deal with any foreigner who wrongly describes his nationality or is found to work adversely against British interests.
    Sir A. FELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a band of German spying missionaries roaming about in India since the autumn of last year?
    Mr. FISHER: I am not aware of it.
    Mr. GEORGE FABER: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that where age or sex are concerned it is not necessary to interfere with Germans in India. Does that exception apply where the German nation is concerned?
    Sir R. COOPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that adequate steps are taken to make sure that people who call themselves of Swiss nationality really are Swiss and not German, who, for the moment, claim to be of Swiss nationality?
    Mr. FISHER: Yes, Sir.
    Sir J. D. REES: Are not German-Swiss as bad as Germans?
    Sir A. FELLasked if it is certain that all German elements and influence have been eliminated from India; if some of the factories previously known as German are now running as Swiss factories; and if it is certain that there is no German capital or influence behind them?
    Mr. FISHER: There is no reason to think that the measures taken by the Government of India to eliminate German interests and influence from India have been ineffective.
    There are certain factories in Southern India connected with a well-known mission under German influence in which Swiss agency is employed, but steps have been taken to secure the elimination from these concerns of German capital and influence.
    Sir A. FELL: Are not some of these factories being run at a great profit, and

    1841
    is it certain that these factories are not being reserved for German interests in the future?
    Mr. FISHER: I am not aware of the extent of the profits, but these trading concerns are being closely looked into.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    TEA.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, since exports of tea to the United Kingdom from India have been restricted and the importation of foreign-grown tea has been prohibited, exports of tea from Java to America and Canada have risen in 1917 to 32,568,000 half-kilos as against 632,000 half-kilos exported in the previous year; and whether, if so, ho has any information to the effect that Canada has any intention of restricting her imports of tea to such produce as is British grown?
    Mr. FISHER: The Secretary of State has no information that the Government of Canada propose to restrict the importation of foreign-grown tea.

    SUPPLEMENTARY RATIONS.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can state precisely how many individuals, and what sections of the population, are obtaining a higher scale of food rations; whether more than one alternative scale has been set up; what extra quantities are given in each grade; how the extra rations are obtained; who decides as to the persons qualified and the amount to be distributed; and whether women or children in any circumstances are entitled to them?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I regret that I cannot state precisely how many individuals are obtaining a higher scale of food rations. Returns have been asked for from the food committees, but they have only been received as yet in a certain proportion of cases. So far as civilians are concerned, heavy manual workers obtain two extra meat coupons a week valid for the purchase of any meat other than uncooked butcher's meat. There is no differentiation of supplementary rations between different classes of heavy workers. A certain number of women are included in this class. Adole-
    1842
    scent boys from thirteen to eighteen obtain half this amount, while an additional meat meal is provided for persons working a specified amount of overtime at night after a full day. I have already stated how these rations are obtained. The food control committees are ordinarily the deciding authorities, but act under general instructions from the Ministry of Food. I may repeat that the present arrangements are provisional.
    Mr. SMALLWOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether sorters in the postal service are being granted supplementary food cards in certain London boroughs and denied 1o the same class of workers in other London boroughs; and will be take steps to ensure uniformity of treatment in all districts?
    Mr. CLYNES: Only sorters in travelling post offices are entitled to supplementary rations under the instructions issued to food control committees. Inquiry will be made as to any cases in which supplementary cards have been issued to other classes of sorters in London.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in some London boroughs these supplementary rations are issued to sorters and not in others; for instance, in Wandsworth they do not get them, while in Fulham they do?
    Mr. CLYNES: I am not aware of that, as my answer indicates. I shall be glad of any information on any case.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I have given you a case.

    MILK (WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION).
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the names of the members of the Committee recently appointed to inquire into the supply and distribution of milk; the terms of reference; and if the Committee's Report may be expected at an early date?
    Mr. CLYNES: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the Sub-Committee recently appointed to consider the question of the control of the wholesale distribution of milk. I am sending him a list of the names of its members, and this will be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Its terms of reference are to consider:

    (1) The immediate steps necessary for the control of the collection, utilisation, and distribution of milk sold by wholesale.

    1843

    (2) The need for establishing new depots, and the geographical allocation of such depots.

    The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    The following is the list referred to:
    Sub-Committee on Government Control of Wholesale Distribution of Milk.

    Mr. W. Buckley (Chairman), Director of Milk Supplies, Ministry of Food.

    Mr. Athelstone Rendall, M.P.

    Sir Beville Stanier, M.P.

    Mr. Gershom Stewart, M.P.

    Mr. Robert Harcourt, M.P.

    Mr. T. Richardson, M.P.

    Mrs. Cotterell, Consumers Council.

    Mr. O. T. Crump.

    Mr. J. F. Blackshaw, Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

    Sir Robert Wright, Board of Agriculture for Scotland.

    Dr. A. W. J. MacFadden, Local Government Board (England).

    Major G. R. Leighton, M.D., Local Government Board (Scotland).

    Mr. H. G. Judd, Ministry of Munitions.

    Dr. D. Newton, Ministry of Reconstruction.

    Mr. E. M. H. Lloyd, Ministry of Food.

    Mr. W. Peat, Ministry of Food.

    Mr. H. Hoare, Ministry of Food.

    Mr. H. J. Youngs, Co-operative Wholesale Society.

    Mr. J. C. Robinson, Sussex, farmer.

    Mr. J. Mackintosh (Secretary).

    DOG FOOD.
    General COLVINasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in order to allay public agitation, he will state whether the manufacture of dog food will be continued; whether the necessity of preserving the various canine breeds has been appreciated; and whether the lap-dog variety will be considered as a taxable luxury?
    Mr. CLYNES: I can add nothing to my answer, given on Thursday last, to the hon. Member for Devizes, except to say that the points referred to in the question will be borne in mind.

    BACON.
    Mr. SMALLWOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the fact that, at a meeting of the Liverpool City Council held on 1st May,
    1844
    the town clerk stated that he had repeatedly given licences to sell bacon without coupons to save it going bad; and whether, in view of the surplus of bacon and other foods in Liverpool and the shortage of certain foodstuffs in London, he will take steps to increase the supplies to London?
    Mr. CLYNES: I have seen in the newspapers reports of the statement to which the hon. Member refers. There has been no shortage of bacon in London compared with other places, but, in view of the large supplies of bacon now reaching the United Kingdom, it has been decided to raise the quantity which may be purchased on surrender of a coupon. The decision was announced in the Press last Saturday.

    DEVONSHIRE BUTTER.
    Mr. PETOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether in certain markets in Devonshire butter is being taken home unsold, as on the existing scale of ration it cannot be sold; and whether, in view of the increased summer milk yield, it is proposed to increase the ration during the summer months?
    Mr. CLYNES: I have seen this statement in the Press, but I gather that the difficulties were exceptional. Arrangements are now being made to authorise the purchase by householders for preserving purposes of quantities of butter beyond the ration allowance, and to collect surplus quantities of butter with a view to storage for winter use. It is not proposed to increase the ration of butter and margarine during the summer months.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: In these matters cannot the local food committee have discretionary powers in order to prevent any large quantity of butter being spoiled during the coming hot weather?
    Mr. CLYNES: I should hope that local committees would take action to prevent the spoiling of any butter. It is the desire of the Ministry now not so much to increase the consumption as to be certain that there will be adequate quantities for winter use.
    Mr. LOUGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the export of butter from Ireland is yet permitted?
    Mr. CLYNES: I should like notice, in order to see whether any change has taken place.

    POTATOES.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food under what authority it is proposed to restrict the importation of potatoes from the Norman Islands; and by what authority he proposes to oblige the farmers of Jersey to sell their potatoes at a price which is less than the market value and, indeed, under cost price?
    Mr. CLYNES: I would refer the hon. Member to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs as regards the first part of his question. I am not aware of any intention to oblige the Jersey farmers to sell their potatoes at a price which is less than cost price.

    MINISTRY OF FOOD.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Prime Minister who is now in control of, and responsible to Parliament for, the policy and action of the Ministry of Food?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): My Noble Friend Lord Rhondda.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury the total quantity of sugar on which duty was paid in the year ended 31st March, 1918; and what this works out in pounds weight per head of the population?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The quantity of sugar, refined and unrefined, retained for home consumption in the year ended 31st March, 1918, was 1,037,400 tons, representing 50 lbs. per head. If the sugar contained in imported composite goods is included, the total is 1,068,400 tons, representing 52 lbs. per head. Molasses, glucose, and saccharine are not included in the foregoing figures.
    Mr. LOUGH: Will that include sugar supplied to the Army in France and importations of every kind?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The question asked the quantity on which duty was paid and the amount per head in weight. The answer is as I have given it. If the right hon. Gentleman wants any further information, if he will put down a question I shall be very pleased to answer it.

    AGRICULTURAL LAND (INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT).
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the wholesale co-operative societies have recently bought a further 4,000 acres of land in Gloucestershire, making a total in the past two years of 25,000 acres of land purchased; whether he is aware that the society propose to occupy this land for the purpose of agriculture; and whether, in these circumstances, the privileged position of co-operative societies in respect of payment of Income Tax will extend to them in their capacity as farmers, or whether the society will be required to pay the same Income Tax as other occupiers of land for agricultural purposes under the proposed provisions of the new Finance Bill?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer my hon. Friend to the provisions of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, from which he will see that the exemption from Income Tax conferred upon co-operative societies within the scope of that Act is confined to Schedules C and D of the Income Tax Acts, and does not afford relief from the duty chargeable in respect of the ownership or occupation of land
    Mr. PETO: Would not the profit on farming this land come under Schedule D if the co-operative societies elected to be charged upon the actual profits made, and in that case would they not be excused altogether?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think not. I will look into it, and if the hon. Member will put down a definite question I will answer it.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether under his Budget it is proposed that policies and lands attached to and occupied with residences shall be compulsorily assessed to Income Tax on the basis of twice their annual value under Schedule B, or whether the option of assessment under Schedule D promised by him will be extended to them; (2) whether under his Budget proposals woodlands are to be compulsorily assessed at twice their annual value under Schedule B, or whether the option of assessment under Schedule D will in all cases be extended to them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The option of election for assessment to Income Tax under Schedule D instead of Schedule B is confined to lands occupied for the purposes of husbandry only, and to woodlands managed on a commercial basis and with a view to the realisation of profits.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the fact that nearly all farms are occupied under a Michaelmas or Lady Day entry and that the farming year, upon which Income Tax under Schedule D is assessed, will be calculated from one or other of those dates, if he will state how it is proposed to enable fanners who have not already a valuation of their stock and crops as at the material date to avail themselves of their right to be assessed under Schedule D?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In the absence of an election for assessment under Schedule D—that is, on the average of the three preceding years—a farmer would be assessed under Schedule B in the ordinary course, but in that case, if he finds that his actual profits for the year are less than the amount of the assessment, he can claim a corresponding reduction of the charge, and figures for the one year only will be required. As I have previously stated, all possible assistance will be afforded in any case in which a farmer finds difficulty in establishing his claim.
    Captain WRIGHT: Is the farmer to be allowed that for one year or on the average of three years?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My answer says that if the farmer did not elect to come under Schedule D and made a claim it would be on the profits for one year only.
    Major E. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say up to what date it will be open to a farmer to come under Schedule B?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say that without looking into it.

  MR. K. D. NABOKOFF (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the application of Mr. K. D. Nabokoff for financial assistance from the British Government was made to or through the
  1848
  Foreign Office, or directly or indirectly through any other Department; if any other Department was the channel of Mr. Nabokoff's application, which Department was concerned; whether he has recommended that Mr. K. D. Nabokoff's application is granted; whether Grants were made to Mr. K. D. Nabokoff for certain objects or on certain conditions; and, if so, what were those objects and/or conditions?
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): Mr. Nabokoff's representations have been made direct to the Foreign Office on this matter. The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the fourth and fifth parts, no conditions have been attached to these advances, nor have any specific objects been formulated.
  Mr. KING: How much was given to Mr. Nabokoff?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I should think that information can be obtained if the hon. Member will put down a question.

  RUSSIA (FRENCH AMBASSADOR).
  Mr. KINGasked whether Mr. Noulens, the French Ambassador in Russia, sends information concerning affairs in Petrograd and Russia to the French Government which is communicated to the Foreign Office?
  MR. BALFOUR: Yes; sometimes.

  SIBERIA (ANGLO-AMERICAN MISSION).
  Mr. KINGasked whether the Anglo-American Mission has reached Volgoda on the return journey from Siberia, where it has investigated the alleged arming of German prisoners; and whether he is aware that Mr. George Tchitcherine, the Russian Commissionary for Foreign Relations, has stated that this mission has declared that there is no truth in the German prisoner allegation?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The British officer who went to Siberia for the purpose mentioned has, I believe, returned to Moscow. I have no information as regards the

  1849
  American officer. I have not heard of the alleged statement referred to in the last part of the question.
  Mr. WHYTE: Under whose orders was the British officer acting?
  Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the purport of this mission, as conveyed to us by Mr. Tchit-cherine is the same as that conveyed by the officer to the authorities here?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I have already indicated in the answer I have given that I have not heard of the alleged statement by Mr. Tchitcherine.

  DISABLED SOLDIERS (LAND SETTLEMENT).
  Mr. P. A. HARRISasked how many soldiers are settled on the land provided by his Department for disabled soldiers; whether he has now exhaused his powers of purchase; and whether he intends to seek powers from Parliament to buy more land for this purpose?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (SirRichard Winfrey): There are at the present time twenty ex-soldiers at work on the colonies. These men have been selected from 266 applicants, of whom eighty-eight are men still serving in the forces and are not, therefore, immediately eligible, 100 have been definitely rejected as not likely to make successful settlers or have withdrawn their applications, and fifty-three arc under consideration. In reply to the remainder of the question, the Board have cither bought or leased land up to the limit named in the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916, and a Bill will shortly be introduced with the object of extending their powers of obtaining additional land for the purpose.
  Mr. HARRIS: Will the Bill be produced this Session?
  Sir R. WINFREY: Yes.
  Major HUNT: Will the hon. Member say if the Board is going to buy anything like land enough for the number of soldiers who want to go back on the land; is this going to be a really big affair or the usual Government tinkering?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: As you have only placed some twenty of these men on the
  1850
  land, is there any reasonable possibility of dealing with land settlement under these conditions?
  Sir R. WINFREY: These colonies are being prepared for men on demobilisation.
  Sir R. COOPER: Are we going to wait until the end of the War before any discharged soldiers are put on to the land? Are they not wanted more to-day than after the War?
  Sir R. WINFREY: We have already had 266 applications, of which 100 have been definitely rejected as not being likely to become successful settlers; 53 cases are under consideration of men who have been demobilised, and 88 are still in the Army.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: How long has it taken to settle twenty men on the land, and when did the operation start?
  Sir R. WINFREY: Eighteen months.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: Are any steps taken to train these men and fib them for taking up these holdings?
  Sir R. WINFREY: The Small Holding Colonies Act is limited to men who have had agricultural experience who want to settle on the land. This is not a training colony.

  MUNITIONS.

    WORKERS' HOUSES, BELLSHILL AND CAMBUSLANG.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has received complaints respecting the rents fixed by his Department for houses in Bellshill and Cambuslang; whether these rents are from £8 to £10 more than is charged for houses of a similar kind in these districts; whether one ward committee has refused to let the houses as a protest against the rents asked; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The houses in question form part of a scheme of 350 houses erected by the Ministry of Munitions under an arrangement that they will be taken over after the War by the local authorities. The rents fixed are higher than the rents of houses in the district of a similar type built before the War, but the increase only partially covers the increase in cost of building. The rents have been fixed to

    1851
    obtain an economic return on 70 per cent. of the total cost of the houses, 30 per cent. of the cost being written off as being due to special war conditions. The Ministry have agreed to undertake the management of the houses.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to reply to the question whether it is true that one of the committees refused to let the houses?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: It is a fact that there was some difficulty with one of the committees, and that is why the Ministry has undertaken to manage the houses.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether any inquiry is being made as to whether it is economically possible for the tenants to pay these high rents?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I myself had negotiations with the local authorities, and these arrangements have been come to in consequence.

    MESSRS. ELLIOTTS, NEWBURY.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that Messrs. Elliotts, a firm of moulders and joiners, at Newbury, Berks, have dismissed several girls because of their membership of a trade union, and that, prior to reinstating these girls, this firm has made the girls sign a paper stating they were not, and would not become, members of a trade union; whether he is aware that the firm is controlled by his Department and that the action complained of is illegal; and whether he will make inquiry into this matter, with a view to its prompt treatment?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I have not completed the inquiries into this case, and shall be glad if my hon. Friend will repeat his question on Thursday.

  CANNEL COAL.
  Captain BARNETTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions how many modified plants for the distillation of petroleum from cannel coal are now in operation at gasworks in Great Britain; and what production has been obtained to date?
  Mr. KELLAWAY: It is not desirable in the public interest to give details of production, but it may be stated definitely that gasworks in Great Britain are either now modified or in process of modification to enable all the cannel coal which is known to be available to be carbonised for the production of oil. For the information of the hon. Member it may be stated that the process so far has been an unqualified success and the results are even better than were expected.
  Captain BARNETT: How many plants are there in operation? That is the question.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: The answer I have given is that we have now either in. operation or arranged for sufficient plants for all the cannel coal available. I cannot give the definite figure.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    MEDICAL GRADING (CARDIFF BOARD).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of National Service if he will have special inquiry made into the case of Mr. Rees Jones, 23, Queen Street, Dowlais, who has been put in Grade 1 notwithstanding the fact that he has produced three doctors' certificates describing his physical disabilities, one of which states that on several occasons he has attended him for appendicitis, and that it is only by exercising the utmost care as regards his diet and general health that he avoids a recurrence of this ailment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of NATIONAL SERVICE (Mr. Beck): Inquiries have been made into the case of Mr. Rees Jones and a full report has been received, to the effect that he was carefully examined by the No. 1 Cardiff Medical Board, which consists entirely of civilian doctors. The Report shows that full consideration was given to the medical certificates produced by Mr. Rees Jones, and special mention is made in the Report sent to me of the fact that in the past he had been attended for appendicitis. After a thorough examination the Board unanimously classified Mr. Rees Jones as being in Grade 1.

    PERMANENTLY UNFIT MEN.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Minister of National Service whether the words "offer-

    1853
    ing themselves for enlistment," in paragraph 4 c of the Schedule of exempted persons in the Military Service Act, relating to the exemption of men who, since 5th April, 1917, have been rejected as being totally and permanently unfit for any form of military service, cover men who did not volunteer but waited until they were called up in the ordinary way?
    Mr. BECK: I think the hon. Member's question raises a matter of the construction of the Act, and that, accordingly, it is not desirable that I should deal directly with it; but I may state that the practice is that under general Instructions issued in April, 1917, and still current, a man is not to be called up for service or for medical examination if he has been duly found to be totally and permanently unfit for any form of military service, and he is given a certificate showing that he is discharged from liability to be called up for military service.
    Mr. HOGGE: Could the hon. Gentleman say who is able to tell us what is the construction of the Act if it is not the persons who are administering it, and will he deal with the question which I have asked, namely, whether the words in the Act cover the case of all men or only those who really offered themselves and did not wait until the Order was issued for calling them up?
    Mr. BECK: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware of the fact that this rather intricate legal point was submitted to a Committee of Law and that a decision was given. It is really a highly technical legal point, and it would be unfortunate to deal with it here by question and answer.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that the National Service Department have given instructions construing these words as if they cover all these men whether they offered themselves voluntarily or came up for service under the Military Service Act?
    Mr. BECK: My hon. Friend had better look at the answer that I have given, which, I think, covers the point.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman say when any case was decided in a Court of law subsequent to the passing of the Act? It never has been decided.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: What was the decision to which the hon. Gentleman referred?
    Mr. BECK: The case was one in which a man offered himself voluntarily two days before he was required to report himself. I forget the date of it. The Court gave a decision in his favour.
    Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Law Officers and give a considered reply?
    Mr. BECK: It is not in the least necessary. It is a purely technical point, and the administration is entirely in favour of the men.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Minister of National Service (1) whether, in accordance with the undertaking he gave during the passage of the Military Service Act, he has taken steps to appoint a Committee to deal with the release of men of military age now employed in Government offices; does this Committee consist of members who have already gained experience on military tribunals and are unconnected with any Government Department themselves; (2) whether he intends to employ an independent Committee, unconnected with his own Department, to grant releases for military service to men of military age now employed in his Department?
    Mr. BECK: My right hon. Friend has invited a large and distinguished body to act as his representatives in the forthcoming inquiry into the exemptions from military service held by men of military age in the employment of Government Departments. This body will form a panel, consisting of gentlemen not in the Civil Service, many of whom have had experience of tribunal work, and will, I hope, include Members of both Houses of Parliament and representatives of various professions and of business pursuits. The list will be published as soon as it is settled. It is intended that representatives from this panel shall be allocated to the inquiry held in each Department, and that at each inquiry the Department concerned shall be represented. As far as possible the inquiries will be carried on simultaneously, so that the whole investigation may be completed as soon as possible. The Ministry of National Service will, of course, be dealt with in exactly the same way as other Government offices.
    Major NEWMAN: Will the gentlemen on this tribunal be unconnected with any Government Department?
    Mr. BECK: I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend means by unconnected with any Government Department. It would be very difficult to find any distinguished gentlemen of to-day unconnected with Government Departments.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it to be understood that the decision of this tribunal will be binding, and that there will be no power left to the separate Departments to override the decision?
    Mr. BECK: No; the final power rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service.
    Sir C. HENRY: When is it proposed to issue the return that was promised of all those of military age employed in Government Departments?
    Mr. BECK: I hope very soon, but I will inquire.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will there be any discharged men on this panel?
    Mr. BECK: I had better have notice of that question.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman see that Government Departments cease to enrol further men of military age while this inquiry is going on?
    Mr. BECK: I will consider that point.
    Major NEWMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what is the number of men employed at his Ministry under the age of forty-one; how many of these have been classified as fit for some form of military service; and what Instructions have been issued to prevent the future employment in his Department of men under the age of forty-five if they have been passed fit for any form of military service?
    Mr. CLYNES: The number of men under the age of forty-one on the headquarters staff of the Ministry is 370. Of these 120 are on loan from the War Office or have been discharged from the Army. Of the remainder, 225 have been classified as fit for some form of military service, and of these a very large majority have been placed in Grade 3, or corresponding categories. It is considered that Grade 3 men who have any special qualification for the work of the Ministry
    1856
    of Food are of greater value to the nation in that Ministry than elsewhere. A committee or tribunal consisting of members of the Ministry of National Service and of this Ministry has been engaged for some months in reviewing the military position of the male staff of the Ministry, and no man fit for any form of military duty will be retained without the consent of the Ministry of National Service.
    Major NEWMAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many men of military age are employed outside the Ministry, not in London, but in other parts of the country?
    Mr. CLYNES: I should require notice of that question, which would involve a great deal of extensive investigation.
    Sir F. HALL: Would it not have a great deal better effect it an independent Committee were set up to inquire into this matter, instead of representatives of the different Departments, who are very interested in keeping these men?
    Mr. CLYNES: I think that the interests of the Army may be entrusted to the National Service Department.
    Sir F. HALL: I do not think so.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the men loaned from the War Office who are not discharged men are of military age?
    Mr. CLYNES: My answer indicates that many of them are below forty-one years of age.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not a fact that Grade 3 men in the Government Departments are not the same as Grade 3 men in ordinary civil employment, by special arrangement with the medical boards.

    TIME-EXPIRED MEN (RESTORATION OF RANK).
    Major HUNTasked the Minister of National Service whether a time-expired man recalled to the Colours under the new Military Service Act will be entitled to be restored to his former rank?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): Yes, Sir. Any man discharged on the termination of his engagement will, if recalled to the Colours, be restored to his former rank.
    Major HUNTasked the Minister of National Service if an officer or non commissioned officer recalled for service

    1857
    under the new Military Service Act who has previously left or been discharged from the Service will, whether still partially disabled or not, be entitled to be restored to his former rank, as provided by Section 2 of the Review of Exceptions Act now repealed?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The conditions under which former rank can be restored are under consideration.

    MANSFIELD WOODHOUSE LOCAL TRIBUNAL.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Minister of National Service whether his attention has been directed to the recent proceedings of the Mansfield Woodhouse local tribunal and the language used by the National Service representative; and whether he has taken any action in the matter?
    Mr. BECK: Inquiries are being made into this matter.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the hon. Gentleman announce the result of his inquiry in the House?
    Mr. BECK: I will if my hon. Friend will put down a question.

    ENFORCEMENT OF ACT (IRELAND).
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether the enforcement of the Military Service Act in Ireland has been postponed; and, if so, to what date?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the statement which the Prime Minister made in the House on the 29th April, when he clearly indicated the intentions of the Government, which have undergone no change.
    Mr. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when or before what date the Order in Council will not be laid before the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I cannot make a statement of that kind.

  SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
  Sir ALFRED YEOasked the Minister of National Service whether, with reference to the proposed extension of the hours of duty of special constables, and having regard to the fact that hardships already exist, both to employers and employés, where men working at high
  1858
  pressure have to perform these duties in the national interests, he will give instructions to tribunals when dealing with future exemptions to modify, or remove altogether, the imposition of such duties in cases where the persons concerned are engaged in work of national importance; whether it is intended to draft into the special constabulary men in lower medical categories as well as those exempted by tribunals, also Civil servants and W Reserve men; and whether, in the event of illness or disablement resulting from service with the special constabulary, the Government will be prepared to make adequate compensation?
  Mr. BECK: With regard to the first part of the question, the tribunals decide as to the reasonableness of the conditions which they attach to certificates of exemption in individual cases, and any instructions to tribunals on the subject would be prepared and issued by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board.
  As to the second part of the question, men exempted by tribunals will not as a body be drafted into the special constabulary, but enrolment as a special constable may be the condition attached at the discretion of the tribunal to the exemption of any individual. It is not intended to draft into the special constabulary Civil servants and W Reserve men. The point raised in the last part of the question should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Homo Secretary.

  RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE.
  Mr. KINGasked the First Commissioner of Works whether India House, Kingsway, Canada House, and Empire House have been for years, and still are, occupied by the Russian Government Committee; whether these buildings have been and/or still are under his control; whether any rent has been and/or is still being paid for them; whether the Russian Government Committee, under which and for whose interests these buildings were occupied, has ceased to exist; whether, as it is the intention of the Russian Government to dissolve itself on or before 1st June, it is intended to take these large buildings, which contain hundreds of rooms, for Government purposes; and

  1859
  what amount, if any, has been paid by and/or is due from the Russian Government Committee in respect of these three large blocks of buildings?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; to the second part, in the affirmative. I have no knowledge of the facts as stated regarding the Russian Government. Arrangements are in progress for utilising any space which may be liberated in these buildings by the proposed dissolution of the Russian Committee of the Commission Internationale de Ravitaillement when this takes place. I have no information on the last part of the question, which should be addressed to the Treasury.

  KEW GARDENS (REFRESHMENT PAVILION).
  Mr. GULLANDasked the First Commissioner of Works why the refreshment pavilion in Kew Gardens has been closed; and whether it will be opened this summer, in view of the large number of visitors to the gardens who wish to have tea during their visit?
  Sir A. MOND: As refreshment facilities in the Royal Parks could not be regarded as essential in war-time, it was decided, in view of the urgent necessity for economy in food and labour, and with the concurrence of the Treasury, to close the refreshment pavilion until after the War.
  Mr. GULLAND: Would it not be worth while for the right hon. Gentleman to attract people to places near London, rather than have them spend their weekends travelling a long distance away?
  Mr. K. JONES: Does this represent the policy of the alternative Government?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is it not a fact that this tea-house was self-supporting?
  Sir A. MOND: I have already stated the reasons why this house was closed, and I cannot add anything to my answer.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Was it or was it not self-supporting?
  Sir A. MOND: I should require notice of that question.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Preamble to the Parliament Act, 1911, contained assurances as to future legislation which have never been acted upon, and, through having proved abortive, have led to much controversy and condemnation by certain prominent members of the War Cabinet and other Ministers of the Crown; and whether, in order to avoid similarly misleading Parliament and the people with regard to the future government of Ireland, care will be taken in drafting the forthcoming Home Rule Bill to dispense with any Preamble?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As the preparation of the Bill is not completed, I cannot make any statement about it.

  PEACE TERMS.
  General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement of the German Treasury Minister, Count von Roedern, of last week, to the effect that he opposed Income Tax as it existed in England on the ground that the war indemnity which Germany will demand from England and America will cover the deficit; and whether, having regard to this statement, he will make it clear that the British Empire under these circumstances re serves its right to exact any indemnities from the German Empire which it may think proper when victory has been secured?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My attention has been called to Count von Roedern's speech in the Reichstag on 23rd April last, but upon the general question I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 29th April last.
  General CROFT: Has not Germany definitely shown us what her stakes are, and is it not highly desirable that somebody representing His Majesty's Government should at an early date state that we do not agree to the principle that heads the Germans win and tails the Allies lose?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is another form of putting the same question.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite agree with that form of putting the question, but we have never accepted, and never would accept, such a definition of our aims.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it on account of this statement of the German Minister that the Minister of Blockade has advised the public to beware of a German peace offensive?

  ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a Departmental Committee has been appointed in order to bring about, by means of amalgamation and pooling of interests in various industries throughout the country, economies in respect of fuel, man-power, transport, etc.; whether, to assist its inquiries, it is proposed to set up advisory committees on which representatives of the industries concerned will occupy seats; if so, whether he will lay the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee upon the Table; and whether he will inform the House what, if any, executive powers have been, or are proposed to be, given to this Committee or the Department to which it will report?
  Sir A. STANLEY: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. No Departmental Committee of such a far-reaching character as the hon. Member suggests has been set up, but he may have in mind the Road Transport Board, which has been established with the following terms of reference:
  "To co-ordinate the work of the existing Government Department in connection with road transport; to determine what further measures are necessary to ensure the most economic use of road transport vehicles and their efficient allocation for meeting such requirements as may arise from time to time for the transport of food, munitions and other war material, and for the essential needs of the trade and industry of the country; and, subject to the direction of the Board of Trade, to give executive effect thereto."
  A central advisory committee and a number of divisional advisory committees have been set up to assist the Road Transport Board, and these committees contain representatives of interests concerned. The Board of Trade possess certain powers with regard to horses and horse-driven vehicles, and it is proposed to obtain further powers to enable other classes of vehicles to be dealt with in case need should arise.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is similar action in any other direction contemplated?
  Sir A. STANLEY: I am not aware of it.

  AIR COUNCIL.
  Mr. P. A. HARRISasked the Prime Minister whether the right hon. Baronet the Member for Blackburn has resigned his position on the Air Council; if so, what is the reason for his resignation; and who has been appointed to take his place?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, AIR MINISTRY (Major Baird): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Blackburn, having been appointed to the Air Council by the late Secretary of State, naturally placed his resignation in the hands of the new Secretary of State, who accepted it, having decided that it is desirable to reduce the size of the Air Council. The vacancy has not been filled.
  Mr. HARRIS: Did the hon. Baronet the Member for Blackburn hold his position on the Air Council as a Member of this House and a Privy Councillor, or as an officer holding a commission?
  Major BAIRD: He was appointed by the late Secretary of State as an additional member. There is no connection either with his membership of this House or with his holding a commission.
  Sir W. ESSEX: Have others, the hon. and gallant Gentleman included, tendered their resignations for the same reason, and have they been accepted or rejected?
  Major BAIRD: The hon. Baronet was an additional member appointed definitely by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that some other appointment is given to the hon. Baronet?

  COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE DE REVITAILLEMENT.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Commission Internationale de Revitaillement has had offices in London, but as the Russian Government was connected with this commission reorganisation or rearrangement has been necessitated; whether any Russian official, representative, or citizen is still connected with this commission; if so, can the name, or names, be given; what salary, remuneration, or payment

  1863
  has been given since 12th March, 1917, to any Russian member, or members, of the commission; and whether he is satisfied that no funds are now being placed at the disposal of Russian agents which the present Russian Government will repudiate?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The Commission Internationale de Revitaillement has, as it has always had, its offices in London, and no general reorganisation has been necessitated by recent events in Russia. A certain proportion of the delegates of the former Russian Government and their employés, both Russian and English, have been retained to transact the necessary business connected with the liquidation and diversion of contracts. In view of the daily changes which are taking place in the number of this staff, no useful information can be given at present as to their names or remuneration. The last part of the question should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

    ELECTION EXPENSES.
    Mr. WATTasked the Prime Minister whether, when the system of proportional representation for the election of 100 Members to this House comes up for consideration, any proposal will be made by the Government to limit the scale of expenses in the constituencies dealt with, in view of the facts that larger areas will arise and that the scale of expenses in the Reform Act will, in such areas, amount to three or five times as much, as the case may be, as those of single-member constituencies?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. Any alteration in the scale of election expenses would require legislation, and in the event of the scheme for proportional representation being adopted by both Houses of Parliament the question of introducing an amending Bill would receive consideration.
    Mr. WATT: Would the amending Bill deal with the question of expenses?
    Sir G. CAVE: That is the meaning of the answer.

  PENSIONS WARRANT.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister why no opportunity was afforded to the House to discuss the increases in the Pensions Warrant before it was issued?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to him on the 13th March, from which he will see that no promise was given that there would be such a discussion before the issue of the Warrant.
  Mr. HOGGE: Why did the Government issue a new warrant which affects the interests of all our constituents without giving the House of Commons an opportunity, which has always been given on the issue of these warrants, of discussing it?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that is a mistake as to fact. I do not agree with the hon. Member at all. I think, in a case of this kind, the responsibility for the decision ought to be that of the Government. If the House does not agree with it an opportunity will be given for discussion.
  Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Will there be an early date for a Vote of Credit?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no doubt an opportunity will be found in Supply.
  Mr. HOGGE: Put it down for Thursday, which is an open Supply day.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member had better speak to the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. HOGGE: There is not any other Opposition.

  INCREASE OF RENT, ETC. (AMENDMENT), BILL.
  General CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that cases have recently occurred where middle-class tenants have been turned out of their homes on account of their houses being sold over their heads to aliens; whether he is aware that this has happened frequently in instances where the householder is serving his country, with the result that his family are turned out with nowhere to go; and whether he will immediately bring in a Bill to extend the present Rent Bill to houses of a higher rental value?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Walsh): I have been asked to answer this question. I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which was given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beading on the 1st instant.
  General CROFT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that scores of these cases are occurring, and it is really becoming a very great scandal throughout the whole of the South of England and the Home Counties, and will he reconsider his answer in view of this fact?
  Mr. WALSH: I am aware that a great many cases have taken and are taking place, but whether legislation is necessary is a different thing.
  General CROFT: If legislation is found to be necessary in the case of poor people, now that so many cases are occurring of people who are paying higher rents, many of them widows or officers' wives left alone at home, is it not imperative that the same principle should be applied, and that there should not be one law for the poor and another for the rich?
  Mr. WALSH: The whole question is one of policy for the Government.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY COUNCIL.
  Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the formation of a council consisting of Admiral Lord Fisher, Admiral Lord Jellicoe, General Sir W. Robertson, and General Sir H. Trenchard for the purpose of assisting the Government in the conduct of the War?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government is not prepared to adopt my right hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Is the Government so rich in geniuses that it can afford to dispense with the services of these eminentmen?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know about the extent of its riches of that kind, but I do know that the Government must be responsible, and must be themselves the judges as to who their advisers may be.
  Mr. G. FABER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider the time has now come when the War Cabinet should take into its ranks members of military and naval experience?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have said, the responsibility is that of the Government, and it takes, and will continue to take, expert advice which it thinks is the best available.
  Mr. FABER: If the country goes down, is that any consolation to the country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It will be the fault of the Government, and also of the House of Commons which supports it.
  Mr. FABERrose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for debate.

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Major DAVIESasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether the Government have any information of the fate of the 596 British troops and 2,600 Native troops who were taken prisoners by the Turks in Kut; whether the Government has reason to believe that these men have met their death other than in action or through sickness; and whether he will take steps to secure this information from the Turkish Government?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I regret that no further information has been received regarding these prisoners. It is feared to be only too likely that the majority succumbed on the march into the interior. As regards the last part of the question, we have repeatedly urged the Turkish authorities to keep us supplied with full information regarding all prisoners in their hands, and the Netherlands Minister at Constantinople has quite recently been requested to press for informaion as to all prisoners of whom no news has yet been received.

  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (BRITISH STEAMERS, HONG KONG).
  Sir OWEN PHILIPPSasked the Secretary to the Treasury what rate of Income Tax and Excess Profits Duty, if any, is chargeable in respect of steamers registered in Hong Kong and what amount he estimates the British Treasury will lose at the present rate of the British Income Tax and Excess Profits Duty by reason of certain British steamers having recently transferred from the ownership of a com-

  1867
  pany under the laws of the United Kingdom to the ownership of a company registered under the laws of the British Colony of Hong Kong?
  Mr. BALDWIN: The place of registration of a vessel is not material to the question of liability to United Kingdom Income Tax or Excess Profits Duty. These duties are chargeable in respect of the profits of any business carried on in this country whether by British, Colonial, or foreign owners. My hon. Friend will, if course, appreciate that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are precluded from disclosing any information relative to the assessments upon particular taxpayers.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS.

    LUXURY DUTY (DRAPERY ESTABLISHMENTS).
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that several of the largest drapery establishments in the country are already advertising that for some months they will pay the Luxury Taxes, and not call upon their customers to pay such; if so, is he aware that this is felt by the other members of that trade to be unfair competition, and that the firms advertising are bound to be putting the tax on the prices of other articles, not luxuries, which they sell; and will he take steps to deal with this matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My attention has already been called to this matter, which is under consideration.

  SHIPPING CARGOES (PROHIBITED GOODS).
  Captain BARNETTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller why space on steamers is utilised to carry goods which, on arrival in the United Kingdom, are seized by the Customs as being prohibited; and whether he will consider if economies in time, dock accommodation, ship space, and labour could be effected by prohibiting shipping companies from accepting such goods for shipment?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): Such cases as are referred to may arise from time to time
  1868
  owing to the neglect of importers to comply with the Regulations in force, but I believe that, from the standpoint of economy of tonnage, they are quite negligible. The suggestion in the second part of the question is the effect in the usual case of the present arrangements.

  FREE SPACE ON SHIPS.
  Captain BARNETTasked at what date and through what channel there was published any intimation that the small amount of free space on ships from the United States of America was to be withdrawn?
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: The information was conveyed in the usual way through the steamship lines about the middle of last December.

  LABOUR EXCHANGES ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
  Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Labour whether advisory committees were set up several months ago throughout the country in the various localities with a view to consultation with his Department on all matters connected with such localities; if so, will he say how many times in any case such advisory committees have been convened; and, in particular, whether the Glasgow Committee has been convened since its inception, among other things, to consider the suitability of the Sauchiehall Street site for a Labour Ex change, considering its enormous cost in war-time?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Bridgeman): Out of 240 committees proposed for Great Britain, 222 have already met from one to seven times, according to the date of formation. The meetings are, as a rule, held monthly. In some cases the holding of the first meeting has been delayed owing to special difficulties in connection with the formation of the committee or in arranging a date which will suit all parties, and one of these cases is that of Glasgow, where, however, a meeting has now been fixed for 14th May. Owing to this inevitable delay, there has been no opportunity to consult the committee beforehand with regard to the Sauchiehall premises, but at the meeting

  1869
  on 14th May the reasons which influenced the Department in deciding to remove the principal Exchange in Glasgow to these premises will be laid before the committee. I should add that, as will appear from my previous answers on this subject, the cost of leasing these premises is very moderate.

  RUSSIAN STUDIES.
  Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Board of Education the number of universities and colleges in which Russian is being taught; and whether he can state the number of Englishmen who are capable of speaking Russian, and how far this applies to the Consuls and commercial agents who have been or are being sent to Russia?
  Mr. HERBERT FISHER: According to the latest information in the Board's possession, instruction in Russian is provided in nine universities and one university college in England. I have no information as to the last two parts of the question.

  PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

    REPORTS OF SPEECHES.
    Mr. LOUGH: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to address to you a question which refers to the admission of newspaper representatives to the Press Gallery of this House, and, as this is a matter entirely controlled by you, I am obliged to adopt the course of putting this question. I desire to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether his attention has been drawn to the florid, and sometimes even grotesque, descriptions of Parliamentary proceedings, and the incomplete and misleading reports of Debates now furnished by many newspapers, whose representatives obtain admission to the Press Gallery, and whether he can see his way, after notice, to establish a rule that no ticket of admission, will be granted to any newspaper which does not undertake to comply with the conditions followed by the OFFICIAL REPORT, and distribute the room it may have available, so that the rule of Parliamentary equality and fairness may be observed, and the same proportional space and prominence allotted to the independent Members of the House as to those who are also members of the Administration?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman will probably not be surprised when I tell him that I am not a very close student of the reports which appear in the papers of the Parliamentary proceedings, excepting the OFFICIAL REPORT. I think there would be a considerable difficulty in carrying out the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I understand that the newspapers provide that pabulum for the public which they think the public wants. On the other hand, if any specific instances were brought to my attention of a clearly garbled report of anything said here, I should certainly consider that it was my duty to pay serious attention to it, and to ask for an explanation, and possibly to take most stringent measures.
    Mr. LOUGH: While thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for the sympathetic answer you have given, may I ask if examples have not been shown to you of the entire suppression of a whole Debate, except the reply which was obtained from the Ministers, to which, of course, I attach the greatest importance? Do you not think that, as a result of this, the public are, in effect, misinformed as to what has happened?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If you ask me to say how much value is to be attached to the speeches. I would rather not give an opinion. I think the custom of newspapers has been, and I hope it is so still, to give a reasonable account of what takes place, bearing in mind that at present, and particularly since the War began, the space which can be allotted to Parliamentary proceedings has been very much less than it was before the War, arising from circumstances which are obvious.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: On Thursday I gave notice of a question to the Prime Minister. I handed it in at the Table, and thought that it would have appeared to-day. It asked whether he was aware of the difficulty frequently experienced by members of the Press Gallery in reporting the proceedings of this House owing to the inaudibility of Ministers, particularly at Question Time?
    Mr. FABER: On a point of Order. Should not the right hon. Gentleman's question have been put down, instead of being read to the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing wrong about the question. The only point is as to whom the question is to be addressed.
    Mr. LAMBERT: As this question did not appear on the Paper, will you kindly, for the guidance of the House, tell the House how Ministers can be made acquainted with the fact that members of the Press Gallery cannot hear the answers to questions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: A very simple way of bringing that about would be for right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Members in all quarters of the House to follow the old rule, which is to address the Chair, and not to address the Serjeant-at-Arms. Incidentally, they would also be addressing the reporters, and would, therefore, have a better opportunity of being heard.

  PEACE OFFERS.
  Mr. SNOWDEN(by Private Notice) asked the Foreign Secretary if his attention has been called to an interview published in the Press on Saturday with the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in which he stated that he had always expected a peace movement as an immediate consequence of the Western offensive, and that the enemy would put forward offers likely, in their estimation, to be attractive to Great Britain; and can the Foreign Secretary say if any peace offers have recently been made, and, if so, what is their nature and what reply has been given to them; and, further, is it a fact that there is in this country at the present time a representative of a neutral country who has submitted tentative or informal suggestions of peace negotiation, and, if so, what is the nature of these suggestions, and what reply has the Government given to them?
  Mr. BALFOUR: My Noble Friend did make a statement on Friday last, which is no doubt the one referred to, though I cannot altogether accept the hon. Member's account of it.
  No peace offers have recently been made, and there is no representative here of a neutral country who has made tentative or informal suggestions of peace negotiations.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply by that answer that no offers of any kind have been made to the Government, or to members of the
  1872
  Government, within the last fortnight by a neutral? Further, has the right hon. Gentleman seen in the Press this afternoon a telegram from The Hague giving categorical details of the proposals which have been submitted to the British Government by the person referred to?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think that it is all a mare's nest, Sir.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question—whether there is at the present time, or has been within the last fortnight, in the country a neutral who has made representations to the Government that he was speaking for the German Government?
  Mr. BALFOUR: That is the question which I have endeavoured to answer with absolute lucidity. I will read my answer again:
  "No peace offers have recently been made, and there is no representative here of a neutral country who has made tentative or informal suggestions of peace negotiations."
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give that reply, seeing that on the last occasion a peace offer was made, the Prime Minister dealt with the matter without reference to the Foreign Secretary, and how does he know that the Prime Minister is not dealing with this matter now?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not know to what the hon. Member is referring.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it not a fact that the peace offer made by the Austrian Government through Prince Sixte was dealt with by the Prime Minister without reference to the Foreign Office?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I was in America.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I ask whether in the event of offers being made, the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (BEANS, PEAS, AND PULSE ORDERS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Clynes): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  I desire to invite the House to give statutory effect to certain Orders of the Food Controller which have been challenged in the Courts, and which cannot be used as the instrument for carrying out the intentions of the Ministry of Food unless this Bill be passed into law. On the 1st May, 1917, Lord Devonport made an Order taking over from the original consignee all Burmah beans which should thereafter come into the United Kingdom, at a price to the original consignee, which was agreed to, of £37 per ton, and all contracts for sale made by them or contracts made under such contracts were cancelled. On 16th May, 1917, a similar Order affecting all other kinds of beans, peas, and pulse was made, the only difference between the two Orders being that the price in the latter case was left for future settlement. Under the first Order about 58,000 tons were affected, and under the second Order about 120,000 tons. These two lots of beans have been taken over by the Ministry as a result of the Order, and over 80 per cent. of the goods in question have already been dealt with. The persons and the dealers who were interested in the purchases and in the Orders of the Food Ministry acted under the Orders for three months, and the Orders proved quite workable in practice, and at any rate from the moral standpoint did not mean the slightest injustice to any person whatever. When the articles arrived possession was taken of them, the original consignees were paid, and the goods were placed upon the market at a price which enabled them to be sold retail in shops at a figure which the then Food Controller, Lord Devon-port, had fixed. In no instance has the original consignee been made in any degree responsible for the goods coming into this country, and in no instance has any such consignee complained of the treatment meted out as a result of the Order.
  1900
  4.0 P.M.
  The persons who have complained combined, and, at their instance, legal proceedings were taken against the Attorney-General as the nominal defendant. The case was heard on the 30th July last year by Lord Justice Rowlatt, and it was decided that the Food Controller's powers did not enable him to take over from the original consignees articles which they had agreed to sell, and the property in which had passed on to other purchasers by virtue of the transaction which had taken place. In the circumstances the Food Ministry did not think it advisable to appeal against that decision, and the alternative course has been taken of coming to this House to report the circumstances, state the facts, and to ask the judgment of the House of Commons on whether legal effect should be given to the Order of the Food Ministry issued in May of last year. The decision of the Court nullifies the whole object of the Order, and, in effect, secures to the persons who had dealt in these articles profits which I do not think any Member of this House, in the course of the discussion, will seek to justify. The articles had been dealt in extensively, and prices have risen to an extraordinary level. In the main, these dealings have been indulged in by persons not ordinarily accustomed to buying peas and beans—new-comers, who took advantage of war conditions and of a shortage of cereals and foodstuffs, and who found that they could sell articles of food in a very short space of time without ever seeing them, and with the mere cost and trouble of passing on the goods to some other persons who was prepared to pay a very high price. These dealings were profiteering, pure profiteering, or impure profiteering, which I hope no Member of this House will be found to defend. Persons, with no previous connection with the trade, who engaged in buying and selling beans and peas, though they could in no sense be regarded as persons who dealt in these commodities, should not be allowed to reap or retain the enormous profits which prevailed at that time.
  Sir F. BANBURY: There is the Excess Profits Tax.
  Mr. CLYNES: The market price for Burmah beans at the date the Order was made was £78 per ton. The pre-war price, the price prevailing not so very long before, was £22 per ton. I will give two examples—and there are a good many

  1901
  which I could cite, but two suffice—to prove the necessity of this Bill being passed into law. Three hundred and fifteen tons of Madagascar butter beans arrived here on the steamships "Sidon" and "Warrior," and they were bought by Amis, Swain and Company, on the 2nd January of last year, at £43 per ton. On 9th March they sold them for £70 per ton, plus half per cent. c.i.f., a profit on the transaction amounting to £407, or about 64 per cent. reached in that very short period. Five hundred and fifteen bags of Madagascar butter beans arrived here on the steamships "Sidon" and "Warrior," and they were bought by Amis, Swain and Company on the 17th November at £36 per ton, and sold to Gaskain, Barker and David, Limited, on the 13th December, at £44 per ton c.i.f. Those were resold on 30th March by Gaskain, Barker and David at £90 per ton. The total profit on these two transactions amounted to no less than £1,311 14s., or a percentage of profit of about £147 per cent. on the original purchase price of £36. If this Bill is not passed into law it will mean that persons who, as I have said, were not legitimately entitled to be engaged in this process of buying and selling, will retain these profits. They were content to recognise the reasonableness of the Order till they became organised and were stimulated by various forces acting upon them, and these persons, unless the Bill is passed, will be able to claim very large sums indeed from the Food Ministry or the Wheat Commission. In each of these cases the Wheat Commission as hitherto treated those sales as invalid, and they relied on the efficacy of the Order issued by the Food Minister, prior to its being challenged in the Court of Law.
  Mr. LOUGH: How much?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman would wait until the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech, he would understand, but really it is not fair to keep on making these running comments.
  Mr. CLYNES: The Wheat Commission would have to pay each of these various bodies the profit made by them. My right hon. Friend on the other side asked how much. I could not say how much each of these claimants asks for, but I believe that the entire sum involved is very considerable. I have heard the figure put at £600,000, but I do not assert specifically that that is the sum. The order which was
  1902
  issued, whatever its other effects, had a very good moral effect not only on this particular trade but on a great many other trades in the country—the effect being, in the first instance, to considerably limit if not to stop much of the gambling which was then going on in the country in foodstuffs, and to considerably reassure the public mind, which was then in a very disturbed state, and which, as Members recollect, readily welcomed the action of the Food Controller at that time in taking measures to put an end to transactions of this character. I believe that objection is taken to such a Bill as this on the ground that it is an unprecedented interference with the sanctity of contracts. My answer to any such argument is that transactions of that kind at such a time cannot be regarded as contracts that should be observed and carried out as though we were living and trading under normal conditions. Possibly in peace time that might have been done, but under war conditions people are entitled to look to the action of the Food Ministry to prevent prices of foodstuffs being run up to an excessive and an unreasonable level, as was the case in this instance. These were not ordinary trading or contract transactions; they were speculations; they were indulged in without the slightest justification, and I hope, the House of Commons will not give them any legal warrant. I submit, having given these few brief reasons and facts, that the Bill will become law. Those persons who come under it cannot claim to have suffered any loss, on the ordinary trading of the year, of a commercial character on their transactions. The most they can claim is certain inordinate profits were withheld from them which, having regard to the circumstances in which the country was placed at the time, they were not entitled to' make. Claims of that character should not fall to the advantage or lot of any section of the community. I have already said that I have every reason to refrain from making any general charge, or indulge in any general complaint against the mass of traders and food producers in this country, but I feel on that account all the more justified, when cases of this kind are brought to our notice, in asking that the House shall take measures which will effectively prevent any such extraordinary profiteering as that which I have shown to the House, and for which this Bill ought to get a Second Reading, in. order to wholly prevent it in future.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman has founded all his arguments in support of the Bill upon the statement that certain people have made indefinite profits, of which he gave two instances, in one of which, as far as I remember, the person made a profit of £400 and in another over £l,000. If those profits were inordinate the Excess Profits Tax would have applied, but, as a matter of fact, at the bottom of this Bill there is a very vital and very important principle. The hon. Gentleman has not merely got to meet a case in which he can rely only upon the statement that certain people were making profits out of food. That is not the matter which I desire to go into at the present moment. I want to deal with the real objection against this Bill. What are the facts? The Defence of the Realm Act gave great powers to Government Departments. I am not at all sure that if the majority of the House of Commons had known that the powers which they gave were going to be used in the way they have been used by various people appointed to different Committees, that they would have passed the Act as it was. If the liberty of the subject is to be preserved at all we must look to those people who, up to the present time, have been impartial, wise and sound, in their judgments, namely, the Courts of Law, for our protection. What is taking place? I believe a very great many illegal Orders have been issued under the Defence of the Realm Act. In this particular case, an illegal Order was issued, and the people aggrieved went to their only protectors, the Courts of Law, who decided that an illegal Order had been issued. What does the hon. Gentleman say? He says: "We prefer" (that is, the Food Controller) "not to appeal against the judgment, but to come to the House of Commons, that is to say, the Food Controller does not choose to be bound by the law of the land, and he comes to the House of Commons, when there are only a few Members present, the majority of Members not having read the Bill, but who may have heard that it is something about profiteering, and who say that they could not vote against any action in respect of profiteering, and will support the Government. If a King had done that, he might have lost his head.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to bring in the name and personality of His Majesty.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I said "a king." I would not have done such a thing for the world.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I misunderstood. What king?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Charles I.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is trifling with the House.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No, Sir. I consider this Bill one of the most tyrannical at- tempts on the part of the Ministry of Food to get over a legal decision. And what I said was that if a king—I was not alluding, of course, to His Gracious Majesty—if a king had done that sort of thing he might have lost his head, and I repeat that a more tyrannical action was never done, and if the right hon. Gentleman comes down and says that he has so weak a case—
  Mr. CLYNES: No!
  Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, yes! Why not go to the Court? If the right hon. Gentleman is right, why does he not go to the Court of Appeal?
  Mr. CLYNES: It is because we are not so much concerned about law in this case as we are concerned about justice.
  Mr. DENNISS: On a point of Order. It is extremely inconvenient that the Law Officers of the Crown are not here.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I always thought justice was to be found in the Law Courts. I am not at all sure it is to be found in a Government Department. The Bill is retrospective. It seeks to annul contracts which were entered into more than a year ago. If the desire of the Food Controller were to enact that after a certain date any further contracts which were entered into should be subject to certain disabilities or liabilities, I do not think anyone would have had anything to say. It might have been perhaps a tyrannical exercise of his powers, but it would not have been unjust nor have broken a contract. The hon. Gentleman seems to attach very little importance to breaking contracts. The whole foundation of business is based on contracts, and if they are to be broken and any disadvantage that arises from it is to be met by coming down to ask for an act

  1905
  of indemnity for the Ministry that has done an illegal act, there is an end of all liberty of the subject and all business transactions. I have here a letter from the London Chamber of Commerce, who regard this matter with great seriousness. They put the matter very shortly and very clearly. They say:
  "This Bill is presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food and seeks to retrospectively legalise certain Orders, issued nearly a year ago, which had been declared by the Courts to be in some respects ultra vires. My executive had adopted the following resolution: 'That this meeting of the executive of the London Chamber of Commerce having considered the Bill entitled Defence of the Realm (Beans, Peas, and Pulse Orders), presented to Parliament by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food Control, declares that its provisions are subversive of the principle of the sanctity of contracts and the foundations of commerce as carried on in this country. The Bill seeks to retrospectively legalise Orders made by the Food Controller which have been declared by the Courts to be ultra vires, and is devised to protect the Ministry of Food from being mulcted in damages in respect of contracts illegally interfered with by these Orders.'"
  These are the simple facts, and I do not know that I can do better than leave the matter where it is. In these few words the whole charge against this Bill is gummed up. It adds, "That the passage of this Bill be opposed, and Members of Parliament for the City of London and Members of Parliament who are members of the London Chamber of Commerce be requested to oppose the Bill." I have also a letter from the London Cora Trade Association to the same effect. I really no not think I need say anything more, but I cannot conceive it possible that the House of Commons will pass a Bill to give an indemnity to a Ministry who have been found by the Courts of Law to have done an illegal action. If this sort of thing is to go on, in future, whenever any Minister chooses to see his wishes done regardless of whether it is legal, if he is permitted to do it, and the Courts of Law says he has done an illegal act, he can come down to this House for a Bill to indemnify him and allow him to repeat the illegal act. I have much pleasure in moving to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Mr. T. LOUGH: I would first like to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for an involuntary interruption of my hon. Friend who was explaining the Bill. I really only had a sincere desire to
  1906
  understand it, and I confess I do not understand the explanation that has been given us. The House is placed in an extraordinary position, and I hope my hon. Friend will not resent it if we ask for further information as to the extraordinary position in which we are placed by the Bill, and the speech he has made. I do not think at the present moment the House in the least understands the position. My right hon. Friend says in May last an Order was issued by the Ministry of Food Control in which peas from Burmah, beans and pulses, and all articles of that kind, were taken over. He then mentioned casually that 58,000 tons of one and 100,000 tons of the other, which are large quantities, have been dealt with, and the whole thing is working quite smoothly. I do not think the House quite realised that. The purpose of the Order, so far as it is an honest purpose, has been accomplished without friction. The goods have passed into the hands of the Food Controller. Everything he wishes has been done, and I may inform the House that a second Order was issued about a year ago greatly extending the first Order, taking over all productions such as tapioca, sago, potato flour, and cereals, and everything of that sort. That was issued in September, about a year ago. It was also accepted like the first Order. Every article which comes under the head of profits which the Government desires to take over will be voluntarily and pleasantly surrendered, and the Government can do as it pleases. I do not think the House realised that. I think the House is confused by the speech of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill. He has suggested that there has been some friction with regard to the working of the Order or a date which he did not clearly give. He used the word "recently." This is May, 1918, and I asked him what that word meant. It meant July, 1917. That is not recently in a transaction like this. From that word recently one would think there had been friction in regard to these Orders. I wish the House to understand there is nothing of the kind. There is no resistance to the Ministry. On the contrary, they are doing exactly as they please with this as with every other commodity.
  The House may ask, What is the Bill about? It is very surprising, and it goes back behind the date on which the Order was issued and rakes up transactions of six or nine months previously, and the

  1907
  House is asked to go into these transactions on partial and incomplete evidence. He asks this House to arrive at the conclusion that mercantile trans actions through all that period should be opened up, and that the House should arrive at conclusions with regard to the morality of the people who carried through these transactions. I do not wonder at my right hon. Friend's in dignation about that. If this is to be done, there ought to be a fair trial to these people. If a charge is to be brought against them, it ought not to be brought up here eighteen months after the transactions take place. Everybody is entitled to a trial in this country, and the thing should be plainly slated. The charges must be stated, and it will be better to deal with it in a Court of Justice than to bring this moral question to be decided in a House of Commons with about twenty Members and the rest whipped in to carry the matter on a Division. It is an exceptional proceeding to take, and the House ought to understand that this is the point we are discussing here at this time. We are left entirely to a partial statement of my hon. Friend in regard to this matter. One case has been inquired into and that is the case of Hindhaugh. That was the case which was brought up in Court. The case was tried on 31st July. Does my hon. Friend allege there was any large profiteering in this case? None whatever. It only affected 15 lbs. of beans. So far as I can make out the price was almost the same as the old one except a small commission. The application of the Food Controller was heard before four judges, and there were present the Attorney-General (Sir Frederick Smith) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon). The judge who was in charge of the proceedings made certain remarks about the Ministry of Food which would have been very helpful to this House if my hon. Friend had read them out. I will read to the House one or two sentences. The judge said with reference to the Order—
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): Was that a part of the judgment?
  Mr. LOUGH: No, Sir. The judge said:
  "I have no authority to redraft Orders as they ought to be drafted. I judge that this Order was improperly drafted."
  That is the true position. This Order
  1908
  was badly drafted. It did not achieve any of the purposes which my hon. Friend has stated the Ministry desired it to achieve. When the judge was asked, he declared that the Order was ultra vires. The Attorney-General did not object to that, and accordingly there could be no defence in Court. The judge said:
  "It seems to me unintelligible to requisition beans from a man who has parted with bills of lading. I do not know how it can be done."
  That is exactly what the judge found ought not to be done, and could not be done, and that is exactly what my hon. Friend asks us to do to-day. The judge says you cannot go into these back transactions, but in effect supported the Ministry to this extent, that you want to take over the beans, and from the moment you declared you wished to do this thing from the date of your Order you have done it. But to go back to the past is an illegal and impossible thing, as the judge declared, and as I ask the House of Commons to declare also. The Bill is for no other purpose than to rake up these old transactions. If we were going to do a thing like that this House would want to approach it most carefully, and rake up every transaction. The only case examined was a clean transaction. Why did the hon. Gentleman not mention the case of Hindhaugh? Because it did not suit him. Hindhaugh was a perfectly honest man and a bean importer, and had made no particular profit. Instead of his case being taken as a typical case, we have had a few other cases upon which no one can pronounce an opinion, because we have never heard of them before.
  My hon. Friend said he approached the thing from the moral standpoint. So do I. If these people made a profit on these beans, there might be a dozen ways of explaining the profit. The question of importation is a very subtle one. There are often profits and losses, and often the profits got are caused by some action over which the people engaged in the business have no control whatever. For instance, at that period the chief thing which caused the extraordinary profits was the action of the Government in buying huge stocks for the Ministry, giving big prices for them and putting up the markets. Two or three small cases, not amounting to 1,000 bags altogether, are mentioned here, and we are asked to believe those were extraordinary profits. I am told that the

  1909
  Ministry took over beans at £37 10s. a ton and fixed the price at £59 a ton, and sold tons of beans at £20 profit. There is profiteering for you, if you like! It has been carried on on the most gigantic scale, and we must not take isolated examples of one or two things mentioned here by the Minister when we have not heard the people, but let us take the large transactions of the Ministry itself. There was a huge scheme of profiteering carried through by the Ministry in regard to these beans. The effect which would be produced by his Bill, my hon. Friend said, would be to check gambling. That is a very desirable object, but it ought to be aimed at exact transactions, and I think there ought to be a long inquiry before this House is asked to take action upon it.
  This is a most peculiar Bill. It is a Government Bill, and no doubt the Government Whips will tell in support of it. There is only one name on the back of the Bill and it is that of my hon. Friend who has explained the measure to the House. It has these extraordinary provisions of a retrospective character to which my right hon. Friend has rightly called attention. This House is suspicious of retrospective legislation. It is generally unjust legislation, and on the last occasion we had a Bill from the Ministry before us, the moment I pointed out its retrospective character, my hon. Friend at once agreed, and said he would strike that out. That is what I ask the House to do to-day, as this Bill is retrospective, and as it is entirely unnecessary to enable the Government to do what they want to do, as everything is working quite smoothly. They have all these things in their hands, with the usual result, I regret to say, to the people—the usual result of high prices and large profiteering. But they have got it all in their hands. Let them be satisfied, and let them not ask this House to go back nearly two years into transactions, unless the particulars of those transactions are given. The hon. Gentleman said that the effect of the Orders was to check gambling. I do not know anything about the gambling or the trade in question, but more facts ought to be given to us before we pass a Bill of this character. Another effect of the Bill will be to check importation, and to create scarcity. It is part of the policy of the Food Controller, no doubt, as he thinks, for a moral purpose, and because he has got popular opinion behind him,
  1910
  but the effect is very hard on the people of this country. We cannot get any cheese now. For the same reason we cannot get these beans. We are now dependent upon the Ministry for these useful articles, with the result that the scarcity which exists in every other article and the high prices will be created in these articles also. The House has got the bulk of the facts before it—that the Bill is retrospective, and deals with certain transactions not explained to us or inquired into; secondly, the whole business of taking over these beans, peas, and pulse is working quite smoothly, and they have been taken over in gigantic quantities; and, thirdly, the Ministry comes here to appeal against the decision of a Court of Justice. It seems to me a most amazing thing that the Ministry should do that. Yet my hon. Friend said in so many words that that was his object.
  Sir G. HEWART Sir G. HEWART dissented.
  Mr. LOUGH: My right hon. and learned Friend was not here.
  Sir G. HEWART: I am not challenging the mere words which were said to have been employed. No doubt, if this Bill is carried, the effect will be to get rid of the decision, but nobody appealed from that decision, because it was recognised that in law the decision was right. The object of this Bill is to alter the law, which is quite a different thing from appealing from a decision of the Court.
  Mr. LOUGH: That is a careful and very different explanation from what we had from the Minister in charge of the Bill. My hon. Friend said the decision went against them in the Court, and, instead of appealing from the decision, they decided to come to this House to put it right.
  Sir G. HEWART: Because the decision was recognised as right.
  Mr. LOUGH: We will not go into the reasons. If the decision was not right—
  Sir G. HEWART: I said it was right!
  Mr. LOUGH: Then why should the House of Commons reverse it?
  Sir G. HEWART: Because the Regulation was wrong.
  Mr. LOUGH: Yes, and the Regulation is a year old now. It took over a year to summon up courage to come here. It is all right as regards the future, and from the day the Order was

  1911
  made, but the retrospective part of it the judge said was wrong, and I think this House ought to say it is wrong also, because retrospective legislation of this kind is very objectionable. I desire to put one point only, in conclusion, with regard to this matter. It has not been alleged by the Minister in charge of the Bill that the people who carried through these transactions acted illegally. They were within their legal rights. True, the hon. Gentleman said they were profiteering, but we cannot tell without a great many more facts. This House ought to be chary of pronouncing judgment on a few cases suddenly mentioned, without hearing the people charged, and I would ask the House to pay attention to this, that these people have exercised rights which have been supported in a Court of Justice. What is the reason why these men should be mulcted in damages and cases raked up against them? The appeals are heard, the money is paid, the transactions are over, and we are invited to tear everything up on this ex parte case which has been put before us. I say this is an unjust proposal to make to us. This House is the fountain of law in this country, and nothing is law except that which is approved by this House. These people committed no offence against this House; they broke no law. There may be a different side entirely to the judgment that is pronounced on their action by the hon. Member. I say they acted legally. They were also importing food which we wanted badly at that time, and this House will set a very evil precedent if it goes into these retrospective transactions without most carefully knowing what it does, or without giving those charged an opportunity of speaking.
  On this matter of profiteering the hon. Member has a most extraordinary experience. Before he became a Minister he was a member of a Committee appointed by this House to examine into profiteering, and they called forty or fifty wit-necesses before them. The Report of the Committee did not make out any case about profiteering. Why? Because they had to get the facts out—to bring up the people. There is, therefore, no Report of the Committee to support the charges the hon. Member has made here. Under these circumstances, this is one of the most extraordinary proposals I ever remember hearing submitted to the House of Commons, and I think the
  1912
  House ought to go very carefully in regard to it. I have shown that there is no practical point whatever in the Bill. We do not know the extent of the transactions. My hon. Friend merely mentioned two or three cases—not 1,000 bags altogether—but he told us that the Ministry had dealt with 200,000 tons. Surely there is no necessity to go back to those little transactions to-day. I think the House ought to pay attention to the recommendation of the chambers of commerce. We have all got a memorandum, I believe, pointing out that the Bill would put an end to all commerce in a civilised country. It seems to me an example of the sort of action that has been going on in Russia lately. We are asked to assume that public opinion is behind it, just because the hon. Member says it, and because perhaps a number of hon. Gentlemen who have not listened to the Debate, but have read the Bill, will come in presently to vote for the Second Reading. I do ask those who have been good enough to give the matter some attention to consider what they are asked to assent to in this matter, and if they feel any doubt about it to support the Motion of my right hon. Friend.
  Colonel Sir F. HALL: I am rather surprised, when a Bill is brought in by one member of the Government, to find that member of the Government conspicuous by his absence. Although I appreciate the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General is here, he is not backing the Bill. Therefore, I certainly think, out of courtesy to the House of Commons, the Minister in charge of the Bill should have made it his business to be here.
  Sir G. HEWART: May I say my hon. friend was called away a minute ago, and will be back in the course of a few minutes?
  Sir F. HALL: I will accept that, but I am sure the learned Solicitor-General realises that the House does expect, when a Bill is in charge of one member, that he should be here. I join hands with my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. I cannot understand how it is the Government should have brought in this Bill and expected the House of Commons, by a stroke of the pen, to turn round a decision which has been arrived at in the Courts of Law, and to say that, so far as we are concerned, we are going

  1913
  to upset what has been done there. The reply given by the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General was quite different from the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Ministry, when he was challenged why he did not go to the Court of Appeal. It is rather astounding that a member of His Majesty's Government should have said that, "Instead of going to the Court of Appeal, we came to this House, where we expect to get justice." Surely it is a bad—
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman is professing to be quoting the words of the right hon. Gentleman, I can assure him that he is wrong, and that the right hon. Gentleman drew a special distinction between justice and what he said was a moral right.
  Sir F. HALL: Of course. I bow to your decision, but I shall look carefully into the Official Report to-morrow. I would venture to suggest, with all due deference, that the House was led to understand that the reason why the Government did not go to the Court of Appeal was because they wanted to get justice. I think this House is always prepared to have regard to justice in any case, but it Should be very careful before it attempts to upset decisions which, after careful investigation, have been given by a learned judge. Take our position at the present moment. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) stated, probably in the event of the Government deciding to press this Bill to the bitter end, there will be Members coming into this House who are engaged on other business at the present time, and who, thinking that this is a Government measure of the utmost importance, will give it their support unaware of the fact that they are thereby upsetting practically the whole legal machinery of this country. I am sure that the Solicitor-General has the greatest possible respect for decisions arrived at in the Courts, and I can understand the in-vidiousness of the position in which he finds himself at the present moment in being called upon to defend the policy of a Government which has stated that the decision of a Court of Law, although admittedly properly arrived at, does not suit them, and asks the House, therefore, to upset that decision.
  We are told much with regard to the sanctity of contracts. This is a subject which should not be dealt with in a spirit of levity. I am one of those who believe
  1914
  in the sanctity of contracts. A contract having been made ought to be carried out. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Controller has stated that gigantic profits have been made by various persons who have never even seen the goods which produce those profits. Everybody who has anything to do with a merchant's business must know that it is not usual for a merchant to go down and look at the goods; he buys or sells them while they are on board ship or at the docks, and that is what has been done in this case. Certain people who sold the goods within two or three days of their arrival made, it may be, a profit of £2 or £3 per ton, and then because within a week or so certain circumstances happened which caused the prices of the commodity to go up by leaps and bounds the goods were passed on to another purchaser at a profit, say, of £4 per ton, and he in turn again sold them, making a profit of £20 per ton. That is not profiteering; it is the usual course of events; it is a contingency which arises in business contracts. The merchant takes the risk; in some cases the outcome is satisfactory, but these transactions are not always satisfactory, and the result to those who participate in them is not in every case what is anticipated.
  The Government were asked to give us some figures, and the reply was that these transactions represented £1,000 or thereabouts, the Secretary to the Food Ministry adding in an undertone something about £600,000. But, as far as I am concerned, it is not a question of £l,000 or £600,000; the question is, is it right or wrong? I think it will be one of the greatest mistakes ever made if, as soon as the Government find themselves in a bit of a hole—and in these days of emergency, when they are seeking to control everything, for this House has always given them the necessary powers, mistakes can easily be imagined—it would be a great mistake to come down to the House of Commons and. say that because there was a mistake made eighteen months ago we must bring in a Bill the action of which shall be retrospective, so that transactions by all sorts of people in all sorts of commodities may be gone into by the Government or someone else—apparently it will not be the Courts of Law, for they are not to decide the matter—and someone is to be called upon to refund something. That is a vicious system which the House of Commons has always set itself against, and I

  1915
  hope it will continue to do so. We do not want to hear these charges of profiteering thrown across the floor of the House; we do not want to do anything to assist, facilitate, or increase profiteering in any way, but I do suggest to the Government that when they use that particular word they should be very careful indeed, because some of us happen to know the prices at which shipping is chartered at the present time, and the prices charged for the commodities delivered here by those ships. They are not always on the basis of 6s. or 7s. per ton dead-weight, but we find in many instances that the articles are charged for on the assumption that the market price is £12 or £15 per ton. I do not venture to say that that is profiteering, because it comes under Government handling, but I do think I have a right to say that a Government which has allowed itself to do that under other circumstances places itself in a very invidious position when it proposes to deal with people in the manner indicated in this Bill.
  I hope the Government are not going to press this matter. I do not think I have voted against any Government measure since the outbreak of hostilities, and I shall feel very sorry to have to do so on this occasion. We are often reminded of the necessity for abiding by our contracts. I consider myself bound by my contracts, and I have entered into many, good, bad, and indifferent. Unfortunately many have belonged to the category of bad, but bad as they may have been one has had to recognise them. We want to maintain that spirit; we do not want in the City of London or in any commercial centres in the world to have it thought that while there are to be no concessions and no remedies given to the merchant, yet the Government, by a stroke of the pen, shall secure what remedy it likes. There cannot be a very large number of contracts to be gone into if this Bill passes. If the Solicitor-General considers it necessary to bring in a Bill in any shape or form to govern any of these prices, let him do so, and I will unhesitatingly give him my support, but I do desire to protest against this proposal. I want to maintain contracts, I want to uphold business integrity, and, if the Government persist in pushing a Bill through for which there is no real necessity, a Bill affecting transactions carried out many months ago, the books In connection with which ought now to be
  1916
  closed, I cannot see my way to support them. Let bygones be bygones. If somebody has made a profit, let him retain it. If the original purchaser has not made as large a profit as the person to whom he sold, he is not going to take action because of that. I do hope the Government will reconsider their decision and see the necessity for withdrawing this proposal. I am sure a large majority of the members of the Government are in accord with the view I am stating. Unless the Bill is withdrawn I cannot help feeling that a great majority of those who have had the opportunity of hearing the present Debate may deem it their duty to support the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London if he presses his Amendment to a Division.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir A. SPICER: Having been so long connected with the City of London, where I know feeling is very strong at the present time in regard to this subject, I wish to say a few words on this Bill. I have, of course, no sympathy whatever with profiteering, and I know nothing of this class of industry. It has, I believe, been stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Controller that 80 per cent. of these transactions were perfectly satisfactory, and, therefore, it is only a question of dealing with the remaining 20 per cent. of them. I am informed, too, that all the contracts contained a Clause with regard to arbitration and, if these matters were submitted to arbitration then if profiteering can be shown it can be dealt with in a proper way and the persons who made the undue profit will not get the gain which they anticipated. I am further informed that the Government did offer arbitration but were not prepared to pay the penalty if they lost. After all it is a very serious thing to interfere with the sanctity of contracts. Are we not at the present time conducting an awful war to uphold the sanctity of treaties? Surely then there ought to be a very strong case made out to justify any interference with the sanctity of contracts. If there has been any injustice cannot that injustice be remedied in some other way? If I am correctly informed that these contracts did contain an arbitration clause and that under them any gross cases of profiteering can be dealt with, it seems to me the Government are taking a wrong line. They have not made out a case to justify such extreme action, and, in view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary only

  1917
  cited two cases of profiteering as justification for a measure of this kind, it does seem to me that the Bill goes a little too far. As I say, I have no sympathy whatever with profiteering, but I do think the Government ought to hesitate before they, so to speak, bring in a new departure with regard to upsetting contracts without the gravest justification.
  Sir G. HEWART: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Colonel Sir F. Hall) was good enough to say that he thought I was for the moment in an invidious position. Perhaps he will believe me if I say that until he suggested it I was not aware of it. He said that the task upon which we were engaged was nothing less than the task of upsetting the whole legal machinery of the country. If I may, for the sake of the argument, and only for the sake of the argument, assume that those words were seriously intended, I should like just to look at exactly what this Bill is doing, and what is the mischief which it is intended to remove. As the House is aware, among the Defence of the Realm Regulations there is a certain Regulation 2 F which gives the Food Controller very large powers in regard to the distribution and the price of food. Under that Regulation the Food Controller, on the 1st day of May last year, issued a Regulation, which is conveniently reprinted in the Schedule to this Bill, and "undoubtedly the intention of that Regulation was to enable the Food Controller to control the price of all future supplies of beans, peas, and pulse. One hears from time to time—I have heard many times, and always with sympathy, in this House during the last sixteen months—protests against what are called technical objections. The House is naturally so eager that one's mind should be directed to the substance of the matter and not to the mere letter of the law. The substance of that Regulation was to give the Food Controller control over all beans, peas, and pulse, but for some reason the drafting of it did not technically quite succeed in the object, and there followed, after an interval of a fortnight, a further Regulation, also printed in the Schedule, dated the 16th of May, and that Regulation it was thought did completely fulfil the object and satisfy all the technical requirements. That Regulation gave control over all beans, peas and pulse which had arrived, or would arrive, so long as they were within the
  1918
  hands of persons owning or having power to sell or dispose of them. Once more the intention was plain, but once more a technical objection might be raised, "Is the Regulation quite comprehensive in its terms?" For three months nothing happened except that the Order was loyally observed, and then on the 30th of July—the importance of the date was that it was precisely on the eve of the Long Vacation—there was a case tried before a learned judge in the King's Bench Division, in which it appeared upon the facts that the food in question was not in the hands of the original consignee, although it was in his hands that it was sought to be attached. The original consignee had agreed to sell the property, and the person who then had power to sell or dispose of the property was not before the Court. It was made clear that there was still left a gap that had to be filled, and that was the case where the original consignee had parted with the property by an agreement to sell. Therefore this Bill comes in. No doubt there has been some lapse of time since then.
  Mr. LOUGH,Mr. LOUGH,Hear, hear!
  Sir G. HEWART: No doubt there has, but the fact that a Bill of this kind was pending was, I should have thought, sufficiently well known in this trade. In any case, the point I am seeking to make is that so far from any attempt to upset what the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich is so much concerned about, the legal machinery of this country, what the Government is now engaged upon is the task of filling up that little gap which the learned judge disclosed. If we had gone to the Court of Appeal and argued—and argued vainly—that the learned judge was wrong, we might then have been open, to that observation, but, as it is, what the Government is doing is to accept that position and proceed to fill up the gap.
  Sir F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if that is all it is desired to do, why it is necessary to make this retrospective?
  Sir G. HEWART: Because it must be retrospective; and for this reason—that the gap which you had to fill up is a gap which is filled by persons who have in fact—that is to say, in the past—parted with the property. That is what retrospective means. If my hon. and gallant Friend, who, I am sure, has no other interest in this matter except

  1919
  perfectly to understand it, will be good enough to look at Section 1 of the Bill he will see that that is made perfectly plain. The simple object is to provide that these Orders which are in the Schedule, the imperfection of which has been pointed out in a Court of Law, shall apply to the original consignees of the beans, peas, and pulse, not with standing that, at the date of the making of the Order affecting any beans, peas, or pulse, such consignees thereof had parted with the property. That is to say, they were the original consignees. They had ceased to hold the property, but, notwithstanding that, this Order shall apply. Whatever may be thought of that measure, I do respectfully submit that it cannot be said to amount to an upsetting of the whole legal machinery of the country. It is, on the contrary, a recognition of the fact that the learned judge has pointed out a flaw in the existing Regulations, and that in the absence of further legislation that flaw cannot be made good. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Sir A. Spicer) spoke of the sanctity of con tracts—
  Mr. LOUGH: Hear, hear!
  Sir G. HEWART:—a phrase which is never mentioned in this House without exciting cheers from at least one hon. Member. Nobody here is attacking the sanctity of contracts. What the Government is doing is simply to say that where the original Regulation, by a mere defect of terminology, failed to accomplish the purpose at which it obviously aimed it is not going to be deterred from giving effect to that intention because, in the meantime, certain contracts have been made. When one looks at the figures—I am not going to repeat the figures given by my hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes)—I suggest that never could the sanctity of contracts be invoked in a less exhilarating cause than that of the person who was the consignee of commodities of this kind, and who sold them six or seven times and made this enormous profit. My right hon. Friend went further and said there were only two cases. Of course, my hon. Friend is so fair a controversialist that he picks out two cases that are fair samples. Those are two typical cases, but if it were the fact that there were only two cases, might I ask my right hon. Friend to
  1920
  consider this? If there were only two cases of contracts that had to bet cancelled, or cancelled both in themselves and in the subsidiary contracts to which they had given rise, how small is the hardship caused by this Bill! The two things cannot be true, that on the one hand this Bill is going to tear up an enormous number of contracts to the great hardship of a large number of people, and that, on the other hand, it is going to relate only to two contracts. The fact is that these two contracts were typical contracts, and it may well be that a good many contracts may have to be cancelled under this Bill. I do venture to ask the House to support this Bill, because it is a measure obviously intended to give effect to the original intention of the Government, to fill up the lacuna which the judge has pointed out, and not, as is suggested, to override the decision of the Court.
  Mr. WING: How about the Arbitration Clause?
  Sir G. HEWART: The Arbitration Clause is not before me, but I cannot, in the absence of the document, conceive an Arbitration Clause so wide that it will be able to accomplish the purposes of this Bill in the absence of legislation.
  Mr. WING: I do not wish to associate myself with any idea of defending what has been stated by the hon. Member who introduced the Bill to be profiteering, but I really feel that the hon. Member, in introducing the Bill this afternoon, has undertaken the task of defending a Department in which he was not interested at the time these transactions took place. The gravamen of the argument, from such information as was given to me at the time, arises not only from the fact that the Bill itself is to prevent profiteering, but that the Government did not reduce the prices to the public to anything like the amount at which they were taken over by the Government, and that the prices still remain. The hon. Member was able to say, in a general way, that the amount of money involved was somewhere about £600,000. May I ask, before we go to a vote, that we may have the amount given of the difference between the price realised by his Department and the price given to the consignees for the goods which are included in this, so that we may have some idea of both sides, because profiteering is just as bad on

  1921
  the part of the Government as it is on the part of the individual, with this exception—an hon. Member says: "No," because, I suppose, we all share in it, but to the individual the process is just as harmful as though it were obtained by individual sale? I have no desire to opposo the general object of the Bill, namely, to prevent profiteering in foodstuffs, but I want the hon. Gentleman to state what was the amount of money the Government have netted?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That seems hardly relevant to anything in this Bill. It would seem to be a very suitable matter for discussion on the Vote for the Food Controller's Department.
  Mr. WILES: I rather want to make an appeal to the Government that, owing to the great misunderstanding there must be about this Bill, they should either withdraw it or that the Parliamentary Secretary should give an undertaking that some settlement will become to with reference to the past transactions. Everybody in the House wants to stop profiteering as much as possible, but on considering what happened when these transactions took place—there was a great speculation which it is a matter of history did take place in beans—I do as a Member of Parliament and as a business man want to know how far these transactions were unwarranted. I might say that one of the reasons why I ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the Bill or to make some statement as to what he proposes to do is that only last week a deputation came before the Commercial Committee of the House of Commons—a private group of commercial Members and that deputation assured us that the number of outside transactions which took place—that is the people who were not legitimately engaged in the trade—was very small. I do not know whether that is so or not, but they promised to bring evidence to put before the Committee of three members appointed to go into the transactions, so that the Commercial Committee might be told whether there was a large outside speculation or not.
  I think if it could be proved that there was a large outside speculation—and what I mean by that is, not that the people usually engaged in the bean or pea trade, have, in the ups or downs of ordinary trading, gained or lost by it—but that persons engaged in the sugar or the tea trade have come into this business as
  1922
  speculators; and this is the point, as I understand, which is recognised by the Government as profiteering, that that outside speculation should be dealt with. If it is found when those contracts have been gone into that there has not been a great amount of profiteering, that the Government should consider the appeal which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Islington, and should reconsider their decision. I think there is a great deal in what has been said about the sanctity of contracts. The Solicitor-General, with his great legal ability, rather wiped that aspect of the case aside. I do, however, think that those persons who are in business—their legitimate business—which they are doing within the four corners of the law, though we know we live in somewhat unusual times—we quite admit that—and who were not informed that they must not trade in this way, should not be dealt with as suggested. It is an unwise course to adopt. I certainly must point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that the City of London feels very strongly on the matter. They feel that legislation may be brought up to go back on other transactions.
  There is an Arbitration Clause in these contracts. I have not seen the contracts in this particular case, but I know the usual clause, which says that any dispute arising between a buyer and a seller shall be settled by arbitration in the usual way. Having regard to the fact that these contracts all have that arbitration Clause in, as I think is admitted by my hon. Friend opposite, would it not be wiser for the Government to hold its hand for a while? I am bound to point out to the Government that we do not want to hinder in this matter at all. We want to help the right hon. Gentleman and his chief. It, however, would seem to be desirable that he should agree that some commercial man of high standing should be appointed by the Government as sole arbitrator. It would be his function to go into these transactions. If they are found to be speculative transactions by people not usually engaged in the bean and pea trade action can be taken accordingly. There may be a small number with contracts of the sort. Their profits should be eliminated, and the differences which have arisen should be paid in the ordinary way. I think then that the Minister would feel quite justified in having his Bill to deal with the other transactions. I make that suggestion to him in good faith.

  1923
  Many of us want to help him. There has, however, evidently been a mistake made by the Department. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with what I propose it will not be difficult for him to get a man to carry out this arbitration on behalf of the Government quite fairly, and subsequently the Government will have no difficulty in getting their Bill and, further, of preventing transactions of this kind, which, I agree, are most objectionable.
  Mr. DENNISS: I rise to support the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington. This Bill contains a new and a dangerous principle, which is that a Government Department may issue an illegal Order, causing loss to a large number of bonâ fide commercial people, and then bring in a Bill to legalise that action without putting in the Bill any Clause to compensate the people who have suffered by their illegal action. That is, I say, a new and a dangerous principle. I wish my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General had remained here. I asked him to come. He did so, but he has gone again. This question cannot really be absolutely decided without some knowledge of the law. I should have liked the right hon. and learned Gentleman present while I put to him a few simple questions. For instance, "Was this an illegal Order?" The right hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to lead the House to imagine that it was a mere drafting or technical slip. To my mind, it was nothing of the kind. The Defence of the Realm Regulations have no power to cancel contracts retrospectively. That being so, the Order was absolutely illegal. I have here a report of a case before Mr. Justice Rowlatt, who himself in his time, before he became a judge, was one of the Law Officers of the Crown. For many years, I think, he was junior counsel to the Treasury. He is thoroughly cognisant of the powers of the Law Officers of the Crown, of the various Government Departments, and of the duties of the Attorney-General. When the case was being argued he said:
  "It seems to me unintelligible to requisition from a man who has parted with the bill of lading. I do not know how it can be done."
  That is to say, you cannot tear up a contract after the contract has been completed, the property and goods have passed, and the money has been paid.
  1924
  "To say to a man: Repay the money now. Go to the person to whom you sold the goods and get the goods back. I think the Government should repay."
  Sir G. REID: There may be other persons.
  Mr. DENNISS: I am glad of that interruption. He will have to go to a second or a third man, and you might find ultimately that the beans or peas had been dispersed: that they could not be got.
  An HON. MEMBER: Eaten up!
  Mr. DENNISS:
  "Meantime he would go to the other man and demand his money back, a state of things which upsets all commercial arrangements, and puts all matters of commerce into chaos and confusion."
  It has been an illegal Order, and not merely a slip in drafting. I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been here to say whether I am right or wrong. I myself have been in the law for more than thirty years, and I say that a Government Department has no power to make this Order. I am confirmed in that opinion by the report of the case to which I have just referred. It proceeds—
  "Sir John Simon said he wanted to find some word, the least offensives word he could, to describe the transaction, whereupon, the Attorney-General said: 'Oh, it is no question of offence.' Sir J. Simon: Very well. The most moderate word I can find is that the Order was ultra vires—that it is beyond the powers of the Department to make. The Attorney-General: I do not particularly care. I would rather not have any general statement."
  Therefore, not only Sir John Simon said, but the Attorney-General admitted, that this was an illegal Order, and not at all what the learned Solicitor-General wanted to lead the House to understand—a mere drafting or a technical slip. The Order being illegal, the Government are, in the words of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Ministry, liable to damages—that is to say, the people that this Bill would bring in would be able to recover from the Food Minister, or the Wheat Commission, or the hon. Gentleman. The Parliamentary Secretary is neither a lawyer nor a millionaire. It is only due to him to say that, for I very much contest the proposition, and that is why I wanted the Solicitor-General to be here. There is no power over the part of the Food Minister in the direction indicated. There may be a series of actions between the people who sold some cargo to the Minister, and a great deal of injustice may be done. I

  1925
  very much doubt, however, whether any action at law can lie against the Food Minister for an illegal act, for that would be against the constitution of his office. It is a principle of law, and the thing cannot be done. I only know of one case in which something similar was done, and I myself was concerned in it. The Postmaster-General was sued under the Telegraphs Act, but that was held to be done, not in the course of his office, but under the special terms of an Act of Parliament. If, then, those to whom a very great injustice may have been done, and who have lost money, cannot recover from the Food Minister, their remedy would be against the actual person—his private estate, not out of Government funds—who made or who enforced the Order. I said that my hon. Friend beneath me, the Parliamentary Secretary, is not a millionaire. I do not suppose that if judgment were obtained against him for £600,000 that he would be able to pay it.
  Mr. ROCH: Would it rather not be the Food Controller?
  Mr. DENNISS: The Food Controller probably did not make the Order himself, or did not personally enforce it, and in this class of case it is only those who do the damage themselves who can be sued. I have no objection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to this Bill being passed. The Government are quite right in coming here and saying that something has been done by the Department. I believe in perfect good faith, for I do not suppose for a moment that the Ministry of Food knew they were doing wrong, for if they had known it, they would not have done it. I make no charges or insinuations of any sort or description against the Ministry, but they have found that they have done something which they had no power to do, and people have lost by it. The Department have a perfect right to come to this House and ask that that action should be legalised. This House, no doubt, will legalise it, and will not allow the Minister, or a subordinate official of any Minister, who has made or who has enforced an Order which has caused loss to people to be personally subject to any heavy damages. Therefore the House will pass a Bill of this kind, provided always that the Government, whose responsible servant the person is, will make up the loss to the individuals injured by the illegal Order. That is the whole case against the Bill, that it does not contain any Clause
  1926
  for the compensation of these people upon whom loss has been inflicted by the action of the Government. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food has imported a little prejudice into the case, because it has given rise to charges and counter-charges of profiteering—profiteering by individuals and profiteering by the Government. That is not at all relevant to the matter at issue, which is that these merchants—I have a list of 100 of them supplied to me by the London Chamber of Commerce who have lost money over these transactions—have been guilty of profiteering. Any Committee set up by the Parliamentary Secretary should be set up for the purpose of doing what is right in the matter, of seeing that the losses are reimbursed, and not allow any profits to these people which in any shape or form could be called profiteering. All that we ask the hon. Gentleman is that he shall say that all these transactions shall be gone into by some able and impartial authority with full power to award only what is just and fair to these people.
  This Bill contains a new and a dangerous principle; it is a Bill to legalise acts which have caused great losses without giving any compensation to the people who have suffered. Let the Government put in a compensation Clause and everybody will be satisfied, and the Bill may go through possibly all three stages in one day. The mere fact that the Bill has been brought in proves that the Ministers admit they have been guilty of illegality. There has been a great deal of talk as to why the Government, instead of going to the Court of Appeal, came to this House. They did not go to the Court of Appeal because they knew they would do no good there, and they were obliged to come to this House. In the language of lawyers, the Parliamentary Secretary is in mercy. Suppose a person has committed an illegal practice at a General Election, he makes an application to the Court to whitewash his offence, and he is said to be in mercy. This Bill has been brought in because the Department has exceeded its powers, and they are in mercy. I agree that somebody should be appointed to thoroughly investigate these transactions, so that none of them shall lose by the illegal act which has been committed. The compensation should be quite fair and nothing in the nature of profiteering. This new and dangerous principle goes to the root of all commercial security and confidence. If in future

  1927
  the merchants and traders of this country are to have no compensation at all in cases where a Government Department issue an illegal Order causing enormous losses and cancelling past contracts and then come here and simply pass a Bill legalising those illegal transactions without compensation, then I think commercial confidence and security will be very much injured in this country.
  Sir GEORGE REID: I am one of those, and I am sure there are a large number in this House and in the country, who has a very high esteem of the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill, and I congratulate him upon the very successful way in which he has discharged his duties. It is therefore with very great regret that I have to point out that this Bill is not quite so simple as it looks. No legislation of this kind can ever have a retrospective effect, and we have not got to such a stage that people, acting under Regulations, can alter the law of the land without Parliamentary authority. That would be an extraordinary position to get into, and when the learned Solicitor-General suggested that this Bill is of a general character, he could not have looked at it closely, because it is expressly confined to the two Orders in the Schedule, and it does not deal with the general law; if it did, it would be proposing to give to those who administer Regulations a power which no one else has, and which no one, I hope, ever will have, of attempting to regulate the rights of people without an Act of Parliament by retrospective legislation. Such a power the House would not look at. I think profiteering is a very good word on which to justify support of this Bill. We all have a strong opinion against profiteering, such a strong opinion that 80 per cent. of the War profits come back to the Treasury. Besides this 80 per cent. they have to pay Income Tax and other charges, which brings it down to something like 14 per cent. of the profits, to which I think they are honestly entitled under the law passed dealing with excessive profits.
  Just consider what this Regulation proposes! It suggests that a man who has parted with property shall be held to still have that property, and that he should still be considered to possess those goods, which are to be valued at a certain rate per ton. The original consignee could not get back the original bill of lading; there-
  1928
  fore, under this Order, he has been asked to do a thing which is impossible. I suggest that, inasmuch as it comes down now to 14 per cent. of the legitimate profits, and inasmuch as we are rather bold in our legislation and our ways of carrying out Acts of Parliament, we should look with grave suspicion upon legislation which affects the rights of individuals and Regulations issued contrary to the law of the land without compensating the individual who suffers. I should be very sorry in a small case of this sort that the House of Commons should say that, inasmuch as the administrative power has passed a Regulation which assumes the right of retrospective legislation, and affects the rights of individuals, this House is to come in and make that bad Regulation a good one. I really think it is asking the House of Commons to do too much.
  Mr. MACMASTER: The real interest I have in this Debate is to endeavour to see the facts in their true perspective. The Food Controller made certain Orders beyond his powers, and they were simply waste paper. Proceedings arose in the Courts with regard to them, and the Courts held that those Orders were waste paper. The Minister tells us, and the Solicitor-General also tells us, the reason why the judgment given is right is because the original Orders were wrong. That being a statement of the facts, this Bill proposes to make what was originally wrong right with the legislation of this country, and that is a very serious proposition. Of course an oversight occurred, but once the bills of lading passed into the hands of other trading parties the original consignee has no property in them. Orders were issued by the Food Controller extending to those who have now got control of the goods. This is not a case of profiteering at all, but it is a case of interfering with contracts. There may have been fairly large profits in connection with these transactions, but that is all in the usual course of trade. [An HON. MEMBER: "There might have been losses!"] Yes; there might have been losses, but there is nothing in this case to impeach anybody with anything in the nature of wrongdoing. Simply under the operation of the law these goods have passed into the hands of other parties, and you are now endeavouring to undo all these transactions, and to establish them as was originally intended by the Food Controller at certain prices. The

  1929
  Food Controller will subsequently communicate to these people the prices he will be prepared to pay for the same, but that seems to me to be a very extraordinary power. Of course we have no desire to embarrass the Government in this matter, but I think the best thing to do is to recognise the mistakes, face the actual situation, and bear the loss.
  Mr. CLYNES: It is only by permission of the House that I can say a few words and address myself again to the subject of this Debate. I wish to take this opportunity mainly to respond to the suggestions that have been made to consider further the position of men who were not engaged in any speculations or were not outsiders, and men who have quite a legitimate case and station in the ordinary way of trade. The Bill is not designed to impose upon any section of the trading community the losses which have been referred to by one or two speakers. Even if we did everything possible to consider and to settle the claims of those who had quite legitimate dealings at the time in question, a Bill like this would be necessary. Therefore I ask that a Second Reading should be given to this Bill, and I am quite prepared between now and the Committee stage to go fully into the matter and consider what may be required to safeguard properly the rights and businesses of those who have claims on the lines which have been indicated by various speakers. I do not accept the view that this is merely a point of law. I make no claim to understand the technical points that are raised by the decision of the Courts. As I understand the matter, the whole question at issue is this, whether certain men at a time when there was severe food shortage had a right to engage in transactions which meant selling the same article six or seven times over, and at each sale considerably increasing the cost of that article to the consumer. In submitting this Bill to the House, I showed that in a very short time profits had been made in connection with these transactions amounting to 147 per cent. increase on the original sum that was paid. That is not legitimate business, and the defence of the Realm Acts and the Regulations made there under have involved so many millions of people in this Kingdom in personal loss and in property loss that I say, if such a Bill is necessary in order to repair the Regulations made under those Acts in connection
  1930
  with these contracts, then contracts must not be set up as the sole thing in this country which must stand above the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I do not mind doing even some damage to the understood sanctity of contracts if the damage amounts to no more than merely preventing men at such a time as I have indicated engaging in transactions which I do not think were creditable to them, and which I am certain at the time were strongly resented by public opinion.
  Mr. LOUGH: Do you include Hindhaugh?
  Mr. CLYNES: I cannot now give any pledge or any particular promise.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The question is not whether the profits were excessive or not. The hon. Member is endeavouring, not to stop excess profits on contracts in the future, but to go back on the past and to declare a contract which has been entered into to be null and void. That has never been done by anyone. The Food Controller does not intend to go back and say that the decision which was given by Mr. Justice Darling and two other justices in the tea hoarding case is to be reversed, and there is not going to be a Bill passed making the Order against tea hoarding retrospective. This is the first time that an Order has been made retrospective, and it is the retrospective nature of the Order to which we object.
  Mr. CLYNES: I can assure my right hon. Friend that was just the point to which I was coming. I want candidly to say to the House that if this Bill were not made retrospective it would be valueless. It is intended to deal with transactions which cannot be adequately dealt with by the Regulations made by the Food Controller who preceded my Noble Friend who at present occupies that office. Candidly, this is a Bill to repair the defects of the Food Regulations that were made in May, 1917. We ask the House to pass it for the reasons which I have already given. I hope that a Second Reading may be unanimously accorded to it, but I say, in asking for that Second Reading, that we have no wish to cast any reflection whatever, or to impose any losses upon those who, in the ordinary course, were engaged in legitimate trade at the time.
  Mr. LOUGH: Who is to adjudicate and decide whether the trade was legitimate or not?
  Mr. CLYNES: It is not for me to answer at this moment, but if my right hon. Friend asks me, I should say, if any step is taken to adjudicate upon that matter, it ought to be a matter of mutual agreement, in order that we have confidence reposed in it. Whatever may be done, I think the House will agree that, in the main, those were transactions which the country could not tolerate in connection with that or any other trade, and this Bill is justified, even although it is retrospective, because we must go back in order to make matters right.
  Mr. LOUGH: I am anxious to arrive at an agreement if the hon. Gentleman will agree to some Committee—I think that was the word he used—being set up to adjudicate on retrospective contracts and to settle them in some fair way.
  Mr. WILES: Will the hon. Gentleman promise that in Committee he will amend the Bill by making provision for arbitration to take place by some expert who can tell whether the transactions were legitimate or not?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have not, I think, referred either to a Committee or to any beard of arbitrators. I had in mind the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Islington (Mr. Wiles), when he referred to the fact that
  there was already in contracts an arbitration Clause. I said that I would be quite willing to look into the matter to see how legitimate trade could be brought within that provision.
  Mr. WILES: The hon. Gentleman says that he will look into the matter, but will he appoint persons who really understand, and can ascertain from their knowledge, whether these transactions were legitimate or not?
  Sir F. HALL: I venture to suggest that there are many experts in the City of London and in various parts of the Kingdom, and if some Committee is going to be set up to deal with this intricate question, one would have more confidence in it if the hon. Gentleman, for instance, would apply to one of the chambers of commerce and ask them to appoint the Committee.
  Mr. CLYNES: I hope my hon. Friends will forgive me. They are rather trying to extract from me a promise which I do not feel at the moment qualified or ready to give, and I cannot go beyond the general assurance which I have given and which I hope they will accept.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 134; Noes,23.

  Division No. 34.]

  AYES.

  [5.53 p.m.

  Adamson, William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Cowan, Sir W. H.

  Hunter, Major Sir Charles Rodk.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Anderson, William C.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, Sir Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Baker, Rt. Hon. Harold T. (Accrington)

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B

  Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey)

  Baker, Maj. Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Barnett, Capt. R. W.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  King, Joseph

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

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

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

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

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish.

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Lloyd, George Butier (Shrewsbury)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Col. John

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

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Boyton, Sir James

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Brace, Rt. Hon. William

  Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Gulland, Rt. Hon. John William

  Maitland, Sir A. G. Steel-

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hanson, Charles Augustin

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Morgan, George Hay

  Butcher, John George

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morison, Hector (Hackney, S.)

  Buxton, Noel

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morison, Thomas B. (Inverness)

  Carew, C. R. S.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Newman, Major John R. P.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Clynes, John R.

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

  Collins, Sir W. (Derby)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pratt, J. W.

  Colvin, Col. Richard Seals

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Tickler, T. G.

  Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Waring, Major Walter

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

  Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham)

  Watson, J. B. (Stockton)

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wedgwood, Lieut.-Commander Josiah C.

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

  Younger, Sir George

  Rowlands, James

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

  Whiteley, Sir H. J.

  Snowden, Philip

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Stirling, Lieut.-Col. Archibald

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

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

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

  NOES.

  Archdale, Lieut. E.M.

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Lonsdale, James R.

  Sutherland, John E.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J.

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

  Haslam, Lewis

  Meux, Adml. Hon. Sir Hedworth

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir F. Banbury and Lt.-Col. Sir Fred Hall.

  Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Hogge, J. M.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Tuesday).—[Mr. James Hope.]

  POST OFFICE (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This Bill in itself is really a very simple one. It deals with the new rates of postage—the increase of the ½d. postcard to a 1d., and the various increases on the Inland book packet. It is desirable, however, in view of the probable general discussion that will take place, that I should explain to the House the various increases it is proposed to make which will be carried out by Executive action and not through the legislation of the House. As to the increased rates which the Retrenchment Committee, which sat in 1915, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Monmouthshire (Mr. McKenna) was Chairman, advised should be made in the services rendered by the Post Office, some of them have been carried out, but the proposal to abolish the 1d. post was not persisted in. Certain changes were made which added some £2,000,000 to the profits of the Post Office at the time, and this at a time when the Post Office was making quite reasonable and normal profits. I will read just a few lines of the Report of the Retrenchment Committee, which says:
  "We assume that in view of the cost of the War it will now be generally admitted that the Post Office administration should endeavour to
  1934
  to secure as large a net revenue as possible to the State, with due regard to the needs of the business community and to the principle of paying fair wages."
  If at that time, when we had had a little over one year of war—I think it was September 1915, that these changes were brought in—the matter was so urgent when we had what looked like a very large Budget, although it would seem a very small one now—it was then a Budget of £272,000,000—there is much greater urgency for it now when we have a Budget of £842,000,000 with which to help to defray the cost of the War. In 1915 there were many sources of taxation which were untapped. I think most of them have been touched now, and we have to go further a field and look for other sources where the money can be raised. The increased cost of the work of the Post Office, compared with what it was at the beginning of the War, is enormous. Materials of all kinds have increased very largely in price. I will give the House one or two examples which are the most striking. A purchase of hard-drawn copper and bronze wire cost before the War £242,000. The present day cost would be £436,000. The pre-war price of iron wire and a certain amount of iron stores amounted to £65,000. To-day's cost of that is probably £163,000. Twine in pre-war days cost £43,000; now it is exactly double—£86,000. The cost of equipping a postman before the War was £2 17s. 2d.; now it is £6 18s. 2d. Not only is there the increased cost of the services of all kinds and the prices of raw materials that are used, but the war bonus which has been awarded to the staff amounts, in round figures, to £6,000,000, and at present there is a further claim before the Arbitration

  1935
  Board which, if it is granted, will amount—I have not the exact figure—it is estimated, to something like £5,000,000 more.
  Before the War the profits of the Post Office were something like an average of £5,000,000 per annum. This year, after putting accounts on a commercial basis, we estimate that the net profit will be only something between £2,000,000 and £2,500,000. The uncertainty of the market prices makes it rather difficult to fix an exact sum of what the profits will be. These figures may be, perhaps, a little bit confusing to hon. Members when they look at the figures which were given in the White Paper, but these are made up on a peace basis, and any deficiency is made good by issues from the Vote of Credit. The estimated expenditure in the White Paper for 1917–18 is £25,980,000, and the estimated receipts for 1917–18 are £35,300,000. But when the accounts were compiled on a commercial basis we find that the actual expenditure for 1917–18 came to £38,600,000, and the actual receipts to £43,000,000. The actual expenditure includes payments made by the Post Office for other Government Departments and the increased cost of working the Post Office. The increased receipts are accounted for by taking credit for services rendered to other Government Departments. The Estimates for expenditure in the White Paper for 19l8–19are £26,141,000, and the estimated receipts on the existing basis of taxation at £34,600,000. The estimated expenditure for 1918–19 on a commercial basis is £42,500,000 and the estimated receipts on a commercial basis for 1918–19, on the present rates of postage, are £45,000,000, and, on the new rates, £48,400,000. The House will see that really the profit is getting very near the vanishing point, and if the Post Office is to pay its way there must be some increase in the charges made for the services rendered to the public. It will be generally admitted that the user should pay for the services rendered to him and that it should not be a charge on the taxpayer.
  As to the inland rate of letters, from 1897 to 1915 it was 1d. up to 4 ozs. with a ½d. extra charge for each 2 ozs. over the 4 ozs. In 1915 the Retrenchment Committee recommended a ½d. on all postal communications, and extra charges on heavier letters—up to 1 oz. l½d., 1 to 2 ozs. 2½d., and a ½d. for every 2 ozs. increase above 2 ozs. This proposal was
  1936
  not then carried out, but the scale adopted was 1 oz. and under 1d., 1 oz. to 2 ozs. 2d., and 2 to 4 ozs. 2½d. The scale at present proposed is to put all these three scales on to one flat rate of l½d.—that is to say, under 1 oz. l½d., 1 to 2 ozs. l½d., and 2 to 4 ozs. l½d., with a ½d. per 2 ozs. for every additional 2 ozs. above 4 ozs. Before the War, the letters of 1 oz. and under comprised 86 per cent. of the total. It is now proposed on that 86 per cent. to add one ½d. Of the remaining 14 per cent., one-third were over 1 oz. and under 2 ozs., and on these the reduction will be ½d.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the 86 per cent. sent at a 1d. paid as a business transaction.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: It paid as a business transaction under the normal conditions, but it will not do so in future. The sample post did not exist from 1897 to 1915. In 1897, when the charges were reduced, the sample post was merged into the letter rate. This was re-established in 1915, in order to meet certain objections which were raised to the scale at the time. The administration of the sample post has proved full of difficulties, and continually causes friction with the public owing to the difficulty of deciding what is and what is not a sample. A very considerable staff is kept employed at the Post Office engaged in trying to settle various disputes which arise from time to time with the public as to what should be a sample and what should not. It is proposed now to merge the sample post with the letter post. Book packets not exceeding 1 oz. will not be changed; exceeding 1 oz., but not exceeding 2 ozs., will have id. to pay, and above 2 ozs. will be merged in the letter rate. Ordinary notices, receipts, insurance cards, circulars, etc., largely sent by approved insurance societies, trade unions, and benefit societies, will in consequence suffer no increased postage rates on the large part of their business.
  The next point I come to is for letters to troops abroad. This alone, with the parcel post, is really a very large traffic to handle, and causes the employment, varying with the various seasons of the year, of from three to five special trains per day. The proposal was that they should have the same increase as the inland post, which would bring in about £500,000 a year. We considered that this would not inflict any hardship on the

  1937
  relatives of soldiers at home as the free letters would still come from the troops home, and those who wanted 1d. communications would be able to do it on the postcards, on which it is arranged that the rate should remain at 1d. But since this proposal was first brought forward we have had good evidence that the troops abroad would consider that rather a hardship. The last thing in the world that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I wish is that these men should be put to any hardship, or even imagined grievance, which would leave them rather sore when they are undergoing such dreadful trials and real hardships at the front. I am told they appreciate correspondence from home move even than parcels containing luxuries, which they can get at the canteens at the front, but they cannot get news so easily from their people unless they have the cheap post. After consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it has been decided to withdraw this proposal. Letters to the Colonies are to go at the rate of 1½d. an oz. instead of the present rate of 1d. It may be urged on sentimental grounds that for the small sum of money, £140,000, which it would bring in, it is really not worth while to make this change, but it would be a very illogical position to take up to send a letter from London to Australia for 1d. while at the same time charging 1½d. for sending a letter from one end of London to the other.
  Mr. P. A. HARRIS: Are we to understand that the rate will not be raised for correspondence to soldiers overseas?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: It will not be raised. Inland postcards will be raised from ½d. to 1d. This is absolutely necessary, because if the price is not increased there will be a very considerable leakage of letters from the 1½d. post to the ½d. postcard, and in order to enable the full benefit to be derived from increasing the letter post it is necessary to increase the postcard to 1d.; otherwise the estimated increase of revenue of £2,700,000 which is hoped to come in from the letter post, the book post and the sample post would be very much reduced. The parcel post was increased in 1915 by 1d. per lb., which brought in about £300,000 a year. The parcel post has always been a loss to the Post Office, for some years before the War running up to as much as £1,000,000 per annum. Now it is proposed, instead of having eleven scales of payment, starting
  1938
  at 4d. for 3 lbs. up to 1s. for 11 lbs., to introduce the triple scale, which is very largely used in foreign countries and in the Colonies, of 6d. up to 3 lbs., 9d. from 3 lbs. to 7 lbs., and 1s. from 7 lbs. to 11 lbs. I am told by my expert advisers this will reduce counter work very much, as at present nearly every parcel which is handed in has to be weighed, but in future only about one-third of them will have to be placed in the scales. The additional revenue from this source is estimated at £500,000, which with all the others, after making a slight allowance for any inaccuracies which may have crept into the estimates, will give about £4,000,000 in a full year, or about £3,400,000 this year. I am sure the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Hobhouse) will not envy my position to-day of having to abolish the 1d. post, which has been of such inestimable value to everyone, not only in this country but in all the other countries where it was introduced. But there is one point, what one may call an extenuating circumstance, that the British Post Office is the last of all the great countries to abandon this historical, epoch-making rate, which was established in 1840. Canada, France, Germany—which, by the way, is doubling the letter rate, which will produce an extra, income of £6,250,000 per annum, and nearly doubling the parcel-post rate, which added together, taking the present profits they are making, will increase them to £16,500,000—Holland, Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, the United States, and Austria have all abolished their cheap postage rates. We have gone carefully into all the figures, and the rates have been very considerably increased. As we have these examples before us from other countries, even those which are not at war, I trust the House will pass the Second Reading promptly.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: I certainly do not rise for the purpose of delaying or opposing the passage of this most necessary proposal. I can fully sympathise with my right hon. Friend in finding himself in the position of having to abolish the 1d. post, but if he had to increase the revenue of the Post Office, and to make a considerable charge upon the public for the transmission of any postal matter whatever, it is quite certain that he would be obliged to have had recourse to the transmission of letters for the charge of 1d. in order to secure that increase. There are a great

  1939
  number of Departments in the Post Office which are quite unprofitable from the revenue-making point of view. The whole of the revenue of the Post Office is derived from the transmission of inland letters in the great industrial centres of the country. It is the profit on the transmission of letters in towns like Liverpool, Manchester, London, and elsewhere, from which the bulk of the Post Office revenue and profit is derived. Therefore it was only natural that, if an increased charge was to be made for postal rates which was to give a real profit to the Revenue, the penny post should be that part of the Post Office revenue which should provide that money. I am quite sure the House will have welcomed my right hon. Friend's decision not to press the increased charge which he proposed to make on letters written to soldiers in the field, and I am sure he himself is as relieved as anyone in announcing the decision at which he has arrived, in spite of the sacrifice of the £500,000 involved. He said truly that soldiers in the trenches welcomed their letters even more than their parcels. I cannot conceive, having witnessed at a distance some portion of this dreadful War, anything which would be a greater deprivation than, before receiving same attack or delivering some offensive, to be deprived of messages of consolation, hope, and cheerfulness which come from their relations here, and which are, perhaps, the last, as they are the greatest pleasure upon earth. Therefore to have done anything to impede the transmission of messages from this country to the men at the front would have been an action which could only be resorted to in the last extremity. No one supposes for a moment that the Revenue of this country is in so parlous a condition as to necessitate a charge such as that which was originally proposed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to remind him that when this War started it was a question whether any charge should be made on the letters of relatives to soldiers written from this country and sent to he various fronts, and a charge was only imposed for this reason, that it did something—though probably that would be less and less as the years went on—to restrict the traffic on the railways. If there had been no restraint on this correspondence in the early period if the War, it would have been perfectly impossible to handle it when it got to the
  1940
  other side. I understand that the railway communications have been improved of late, but it was felt that unrestricted traffic would have imperilled the transport of the necessary munitions of war. It was for that reason only that a charge was imposed upon any letters to the troops.
  The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he hopes to get a revenue of £4,000,000 as a result of these proposed charges.. He gets rid of the difficulties connected with the sample post. It has always been very troublesome to know what was and what was not a sample post. It was one of those puzzles which has always been presented to every department of the Post Office. It is exceedingly difficult to solve, and occasionally we have given some most extraordinarily inadequate solutions. Therefore any extra charge which gets rid of the difficulty of answering these puzzles is to be welcomed. I would go further: I have always thought that every Department of the Post Office in regard to every charge levied upon the public for the transmission of postal matters ought in itself to provide revenue sufficient for the postal service involved. A great number of Departments of the Post Office are not so self-supporting. Urged by Members of this House and by deputations from the public for one reason or another, the charges have been reduced until in many cases they are far below the cost of carrying the postal matter involved. If the particular increase of revenue which is proposed by this Bill tends to re-establish the balance between the cost and the revenue, I would welcome it, and certainly should offer no opposition of any sort or kind to the proposals now made. For the same reason, I think the increased charge upon parcel post is a fair one. I understand that whereas the present charge is 1s. for 11 lbs., hereafter it is to be 6d. for 3 lbs., 9d. for parcels from 4 lbs. to 7 lbs., and 1s. from 7 lbs. to 11 lbs.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The charge is to be 6d. up to 3 lbs., 9d. up to 7 lbs., and is. from 7 lbs. to 11 lbs.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: That will, of course, although it means an increased charge, simplify the charge so far as the Post Office is concerned, and will get rid of any troublesome amount of weighing. I look upon this with a little more hesitation than I do upon some of my right hon. Friend's proposals. If he can establish the balance between the cost and the revenue I hope he will not go further until

  1941
  the War is over than by making the revenue derived from these charges balance the cost of expenditure in carrying out the distribution. The increased charge on postcards must follow the increased charge upon letters, otherwise that would materially decrease the profits on the increased charge upon letters. I do not suppose there will be any opposition to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman pointed to Germany having increased her charges to the amount of, I think he said, £16,000,000.
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I said their proposed increases would come to £6,250,000, and that added to the profits made before would amount to £16,500,000.
  Sir C. HOBHOUSE: They are making £16,000,000 profits, and we are making about £5,000,000. It cannot be said that in this case we are indulging in profiteering on the part of the Post Office. It must be borne in mind that there are other taxes which we lay upon the people of this country which the Germans have not laid upon the people of their country, and, therefore, there is a reason why the amount of profit to be derived at the expense of the letter writers and the Post Office users generally should be limited to a greater extent than it is in Germany. Therefore, while I think the Postmaster-General is justified during the War in abolishing the 1d. post and in making the other increased charges, I hope he will not base himself too much upon the German precedent and attempt to get anything like a revenue of £16,000,000 out of the British Post Office, because if he does I can assure him, from my own experience, he will have a very rough time of it in this House.
  Mr. HOGGE: We are all grateful for what the Postmaster-General said about the soldiers' letters overseas, but many of us would like to know how far the concession goes. I do not think the Postmaster-General can confine his attention entirely to soldiers serving overseas. Let me put to him a difficulty which will occur to most Members as being a real difficulty. Supposing a soldier is invalided home through wounds and is in one of the many hospitals in this country, does this concession mean that so long as a parent is writing to a soldier with a regimental number the postage will be 1d. in this country, as well as abroad?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH Mr. ILLINGWORTH indicated dissent.
  Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I take that to mean that the concession is confined entirely to soldiers who at the time they receive the letter are actually overseas. Let me put another query to him which arises in connection with the treatment of soldiers under the Review of Exceptions Act. Is a soldier who serves in Ireland serving overseas, and will the postage on a letter addressed to a soldier serving in Ireland be Id. or 1½d?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid my hon. Friend is rather stretching the expression overseas. It means on active service in France or Mesopotamia or other places overseas.
  Mr. HOGGE:I was not stretching it. In certain circumstances a soldier engaged in the Irish rebellion was considered as having been engaged in service overseas, and he claimed exemption for that reason under an Act which was passed in this House. I am only putting two interesting points to the right hon. Gentleman. If parents are to be allowed to write to their boys overseas for 1d. as usual, why should parents be deprived of the opportunity of writing at the same postal rate to their boys who are in hospital here? They are still in the Army and are still in service. I do not know how far it is possible to make the concession and what money would be involved in it, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it might not be much better as a means of solving the whole difficulty to arrange that the concession should be granted whenever a letter was written to a man with a regimental number. That would include every case and would not wipe out hospitals or any other service in which the soldier might be engaged. I am sorry that the Government find it necessary to increase the 1d. postage. I do not see why the one section of the Post Office which pays should be further taxed in order to carry those portions which do not make a profit. [An HON. MEMBER: "It always has been!"] Then there is less reason why it should be increased now. We have had discussions about Press telegrams, which arc carried at an enormous loss, as everybody knows. That has always been so. I have heard reasons given why it was so. I believe it was part of an old agreement. The fact remains that Press telegrams are carried at a loss. Why should the ordinary communication of 1d., which always has

  1943
  carried a profit be taxed now at a time when interchange of correspondence which is a material part of the social fabric of the country, especially in war-time, in order that other portions of the Post Office which do not pay should escape taxation?
  I should like to know why these increases have been made. I understand there are two reasons, one is the Revenue reason, and the other is the question of handling the work in the Post Office. I understand that the question of labour in the Post Office is somewhat difficult, and by increasing the postage on certain articles and letters it is hoped to diminish the work. There are other ways of diminishing the work if it is a question of diminishing the work. If the right hon. Gentleman would get the heads of other Government Departments to send fewer bulky and useless documents through the Post Office, it would be relieved of a very great deal of work. For instance, the chairman of an insurance company in Edinburgh sent me to this House a number of picture postcards which had been sent to him from the Ministry of Information. They were postcards of dumps of shells in France, portraits of admirals and soldiers which had been distributed to him by the Ministry of Information in order that he might prosecute the War more industriously. Members of this House also know that we get through the post such things as a weekly paper from the Food Department, which is a very large and bulky document which none of us ever read. I never read it. I have difficulty enough in getting my food without reading about it. That kind of thing is going through the post. Take the question of War Loan circulars. Every Member of this House has received more War Loan circulars than he knows what to do with. He has exhausted all the money he can put into War Loan before he has exhausted the receipt of these circulars. There is a tremendous bulk of unnecessary material passing through the Post Office in that way. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he is making these charges for Revenue purposes alone or whether he is attempting at the same time to reduce the work in the Post Office and to save labour? If it is the intention to save labour, there are other ways in which it could be done.
  1944
  I suppose it is useless to oppose this Bill on the ground of the 1d. postage, but I would like to see that charge kept as it is, I do not like to put in a plea for Members of this House of Commons, but I think they have a right to be considered in a matter of this kind. I suppose every Member knows that since the War broke out the correspondence that comes to us from our Constituents and from other people's interests in many questions has grown very largely. One has a duty in replying to the letters of one's Constituents, but we get hundreds of other letters from people up and down the country asking for information which many of us can give, and which many of us give freely, and this addition to the postage is a heavy tax upon the ordinary Member who gets nothing apart from the £400 a year at which everybody sneers. When one remembers that the same letters go to heads of Departments and replies are franked, I do not see why Members of the House of Commons should not be considered in that respect. If we are to be asked to pay the extra postage, which I do not object to do, I will suggest to the Postmaster-General that he should look round the Departments of his colleagues and see that his colleagues, who now, in replying to the same letters, pay nothing, should be charged the 1½d. which we are charged. I think that some other means could have been found for finding this money. The amount, which has been stated at £4,000,000, could be got by increasing the Income Tax by 1d. or 2d., or by a Stamp Duty on a good many things. If you put a 1d. stamp on all delivery orders in this country it would probably provide a large proportion of this money. At one time in this country delivery orders used to be stamped, and this would produce a very large revenue. At a time like the present, and in a House like this, one cannot put up a fight on a question of this sort, but I very much regret that the simple method of exchanging information for 1d., which was previously possible, has gone. I hope that the Postmaster-General will come to a definite decision on the question of soldiers and sailors so that no distinction will be made between men overseas and men who are in hospital at home.
  Captain CARR-GOMM: In view of the statement of the Postmaster-General, it will be unnecessary to move the Motion of which I had given notice. I am grateful that this is so, because it will

  1945
  save a lot of time. I think if the Government had pressed it, even with their majority, they would have found that the proposal to impose a Stamp Duty on letters to the Army would have been very unpopular. I do not quite associate myself with what my hon. Friend has said with regard to the same charge being made on letters to soldiers and sailors who have come home to hospital and on letters to those who are abroad. The man abroad, especially the man in very distant places, is one whose letters should be increased rather than diminished. Reference has been made to the strain of war in France, and that is undoubted, but in the case of those distant areas there is always the possibility of the mail which was so long expected being sunk on the way, and no post arriving for the officers and men. So although the strain is not so acute, the monotony is greater and the chances of leave are very much less and letters are most welcome. I offer no opposition to this Bill, but I would point out a matter which should not be overlooked. This Bill is based on the Post Office Act of 1908, and the Postmaster-General is given power to impose fresh duties on postcards and postal packets. He has the power now by Royal Warrant to increase the rate on postal letters. It seems to me that the House ought not to allow the Postmaster-General to have the power to deal with postal letters without being a party to the settlement of it themselves. If there is anything wrong with the Act of 1908, it should be remedied. The Postmaster-General should come to this House if he wishes to increase the postal rate on letters. The Act of 1908 has been overlooked, and it should be remedied some time, when opportunity offers, when a purely drafting Bill could be introduced and passed.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I was a member of the Retrenchment Committee to which the Postmaster-General referred. None of us like these increases of ½d on letters and postcards. Like all taxation, it is disagreeable, and I share the regret that we are, abolishing for a time the 1d. postage. But this is a war tax, and I understand that it is being presented to us as a war tax, and it is one which I think is perfectly justified. I only regret that it was not put in force some time ago. No doubt the Postmaster-General has profited by some of the criticisms that were advanced when the proposals of the Retrenchment
  1946
  Committee were before this House two years ago and has somewhat altered the rates which were then proposed, but for all that I think it was a mistake that the extra ½d was not imposed some time ago, and I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken his courage in his hands and is imposing it now. Other countries have gained considerable revenue in consequence of such a change. I am not at liberty to mention one or two figures which were submitted to the Retrenchment Committee in consequence of inquiries from overseas, but it was partly due to them that I, at any rate, cordially at that time supported the increase of the 1d. post to 1½d. A few months ago I asked the present Postmaster-General whether he had made inquiries in some of the countries where the extra ½d. had been imposed. He told me that he would make inquiries. I do not know whether he has, but I feel fairly confident that, if we can judge from the original results of imposing this extra tax, it will be well worth doing from the point of view of revenue. The Retrenchment Committee was a very representative Committee, representing every shade of opinion in this House, from the most reactionary member to the most extreme member of the Labour party, and after careful consultation in private together we were unanimously of opinion then that the extra ½d. should be imposed. It is a fair tax all round. It taxes most those who are most busy and most prosperous, because their correspondence is large. It taxes to a less extent those who are not so busy and not so prosperous, because their correspondence is small. I am glad that an exception has been made as regards soldiers serving overseas. That will be welcomed throughout the country. in view of the great sacrifices which they are making for us and their conspicuous bravery, it is only right that this privilege should be extended to them. But I do not share the view of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that soldiers who are in hospital here should have the same privilege. I think that that would lead to great confusion, and possibly also to a certain amount of fraud, because relations and friends might make use of these soldiers as addressees of letters and thus get reduced postage on letters which are not intended for the wounded soldier at all, but for his friends or relations. I am quite certain that the exception should be made for soldiers on active

  1947
  service abroad, but beyond that it would not be right or wise to go. I cordially support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  7.0 P.M.
  Colonel COLLINS: While the House appreciates the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman in the case of soldiers, he did not quite make clear what would be the position of letters sent to sailors. Are letters sent to sailors in the Grand Fleet to pay id. or 1½d?Are letters sent to sailors in ports to pay 1d. or 1½d? I hope that we shall have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman on that point. I support the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, that letters addressed to soldiers in this country should be sent for 1d. As is well known, the main source of cost in the Post Office is the cost of delivering the letters, and in the case of letters sent by the Post Office to men in the Army in this country the Post Office is freed entirely from the cost of delivery. If that be so, the main argument advanced by the Postmaster-General in favour of this increase falls to the ground, as the Post Office itself does not bear any share of the cost of delivering the letters to soldiers. Therefore, I hope that the Postmaster-General, having gone some way to meet the wishes of the House, may go further, and that letters sent to soldiers in this country may be sent for 1d., and, in addition, that letters sent to sailors who have served may also be sent for 1d. But I shall be sorry if the House passes this Bill. In the financial statement of the year we were told that the profits of the Post Office were £9,000,000 a year, and yet this afternoon we were told that the profits of the Post Office are only £2,000,000 a year. I would ask the Assistant Postmaster-General, What are the profits of the letter post? What are the profits of the parcels post? What is the profit and loss on the telegraph system, and on the telephones? Are we raising rates for certain Post Office services which are profitable, while we are leaving untouched unremunerative rates for other branches of the postal service. I sincerely hope that later in the year the Postmaster-General will present to this House an ordinary commercial profit and loss statement, showing to the House and to the country that certain services are being run at a loss to-day, while others are being run at a profit. If such a statement had been presented to the House to-day I am very certain that the House would not
  1948
  pass this Bill. I believe that a large profit is being made by the Post Office from the 1d. post, and the loss is not on the 1d. post, but on other branches of the service. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh referred to Press telegrams, on which I think there is a loss of about £500,000 a year; and there is a heavy loss on certain telephone services, certain private telephones, in different parts of the country that are being subsidised by the taxpayer to-day. In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman differing so materially from the financial statement presented by the Chancellor on his annual Budget that the profit was £9,000,000, and we are now told that it is £2,000,000, I should like that the House should receive some assurance that accounts in future will be presented in such a clear fashion that we shall know exactly what services are remunerative and what services are carried on at a loss.
  Brigadier-General McCALMONT: I had intended to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend which stands upon the Paper, and with him, therefore, I welcome the decision of the Government on the subject of letters to soldiers. I am bound to say, however, that I think the decision has possibly been arrived at a little hastily, having regard to the sister Service, the Navy. The question of the Naval Service should be considered. As I understand, letters for the Navy are addressed to the care of the General Post Office. Whether the sailor is serving at home or on a China station, the envelope addressed to him to all intents and purposes is exactly the same. I certainly suggest that the sailor should get a letter for 1d., but the soldier serving at home would have to pay 1½d I do not agree with what the hon. Member for East Edinburgh suggested—that we should give every soldier at home his letter for 1d. I think that would be exceedingly likely to lead to fraud, for it would only be necessary to put on the letter a regimental number and it would go for 1d. I think the Postmaster-General might get himself into slight difficulty in that matter, and I hope we shall have some assurance on the point. I intended to make a suggestion to the Postmaster-General—assuming he had not given way, as he has done—and it is this, that in order to benefit the class of persons which I take it he is anxious to benefit, the dependant of the soldier or

  1949
  sailor, she be entitled, at the time she draws her allowance from the post office, to draw an envelope, ready stamped, say, one a week, which she can use for sending a letter to the soldier or sailor serving, adding the extra war stamp. I think, by that means, the poor mother or wife would be benefited; while, at the same time, the better class of people who can afford to pay would not—unless they were drawing a separation allowance—participate in the benefit.
  I make that suggestion for what it is worth, in the hope that if there be any difficulty about the Navy and the Army the right hon. Gentleman will make use of it. I think it would be a thousand pities if a sailor and a soldier serving at the same station, as they do in many places, were put under different conditions with regard to the letters they receive from relations. I do not quite understand whether the parcel post rates apply to troops or whether as regards troops they remain the same, but I have one more suggestion to make with regard to reducing the bulk of mails, especially to the troops. I am quite certain that a great deal of the bulk of mails carried by the Post Office abroad is very often useless to the soldier, because frequently the letters consist of bills and circulars, that are forwarded, and that are not required at all. I do not know whether the Regulation could be laid down that "forward" letters should not be sent abroad to the troops, and that any letter should be addressed, in the first instance, to somebody in the Service. Letters addressed to someone in England or Ireland to be subsequently forwarded should not be accepted at 1d. for transmission abroad, and by that means you will reduce greatly the bulk of mails sent to the fighting forces. I hope we may have an assurance from the Postmaster-General, if he replies on the Debate, on the subject of the postal relations between the Navy and Army, and that he will consider the suggestion which I have put to the House.
  Mr. C. PRICE:I listened with a certain amount of disagreement with those who approved of the increased postal rates. Personally, I disapprove of the increased rates, more particularly the increase of the penny post, which so materially affects the poorer people. The penny post is a department of the postal service which actually pays, and I think it is grossly unfair to call upon a great mass
  1950
  of poor people to make this contribution for carrying on the War, while the department of the penny post, as it stands, is a department which pays. I think we would be in a good deal better position if we had placed before us the information which was asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Collins), in order that we might see how all the departments are working. We know that there is a loss on Press telegrams, and we should have more information, so that we may learn where other losses actually occur. It is a legitimate business proposition that where losses are made by particular departments those should be the departments in connection with which charges should be made commensurate with the burden or loss. I think the increase which is proposed will work very unfairly on different classes of business. Many businesses are conducted almost entirely by correspondence, so that the burden will be heavy upon them, while other businesses are carried on with hardly any correspondence whatever, so far as their development is concerned. I have received correspondence on this subject, and the suggestion is made that in the case of those firms which necessarily are conducted by correspondence, there should be some concession made, so far as catalogues and other documents are concerned. These correspondents feel that they are being subjected to an additional grievance, and I therefore place it before my right hon. Friend with a view to his seeing whether anything can be done.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I join in the appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Navy, but I wish also to refer to the mercantile marine, minesweepers, patrol boats, and a very large number of men leading a sea-faring life, who are really in His Majesty's Navy. I hope we shall have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that the men in these services which I have indicated will be placed in the same position as others in regard to the concession made this afternoon. I am very sorry to see, as I dare say most people are, that the 1d. post is practically going back. I know something of the work of the Post Office, and I can assure the House that the increase will still continue after the War, but I suggest to the Postmaster-General that, if he means the extra payment to be for the duration of the War, then, in order to preserve the

  1951
  1d. post, he should allow the 1d. stamp and the ½d. stamp to remain in use so that they can, without difficulty, be continued after the War, and, in the meantime, those who send letters, while using the ordinary 1d. or ½d. stamp, can add the ½d. war stamp for the duration of the War. That would preserve the 1d. post and the ½d. post without any difficulty, after the close of the War. I do not say that the suggestion is original, for it has already been adopted in Canada, and one or two other places. I should like to make a suggestion in reference to the weight of parcels, as between 7 lbs. and 11 lbs. No parcel can be sent to a soldier over 7 lbs. in weight by post. If he sends one over 7 lbs. he has to send it by railway, and he has to send it addressed to the Military Forwarding Officer, But no parcel can be sent in this way which does not weigh 11 lbs. No parcel can be sent to a soldier which weighs between 7 and 11 lbs., the result being that every parcel which is between these two weights has to be stuffed full of packing of various kinds, which, in these days when economy is so necessary, is a very serious mistake, for not only is it a waste of packing, but it takes up more room on board ship than is absolutely necessary. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to raise the weight of the parcel postage to men at the Front from 7 lbs. to 11 lbs., and, at any rate, to see that if some parcels are carried to the soldiers by the railway system, they may be under 11 lbs. in weight.
  Mr. D. MASON: I should like to support the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, with reference to the war stamp on the 1d. postage. If this impost does go through, it will have to be made very clear that it is in the sense of a war tax only. I wish, however, to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not still possible to maintain some form of 1d postage. As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, 1d. postage was passed in 1840 by Sir Rowland Hill, and it has been of inestimable advantage to this country. The right hon. Gentleman referred to other countries having increased their postal rates, but I am sure he will agree with me that the internal and foreign trade of this country leads the world, and that it has been largely built up by this 1d. postage. When we remember that the figures still show a surplus of £2,500,000—
  1952
  and many of us hope and pray and believe that the War may possibly be brought to an end within the coming year—why, before you come to a deficit, should you interfere with this, which is so essential for building up your trade and commerce? As the parcel post is run at a loss, it might have been wise and advantageous to increase the charges there, and in some other departments of the postal service; but I think that if the 1d. rate could have been maintained, and an increase made in other directions, it would have had a less adverse effect upon trade and commerce. Now that typewriting and other methods enable people to condense their communications, it would be of immense importance to maintain in the trade and commerce of the country the ability to communicate for 1d., and I am by no means certain, as anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman, that the revenue, when 1d. postage is increased to 1½d, will show an increase. It does not by any means follow that you can estimate or budget for an increased revenue merely by putting up your charge. The probability is that many people who have communicated for 1d, in the past will not communicate now when you increase the charge to l½d., so that you may possibly make one Department of your postal service, which produces something like £4,000,000, unprofitable by increasing the rate to l½d., while at the same time you are going to interfere with the commercial community. We are most anxious—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me—to try to nurse the trade of this country when the War is over, and one of the essentials for that will be cheap and easy communication. I do not know if it is yet too late to make this appeal to the Postmaster-General. I understand that the reduction in the amount of weight sent for 1d. has had no adverse effect, and if the Postmaster-General could so have arranged his rates as still to have maintained 1d. postage, even for a limited amount of weight, and if he could have carried on the 1d. postage for another year, with the hope that the War might then have terminated, he would have continued to us what has been of inestimable advantage to the trade and commerce of the country.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I think this Bill is extremely unfair, will interfere a great deal with business, and will be extremely irritating generally. It will bear very hardly on some businesses, and scarcely

  1953
  at all on others. I want to ask the Postmaster-General if there will be any enlargement in the size of postcards, so as to permit of the substitution of communication by postcard for communication by letter? At present many short letters go through the post because they cost 1d., and the normal postcards will not contain their communications. If however, the postcards were enlarged a little, tens of thousands of people would send communications, not of a very private nature, by that means. I do not think the revenue would suffer very much by this proposal, and it would be of great convenience both to business houses and private correspondents.
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I think there has been a general feeling of relief in the House to-night that the Postmaster-General has been able to see his way to give up the idea of increasing the cost of letters to the troops in France or in other parts of the War area. Most of the criticisms we have listened to to-night really do not seem altogether to take into account the fact of the enormous amount of expenditure in this country at the present time. I can well remember nearly twenty years ago in this House when Lord St. Aldwyn—Sir Michael Hicks-Beach as he then was—spoke from this desk, and drew a very dark picture of the future of this country because the expenditure of the country for that year was about £150,000,000. If he had come into the door of the House to-night and listened to this Debate, and if he had heard the great speech of my right hon. Friend on the Budget this year, I think he would have wondered that this country has been able so easily to obtain so large an amount of money as was received by the Exchequer during the last financial year. So far as the Id. post is concerned, I am sure that I am only expressing the view of everyone in the country when I say that there is a very deep regret that there should be any possibility of an increase in the postage rate. But we must take into acount the fact that every other country which is at war has been forced to make this increase in the rates, and the fact also that some neutral countries have been placed in the same position. A certain amount of criticism has been made to-night in regard to the question of the revenue which is received from the Post Office in ratio to the amount which is received from the telephone and
  1954
  telegraph department. Of course, it is perfectly true that the revenue received by the Exchequer from the Department comes from postal packets, and letters and postcards, and not from telephone and telegraph charges. But, when it is suggested that we might increase the telephone and telegraph rates, it must be perfectly plain to anyone with an impartial mind in regard to these questions, and who has taken account of the past, that it would be impossible for us to increase these rates and to receive an amount of remuneration which would be of any service to the country, because the increase of the rates in the telegraph and telephone last year has not brought in any extra revenue to any extent, and an increase in either of the rates for the future would probably have the effect of lessening the amount of revenue received at present. Therefore, when it is necessary that the State should receive more revenue from the Post Office Department, there is only one way by which it can be done, and it is by putting on an extra charge on all the Post Office dues.
  The hon. Member for Greenock criticised the financial position, and mentioned a speech which was made on the day of the Budget by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Home Secretary (Mr. H. Samuel), who was Postmaster-General when I first had the honour of becoming a member of the Post Office staff. In the House of Commons on that day he said that he would call attention to the fact that the State already derived its profits from the Tax Revenue of the Post Office of £9,000,000. This figure was taken from the White Paper. I should like to give the hon. Gentleman who mentioned this a statement in regard to the matter, because, although the Postmaster-General dealt with it the other day, I think it is hardly realised by the House. The figures for expenditure are taken from the Post Office Estimates, and do not include the Vote of Credit issues on Post Office account. The Post Office Estimates, like those of all Civil Departments, are compiled on a peace basis, and any deficiency, due to war expenditure, which cannot be met by savings on the Vote, is made good by an issue from the Vote of Credit. The Estimates, therefore, make no provision for such items as war bonus, which amounts now to £6,000,000 per annum, and is at present an integral part of Post Office expenditure. In 1917–18, the Post Office drew from the Vote of

  1955
  Credit about £11,000,000, and it is anticipated that it will, draw about £14,000,000 in 1918–19. If, therefore, the Vote of Credit issues were included, the apparent surplus of £9,000,000 would be converted into an apparent deficit of about £2,000,0000 in 1917–18, and about £5,000,000 in 1918–19.
  I should also like to say, with regard to the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, that there is very great difficulty in regard to the letters sent to the Navy. From an administrative point of view it is extremely difficult for us to make the concession which he asks, but I may say, from conversation which I have just had with my right hon. Friend beside me, that he will consider this question and give some further reply in reference to it when the Committee stage of the Bill takes place. My hon. Friend who spoke last mentioned the question of the size of the postcard. That question, also, will be considered, but I am not in a position to-day to say anything in regard to it. My right hon. Friend mentioned the question of Germany, and said he thought we ought to consider the relations of the Post Office so far as the tax is concerned. But I am inclined to think, taking all the taxation of the country as it is to-day, that the extra charges that he suggested are not unreasonable. I have had the privilege of going to France, and of seeing the work done by the Post Office there. No one is more fully cognisant of the fact that a very large number of people in this country would like to see a reduction in the cost of parcels; but, considering the amount of transport that there is now, and the enormous increase during the last three years, it must be perfectly plain to anyone who considers the question that it would not be wise, from a national point of view, to decrease the charges placed on parcels to the troops in France, because the transport is greater even than this House imagines, and it might have its effect on the War from that point of view.
  With regard to the question of parcels, which was raised by the hon. Member for Devonport, of course, as is well known to the House, no one is allowed to send a parcel of over 7 lbs. to the troops in France. This is due to the fact that orders have been given by the War Office in regard to the matter, and really it is not a Post Office question. But I think that, as
  1956
  far as that is concerned, I can hardly give a reply. I very much regret the inconvenience which is caused by this.
  The only other point that I think I have not dealt with is the question of this taxation being a war tax. My only reply is one which, I am sure, will appeal to the House, and it is that no one can possibly realise what the future of this country is going to be. If it is possible at any time in the early future to reduce the tax by taking off the ½d which is put on the ordinary letter, I am sure everyone in this House will be glad; but with a Budget such as we have seen this year, and with the future as it appears to us at the moment, it is quite impossible for anybody to give a promise as to the date on which this Stamp Duty can be reduced. If there is any other question any hon. Member would like to raise with which I have not dealt, I hope he will mention it. I think I may take this opportunity of thanking the House for the way they have received this Bill, which, I hope, will soon be passed into law.
  Colonel COLLINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that in future the accounts will be presented in such a form that the House will be able to understand them?
  Mr. PEASE: I will see that the matter is considered by the Treasury.
  Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Pratt.]

  HORSE BREEDING [EXPENSES].
  Order read for consideration of Report of Resolution,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under any Act of the present, Session to regulate the use of stallions for stud purposes provided that the total amount payable shall not exceed ten thousand pounds in any one financial year."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be discharged."—[Lord E. Talbot]
  Mr. KING: The Government have got themselves into difficulties, and are trying to sneak out without telling us how they are going to face the consequences of

  1957
  their own inefficiency and mismanagement. I am very glad to see the Noble Lord (Lord E. Talbot) on the Treasury Bench. Perhaps he will tell us the real reason for the extraordinary proposal that this Money Resolution which was passed on Wednesday night last, in order to promote horse-breeding in this country, is suddenly to be discharged. It may be remembered that on that occasion, when we discussed this matter, I moved an Amendment limiting the sum to £10,000, and it was promptly accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture (Sir R. Winfrey), who assured me that £10,000 was quite ample, and that they would not expect to have anything like that amount. If that is so, why is this Resolution now to be discharged? Is it because the amount is inadequate?
  Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I am sorry my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture is not here. I understand that when the hon. Gentleman opposite moved the £10,000 my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was under the impression that it was quite enough, and, I believe, it is quite enough for England, but this Bill applies also to Scotland and Ireland, and it is not sufficient to cover those two countries. Therefore the situation, as I understand it, is this: It is proposed to withdraw this Resolution and set up a new one to cover Scotland and Ireland.
  Mr. KING: We are very glad to have that explanation, but it shows how even more inefficient the Government is than I expected, because when my hon. Friend (Mr. Watt) interposed an inquiry as to whether Scotland would get money from this Resolution and the advantage of this Bill, he was promptly answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture that that was so. Of course, I shall not in any way try to prevent whatever solution of this difficulty the Government may be able to put forward, and I shall not, of course, divide the House; but I think I am entitled to say that the Government have mismanaged this little affair very badly indeed. If they cannot manage the little affairs well, how can they manage the great affairs? I hope this will be a lesson to them.
  Mr. WATT: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) in having elicited from the Government an explanation of their withdrawal of this Resolution. As my hon. Friend has said, this Resolution had been made the very best of from its initiation in the House. It was a Resolution handing over money by the House to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, which is the English institution, and no mention was made of Scotland and Ireland. It is withdrawn with a view to bringing another Resolution in, I have no doubt. I should like, therefore, to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the question as to whether a similar Motion to that now withdrawn can be brought in in this present Session of Parliament? Sir Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice" says:
  "It is a Rule, in both Houses, which is essential to the due performance of their duties, that no question or Bill shall be offered that is substantially the same as one on which their judgment has already been expressed in the current Session."
  Further on it says:
  "A mere alteration of the words of a question without any substantial change in its object, will not be sufficient to evade this Rule. On the 7th July, 1840, Mr. Speaker called attention to a Motion for a Bill. …Its form and words were different from those of a previous Motion, but the object was substantially the same; and the House agreed that it was irregular, and ought not to be proposed from the Chair."
  I submit that when this Motion comes up again, as it is bound to do, in perhaps a little altered form, it will be against the Rules of the House to consider it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understand the Resolution that will be proposed will be different. It will have reference to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture for Ireland. It will be, therefore, a different Resolution from that to which the Committee agreed on Wednesday.
  Mr. WATT: Does not that come under "A mere alteration of the words"?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Is it not a "substantial change"? Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say there is no difference between Scotland and England?
  Order accordingly discharged.

  LAND DRAINAGE [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under any Act of the present Session to amend the Land Drainage Act, 1861, and to make further provision for the drainage of agricultural land."

  SUPPLY.— [18th APRIL.]
  Resolution reported [2nd May],
  SUPPLY.— [18th APRIL.]

    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.— Class I.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £23,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1919, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."
    Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [2nd May], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. WATT: When this was before the Committee I took exception to it being passed. The object of my intervention was to raise objection to £2,500 being spent on Consular offices at Harbin, which is a district very much disturbed at the present time. I am informed that, instead of the amount being for buildings to be set up, this expenditure is to be on a site, which is quite a different thing from a building in a disturbed area. Therefore I take no objection to this being passed for a site.

  HORSE BREEDING [EXPENSES.]
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, which may become payable under any Act of the present Session to regulate the use of stallions for stud purposes—(King's recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Sir R. Winfrey.]
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. GULLAND: May I ask the Noble Lord the Patronage Secretary if he can tell the House what Supply he will take on Thursday?
  Lord E. TALBOT: The Board of Trade Vote.
  Mr. KING: Is it intended that we shall have a statement about railway travelling from the President?
  Lord E. TALBOT: Yes.
  Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes before Eight o'clock.