HC Deb 15 November 1918 vol 110 cc3127-46

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of RECONSTRUCTION (Dr. Addison)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

1.0 P.M.

This Bill is rendered necessary from the fact that in the various Bills which have been passed during the War a great number of phrases are used of varying kinds—I believe thirty in number—which refer to "the cessation of hostilities," "the termination of the War," and so on. The matter was examined in great detail by an important Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Atkin, and they made recommendations on the subject, which were submitted to a Select Committee of this House. That Select Committee has presented an interim Report, and the substance of the recommendations of it are embodied in the Bill before us. It is necessary, so far as possible, that some definite date should be fixed, because the matter really affects the termination of a very large number of emergency Acts passed during the War, and uncertainty is to be avoided in the interests of all. The Bill suggested by Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee has been modified in one respect owing to the state of affairs in Europe. As the recommendations of the Committee stood the principle suggested was that the date of the termination of the War should be on the date of the ratification of peace. That was clearly a practical and definite suggestion. Owing, however, to the state of affairs in Europe at present, it is quite conceivable that there may be difficulties in saying what is the date, for you may have treaties with different States. It is quite possible that there may be treaties concluded at different times with some of the new States which have arisen. These are difficulties, and it is these emergencies which we are endeavouring to provide against in the Bill. It will be observed that in one of the paragraphs of Clause 1 it is provided that certain specified powers shall, if it is considered expedient, cease before the date so fixed as aforesaid, and His Majesty in Council may fix some earlier date for the termination of those powers. This is necessary because it is quite clear that in some of the Acts passed the phrases "cessation of hostilities," and so forth, mean that it is clearly desirable that the power should cease before the ratification of the peace treaty. In most of the emergency measures at the present time the powers are exercised by Government Departments, or their officers, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. They can be revoked by Order in Council. The proposal here extends this power over the emergency Statutes, so that if we find it possible to dispense with exceptional powers before the date of the ratification of the treaties we should be able to do so. I am sure everybody will be in agreement, in respect to these purely war powers, that we should dispense with them, if possible, before the date of the ratification of peace Then the point I have mentioned in respect to the different Powers or States that may arise is covered by the provisions of Subsection (2) of Clause 1. This states: The date so declared shall be fixed with regard to, and shall not be later than, the date of the exchange or deposit of ratifications of the treaty or treaties of peace, or such later date, if any, as may be fixed by the treaty or treaties.… There may be possibly a number of treaties. It is clearly desirable that power should be taken to revoke or to bring to an end an Act which imposes disabilities, where you have concluded a treaty with a rising Power before, perhaps, the ratification of treaties with other Powers. Because some of these Acts and Orders impose disabilities on subjects of enemy States, on British subjects, and so forth, and it is quite clear it would be desirable in everyone's interests where there may be a multiplicity of treaties that power should be taken to declare the termination of the War in respect of a particular belligerent. It has also been provided that His Majesty in Council may similarly declare what date is to be treated as the date of the termination of war between His Majesty and any particular State, because of the States with which we entered as belligerents some will probably have ceased to exist. It will be difficult to say exactly what is Austria-Hungary, and it is necessary to declare in the case of a separate treaty with the Czechoslovaks or any other new nation what is the termination of the War with that particular belligerent. The general proposal is to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee or Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee and make the termination of the War the date of the ratification of the peace treaty, making such modifications as may be necessary in view of the fact that there may be a number of peace treaties with Powers that have arisen or emerged into independence since the commencement of the War; and generally also that we should have power where it is desirable to declare a date for the termination of various emergency Statutes earlier than the ratification of the peace treaty.

Mr. HOLT

I think, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, that this is a most unsatisfactory Bill, and I must say that the way in which this matter has been treated is really a scandal. This Bill is being hurried through in the last two days of the life of Parliament, and yet we are dealing with a matter of the greatest possible importance to the liberties of our fellow subjects. I really do not think that there should have been this tremendous hurry about the Bill and that we should be forced to rush the matter through at the last moment, instead of being allowed reasonable time for consideration in Parliament. Just look at this Bill. It really is another example of what is so objectionable—legislation by Order in Council. We should have had a proper Schedule setting up the Acts which are terminated, how long one Act is to be extended, and how long another is to be extended, and Parliament should have been invited to express its opinion as to the continuance of particular Acts and the discontinuance of others. The Government themselves recognise, by the second paragraph of the first Sub-section of Clause 1, that it is desirable that different Acts of Parliament should be terminated on different dates. But why is Parliament not to be consulted? Why are the people of this country not to be allowed to express an opinion as to which Acts ought to be discontinued at once and which should be continued for a longer period? There is no reason except that the Government want an election in December. Because, forsooth, they want to play an electioneering game and terminate the life of the present Parliament, and for no earthly reason except that Parliament is deprived of an opportunity of expressing its own opinion as to what is to be done to the continuance of special war measures.

Look at some of the Acts which come to an end with this War. Perhaps the Act likely to affect the largest number of people is the Military Service Act, which comes to end, I think, with the present War. We are not to be allowed to discuss in Parliament at what stage the obligation to serve compulsorily in the Army is to be discontinued. Apparently the Government do not intend to let us discuss that if they can help it. Another Act in everybody's mind is the Defence of the Realm Act, which we are apparently not to be allowed to discuss. Yet surely anybody can see that these two important Acts are Acts which might easily be discontinued on totally different dates. The necessity for keeping soldiers in the field may exist, when it is perfectly unnecessary to have any regulations about freedom of speech and freedom of printing, and yet we here are not to be allowed to discuss these things. I want to ask the Government, if I may do so, to explain what force the Defence of the Realm Act would have? As I understand it, the Defence of the Realm Act stipulates that they may issue Regulations for securing the public safety or the defence of the realm. All the Regulations have to be for those two purposes. Now, if we have an Armistice carried out on the terms that have been announced to us, and that we are openly told will make it absolutely impossible for the enemy to renew hostilities, how can it be said that Regulations are made for public safety or defence of the realm? On the face of it that would be untrue, because it would be publicly known that the realm was not in any danger. So far as I can read it, and a learned Friend in this House—a very learned Friend—tells me my construction is correct, directly you have secured an Armistice, then, although the Act does not come to an end, the power to make Regulations is suspended. Surely these are points we ought to be allowed to discuss! It is the Commons of England, surely, who are to decide and not the Government!

The right hon. Gentleman has not told us a single word as to the policy of the Government. We have not been told how they propose to exercise these powers. We have had no kind of assurance what Acts are going to be discontinued or even the general character of the Regulations they propose to discontinue. Of course, the Defence of the Realm Act is dealing with an immense multiplicity of subjects. We have not only this question of the publication of news, but this objectionable Regulation on venereal disease, which everybody knows is very much objected to, and the whole of the Regulations, many of them ultra vires, dealing with the fixing of prices and controlling of supplies. These are matters which go to the very root of the common life of the people of this country. Why are we not to discuss them in this House before the General Election? I will give another instance of the sort of matter which is being dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act, and we do not know in the least how the Government propose to continue after they have got this measure. There are those bodies limited in the charges they are able to make which are authorised by the Defence of the Realm Act to levy charges above their statutory powers in order to pay the wages the Government has compelled them to pay. The Government are bringing in a Bill—they have brought in a Bill—to compel those wages to be paid. What are they going to do with the powers they have got under the Defence of the Realm Act by which they are authorising people to make charges which were not lawful? This greatly affects the commercial community because it strikes at the financial stability of bodies like the Port of London Authority, the Clyde Trustees, and) people of that sort. The Government comes forward and says, "Give us a Bill to do what we like—to discontinue the Regulations at any moment we please." It is all very unsatisfactory, and I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do at a later stage of these proceedings. I suppose he will try to get all stages to-day?

Dr. ADDISON

No.

Mr. HOLT

The Committee?

Dr. ADDISON

No.

Mr. HOLT

Well, that is all right. It at least gives us an opportunity for putting down Amendments. There is another question, and that is when the termination of the War comes about for private contracts. That also might have been a subject of legislation at the same time. I do not know that we can very well object to this Bill passing and it is probably better than no Bill at all, but I think we ought to protest against the manner in which the Government have treated this important subject, and we ought to object altogether to this proposal even now, when the worst of the hostilities are over, because it proposes that the ruling of our own destinies should be taken out of our hands and handed over to the Government.

Mr. DENMAN

I cannot agree with the arguments which are put forward by the last speaker. The phrase "termination of the War" can only mean the ratification of peace, and this Bill gives the Government power to relieve us of our fetters earlier than would otherwise be the case. In the course of the War this House has deliberately decided that Acts shall have validity until the end of the War, and without this Bill they will certainly go on longer. As one who desires very strongly that the liberties of the country shall be restored as soon as possibly consistently with the public welfare, I welcome the provision this Bill provides for the earlier termination of the Acts than would otherwise be the case. There is one point to which I wish to raise an objection. It is, perhaps, rather a Committee point, but I should like to give the right hon. Gentleman notice of it. It is all very well to fix the date when the War shall be deemed to have stopped, but this Bill does more. A great many of these emergency Bills relate not only to the period of the War, but to a fixed period after the War: sometimes it is six months, and even twelve months. In those cases Parliament deliberately said that the conditions which prevailed during the War were likely to prevail afterwards, and they extended those powers for a given period after the end of the War. Clause 1 gives the Government power not only to anticipate what would normally be the end of the War, but it gives them a further power. Let me give an example. The Munitions of War Act provides that Part I. of this Act shall continue to apply for a period of twelve months after the conclusion of the present War to certain industries. Part I. of that Act sets up the machinery by which the Board of Trade intervened in cases of dispute. Therefore we clearly decided that those provisions were to last for a year after the end of the War. Is it right that we should now give the Government power by a mere Order, in response, perhaps, to pressure, to override the deliberate decision of this House, and to say that those provisions shall have no validity beyond such a date as they may fix, even before the War has ended? I think this point can be met by making an alteration by the inserting instead of the words "termination of those powers" the words "on the termination of the War." I make this suggestion for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration.

Mr. BIGLAND

This Bill provides that "His Majesty in Council may declare what date is to be treated as the date of the termination of the present War." I wish to say a few words about the trade situation and particularly the trade of merchants and importers from foreign ports into this country. A Bill was introduced earlier in the Session called the Imports and Exports (Temporary Control) Bill, and in that measure it was provided in one of the Clauses that the continuation of all the Orders in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act were to be handed over to the President of the Board of Trade, and that he would be at liberty to put his pen through any portion of those Orders, and say that the time has arrived when they are no longer necessary. The difficulty now is that the different Orders in Council, all being based on the Defence of the Realm Act, the right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly declare that the Defence of the Realm Act is cancelled without cancelling all those Orders in Council. The position the Government will be placed in is this: The Food Controller may say, "You can on no account cancel the Defence of the Realm Act, because if you do all my powers are cancelled and the feeding of the nation would go into chaos." The other section of the business community may demand that a number of those Orders shall be immediately cancelled, because they are preventing British merchants from taking their due place in the business world.

Let me give an instance in my own case. I appeared before the Controller in reference to an article called resin, and I asked for permission to send a cable ordering a quantity of resin from abroad, but I was refused this permission, because the Order in Council provides that no English merchant may make provision for future stocks and requirements by purchasing in foreign markets. Naturally, we want these Orders in Council, which curtail the action of merchants by cable, rescinded, because we cannot even send a cable to our agents abroad to inquire about certain matters. It seems to me that we must have some starting point from which Orders in Council are going to be cancelled, and how it is to be arranged it is difficult to say when a Bill is introduced suddenly like this. Surely our great chambers of commerce and other bodies of merchants and traders interested in business all over the world should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to how this point might be overcome! Neutral countries, finding that there are only limited stocks of certain raw materials in different parts of the world, will immediately purchase, and yet we are not permitted to send even a cable. We are restricted and bound, and in many cases are not even allowed to make inquiries of people, or to ask for a quotation. We are bound so absolutely under certain parts of the Defence of the Realm Act, especially in regard to products which are in war looked upon as military products, and which in many cases during the War have been military necessities, but which in times of peace are only used for ordinary manufactures, that I would put it to my right hon. Friend that it would be advisable, if possible, to create a power by which Orders in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act may be cancelled at an earlier date than the declaration of peace.

Dr. ADDISON

That is exactly what we do.

Mr. BIGLAND

I am very glad if it is so, but my first reading of the Bill is that until this one date is fixed the Defence of the Realm Act will not cease to operate. I am certain the pressure from the Ministry of Food will be so great that it will be impossible to cancel the whole of the Defence of the Realm Act. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the Minister of Food can continue his action if he does not take it under the Defence of the Realm Act? If that Act is not cancelled by the Declaration of an Order in Council, I do not see how it is possible by any subsidiary Clauses in this Bill to give power to the Government to cancel orders of the nature which they think should be immediately terminated. I have no doubt that in the further discussion of the Bill we shall get a little more light thrown upon this point. We have only had an opportunity to hurriedly examine the measure, and we have had no chance of talking it over with men whose judgment on these points we value highly. I have no doubt whatever that this House will give the Bill a Second Beading, but I hope at the same time that in Committee we shall find it possible to amend and improve it.

Sir J. JARDINE

I agree with the last speaker that we ought to give this Bill a Second Reading. It has been rather hurriedly sprung upon us, and the views of the financial and mercantile world will be required to be considered by those in charge of the measure. Some of the great financial and trading corporations will desire to put in a clause that after a certain period—say three years—after the signing of peace with Germany debenture holdings may be converted into ordinary shares. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Government have in view the possibility that instead of making peace with great Powers such as Germany and Austria were they may have to conclude a number of different peace articles with the Republics into which those Empires have been split. In these circumstances power should be given to announce a date on which these financial transactions will be allowed, and I would be glad if this Bill in Committee can be so amended as to deal with that particular point.

Mr. SHERWELL

In the early months of the War we rushed War Emergency Bills through this House at an unprecedented rate, and at that time I raised a question as to what was to be the date of the termination of the operations of these measures. The then Attorney-General on behalf of the Government gave a pledge that a solution would be found by the fixing of a statutory date. I am sure the view of the House will be that a result of that kind is very desirable, and in my view the commercial and social interests of this country would consider it immeasurably preferable to have such a method of dealing with this question. The seriousness of the matter is, I think, the greater because, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill to-day, the Minister of Reconstruction gave the House no sort of even a shadowy kind of indication as to the date or series of dates present in the mind of the Government. They have not given us the least indication when the country may look for a discontinuance of the operations on various measures, some of which press very harshly indeed upon the legitimate liberties and freedom of action of our people. The right hon. Gentleman said—I have no doubt with all sincerity—that no one would desire to continue in force these war measures, and particularly war restrictions, an hour longer than was absolutely necessary. The House must remember that after more than four years' experience the continuance of these particular powers and restrictions may be a matter of very great convenience to the Departments and Ministers concerned, and I am bound to say that at this time of day after four years actual experience I am not prepared to accept the expression of a benevolent thought such as that as a sufficient guarantee for the restoration of the vital liberties and freedom of the people of this country. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have considered the probable effect upon a very large section of public opinion in this country of measures of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman must know that there is at the present time in this country a vast amount of passionate feeling, and reasonably so, against the continuance of arbitrary restrictions, the raison d'être of which must have disappeared with the signing of the Armistice. Are the Government quite sure that the effect of this measure on public opinion, interpreted or misinterpreted as the case may be in the course of a General Election, will be negligible? Are they really unconscious of its possible mischievious and even disastrous effects on an inflamed public opinion? I would give the fullest possible support to any organised protest at the coming election against the maintenance of the restrictions under the Defence of the Realm Act, and the refusal of the Government to name a specific date for their termination. If there be an organised move in the country in connection with the General Election to demand that the Government shall fix a specific date, will it not be difficult for Ministerial candidates to withstand the pressure brought to bear on them? I would counsel the Government, in their own interests, to reassure public opinion concerning the speedy termination of some of these resented measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) referred to certain individual measures, amongst them the Military Service Acts. I am satisfied that if the Government are playing for safety at an unprecedentedly critical period in European history they will find it wise to reassure the country as to the speedy termination of the powers enforced under that Act. I am rather alarmed when I observe the complacent attitude which powerful organs of the public Press, Ministers, and the average citizen are taking to-day towards the revolutionary spirit and feeling which are covering so wide an area in Europe. Are the Government so fully satisfied in their own minds that there is no danger in this country from that same movement? I believe that we are immeasurably nearer that danger in our social and national life than anyone at the present moment imagines.

Mr. BIGLAND

You ought to be ashamed to say it!

Mr. SHERWELL

I do not understand either the philosophy or the objection of the hon. Member. When I state frankly my view of what is taking place in Europe, and when I ask the Government to take measures to reassure the country so that there may be no danger of an outbreak of that spirit here, I am performing a patriotic duty, and I am not saying anything to which the hon. Gentleman is entitled to shout "shame."

Mr. BIGLAND

I understood the hon. Member to say that the spirit of Bolshevism was nearer than any of us thought in this country.

Mr. SHERWELL

I said that I was amazed at the complacent view which was taken, that the danger which is making itself manifest on the Continent of Europe is not a practical danger in this country. I am so alive to the way in which this spirit spreads and so conscious of the lessons of history and experience that I beseech the Government to give reassurance to the country where it can give reassurance, and so prevent an unnecessary and calamitous outbreak of the same spirit here. I maintain that in giving that warning I am uttering the truest patriotism. There is the danger, and it is because I apprehend the danger that I make my appeal to the Government on the floor of the House to-day. The right hon. Gentleman practically assumed that the provisions of this measure are almost tantamount to the recommendations of Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee. The right hon. Gentleman frankly recognised that the recommendation was that the date for the termination of the War should be synonymous with the exchange or deposit of the ratifications of the treaty of peace, but he said there was a practical difficulty in adopting that recommendation literally, because probably the exchange of ratifications might vary with different nations and different people. That is no obstacle to fixing a specific date. You can fix a specific date with a special provision in your Bill, giving you power to anticipate it if circumstances warrant the anticipation. It is because I feel that the country is so tired of these blind powers given to an Executive and so tired of legislation by reference to Orders—they have suffered all the hardships and restrictions entailed in this form of procedure up to now- that they would be suspicious of a Bill framed in terms such as these that I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government between now and the Committee stage to reconsider the matter, and to discover whether it is not possible to give greater and more specific reassurance concerning such matters as freedom of speech, freedom of literature and publication—matters of which a great deal will be heard in the country in the coming weeks—than is contained in the Bill.

Sir R. COOPER

The value of this Bill depends entirely upon how it is going to be administered. I would not quibble as to how the provisions are going to be carried out if only the industrial people of this country could feel that the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Reconstruction and the Government will seriously take the earliest possible step in their power to free the industries and trades of the country from the Regulations which hitherto have obviously been so necessary. The administration of this Bill affects the whole problem of Reconstruction. It affects very closely the danger, whatever that danger may be, of industrial difficulties, and if, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned, there be any danger of a revolutionary nature in the country, the administration of this Bill will have a very great effect upon what may happen. I know that my right hon. Friend appreciates that fact, but I want him to realise that it is vital that the business men of the country should know at the earliest possible date when they are going to be freed from one or the other of the many Regulations that they have had to obey. I have direct knowledge of the fact that orders for some machinery went last Saturday to the United States, although the Americans have never had them before, because they are not tied as our people are tied by permits and regulations of different kinds. Manufacturers in countries like the United States are much freer at the present moment than the manufacturers of this country; and it is obvious that the people throughout the world—in this case it was Japan—will place all their urgent and valuable orders in such countries as are free, and that we shall lose them. Of course, that is obviously exceedingly important. Many business men fear very seriously what they describe as the danger of bureaucracy. We have necessarily had very large de- partments at work where individuals and officials have had a great deal of power and influence, and we want to feel that if there is any tendency on their part to raise obstacles, or to retain their working power longer than necessary, the Minister of Reconstruction will keep a very keen eye on the main chance of reconstruction and will get freedom for manufacturers, in spite of any departmental or official opposition with which he may be confronted. There is a great deal of anxiety on this matter, and it is desirable to make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman and those connected with him that it is vital to the immediate interests of this country that the Government should free every industry at the earliest possible moment.

Sir WILLOUGHBY DICKINSON

We are indebted to the hon. Member for the Hexham Division (Mr. Holt) for having raised this Debate, and I agree with him and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) as to the seriousness of the position. There is no doubt that by this Bill we are withdrawing from the elected representatives of the country enormous powers and handing them over to the King and Council. I fail to see why it is necessary to anticipate the views of the new Parliament by bringing in this measure before the Dissolution. We have various Acts most stringently affecting the liberty of the subject, and it seems to me that it would have been more reasonable to have allowed the newly-elected Parliament to decide when these stringent Regulations should be suspended rather than the Parliament now going out of office. I desire to ask one question which has not yet been referred to in this Debate. I am most anxious to know what the latest date is? The House will observe that the date which is to be declared is referred to in Sub-section (1) as follows: His Majesty in Council may declare what date is to be treated as the date of the termination of the present War. Sub-section (2) says: The date so declared shall be fixed with regard to, and shad not be later than, the date of the exchange of deposit of ratifications of the treaty or treaties of peace, or such later date, if any, as may be fixed by the treaty or treaties as the date of the termination of war. It does not necessarily follow that the date of the ratification of the treaties is going to be the latest date. His Majesty in Council has an option. If in the treaties there is any mention of a later date, that will take the place of the date of ratification. It is important that we should really know what that means, because, first of all, who will decide that question in the treaties? I do not know what proposals the Government mean to bring forward with regard to the deciding of the treaties of peace. Is this House going to know the terms of such a treaty? Quite apart from the general importance of that question, it seems to me that if we are going to allow His Majesty to insert in the treaties a provision which will still further extend the disabilities that affect the people of this country beyond the date of the ratification—I presume there is some idea of doing it, otherwise it would hardly have been put into this Sub-section—we are really withdrawing from the representatives of people a very important function. I do not know whether the Government have considered this. I hope that before the Bill reaches the Committee stage we shall really know what is proposed to be done with regard to this particular point. It is absurd to say that the date shall not be later than the date of the deposit of the ratifications, and then to take away half the value of that by saying that if in the treaty which may be made with any particular country or particular people the date is altered, then there is no limit at all. So far as I can see, there would be no limit at all. Of course, the limit will depend upon the terms of the treaties. I hope the Government will pay attention to this particular point.

Sir E. POLLOCK

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. Is it intended under Clause 1 of this Bill that successive and various Orders in Council shall be made, or is it the intention that there shall be only one Order in Council? If a number of Orders in Council are to be made dealing with specific Acts, or Orders in Council, or Proclamations, I can well understand that the power taken in Sub-section (2) would be really innocuous. But if it is intended, as on its face the Bill would appear to declare, that one comprehensive Order in Council is to be made, I can see some difficulty about the right hon. Gentleman securing the passage of Sub-section (2). I should have thought that the intention was that a number of Orders in Council were to be made. If the right hon. Gentleman will make that abundantly plain, I think he would remove most of the grounds of the criticisms that have been put forward. Obviously the critics could fairly say that an Order in Council should probably be made before the treaty of peace is made or signed and exchanged. Then the difficulty is raised that by the mere treaty of peace those persons who were responsible for it would be able to legislate by the extension of a certain number of Acts of Parliament. I do not believe that this House or the Ministry has any intention of giving that authority to those persons who are considering the treaty of peace. As the Bill stands, suggesting one magnificent Order in Council which is to be operative for all Acts of Parliament, Orders in Council and Proclamations, there is ground for that opinion. If the right hon. Gentleman would make it plain that he intends to issue a number of Orders in Council and, perhaps, to issue some Orders in Council as soon as we have passed this Bill, a great difficulty would be removed. Then we should have confidence that the matters dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act and Proclamations would be removed in the course of a very few weeks. Others might have to continue for a certain time in regard to certain matters which would be of an international nature, such as the treatment of aliens and the protection of our shores from invasion by some of our enemies. They might properly be left over as matters to be dealt with by the treaty of peace, because it is at that moment we shall be able to impose our will on our enemies, and it would be an unfortunate thing if legislative effect were not given immediately to enforce what is right upon those who are our enemies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give an answer upon this point.

Mr. T. WILSON

I am quite certain that the great mass of the working people of this country will be disappointed if this Bill passes as it is now. If the right hon. Gentleman had been at the Central Hall yesterday, he would have heard a strong demand for the immediate repeal of Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act. I am satisfied that while the working classes of the country have accepted the restrictions put upon their liberty and the interference with their freedom of speech and what not, yet if those Regulations are continued very much longer we shall have such industrial unrest in the country that the Government will have to pass another Act of Parliament for meeting the wishes of these people or for suppressing the action they have taken. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) has suggested that the Government ought to consider fixing in this Bill a definite date, with power to anticipate the repeal of Regulations which the state of affairs at any given moment would justify them in repealing. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that the form in which a Bill of this kind would meet with the approval and support of the working classes of the country would be to make it quite clear that some of these obnoxious Regulations are to be repealed at the earliest possible moment.

Dr. ADDISON

Those Regulations can be repealed at any time.

Mr. WILSON

I do not think it is a definite date. Therefore I hope that between now and the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to the suggestion that has been made. We do not want any more industrial unrest in the country than we have now. I am quite satisfied that the position is serious enough, without giving those who perhaps are irresponsible any more reason for pressing their arguments, policy, and views upon the country. I seriously warn the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that if they do not follow the course suggested they will have great difficulty in dealing with the industrial situation in this country. I therefore hope they will give consideration to the points raised.

Sir R. NEWMAN

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this Bill is being passed for the purpose of restoring the personal liberty and freedom of the Press sooner than would be the case if it were not passed? If that is so, and we can get an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman to that effect, it would help him to get the Bill through. It is not only the working classes who want the restoration of freedom of speech and freedom of the subject. We all want it. Therefore if the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that this Bill is intended as a preliminary to at once restoring liberties that have been taken from us by the necessities of the War, I feel it would be one of the most popular Bills the Government have ever brought forward.

Dr. ADDISON

The remarks of the right hon. Member for St. Pancras (Sir W. Dickinson) are of a technical character, and those of the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) and my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. T. Wilson) have caused me no little puzzle. They ate suggesting seriously that when we have to deal with the complexity of business with which we are confronted, having to deal with the cessation of the operations of various Regulations and Statutes, covering within their cycle thirty-eight closely printed pages, the House of Commons is to discuss each one of these questions and decide when these things shall come to an end in order that we may expedite the discontinuance! Because we knew perfectly well that you cannot deal with all this mass of legislation individually which we had collected together, and on which, as hon. Members know, high judicial advice has been taken, and in order to carry the House with us and meet the wishes of the House, we remitted it specifically to a Select Committee of this House, and have introduced this Bill to give effect to the recommendations of that Committee. What do they recommend? They say: Because we feel the adoption of some definite principle by which the date of the termination of war can be determined is necessary in order to enable us usefully to consider the second part of our terms of reference. What is the second part of their terms of reference? The first part was that they were appointed to take into consideration the Report of Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee and matters connected therewith and report what provision should be made by Parliament for defining the words "the end of the War." They recommend that we should pass a Bill on these lines in order that they may get to the second part. This is the second part— and other similar phrases occurring in war emergency statutes and extending in whole or in part, or shortening, the period of operation of several emergency Statutes and Regulations made thereunder. 2.0 P.M.

"Or shortening." We have specifically given the different papers and points raised by different Departments on this large mass occupying this long document in order to put before the Select Committee the whole case in respect of the different Regulations and emergency statutes and the Select Committee advise us, having looked at it, that the first step necessary is to pass a Bill of this kind so that they will have a definite date to guide them. Hon. Members are anxious to restore the liberty of the subject. So am I. But they say before you do that you are to go through each one of these things individually and state in different Acts what you are going to do. A more impossible and unbusinesslike suggestion it is impossible to imagine. If you want to promote dissatisfaction in the mercantile community, that is the way to do it. We are seeking the power as explained by the hon. Member behind (Sir R. Newman), for whose intervention I am most grateful, so it shall be possible to deal with specific matters promptly, and he desired that an assurance should be given. Now let me reply to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) who proposes this impossible and dilatory method. What have we done? The Armistice was declared on Monday. On Tuesday we released a considerable number of things, and we have released more every day since then, and at the Standing Council on Priority, which is composed almost exclusively of merchants, traders and business men, and is sitting daily with the sole purpose of getting rid of any embarrassing regulations which may be in restraint of the development of trade, we have released various commodities, and they were released in every case within a few hours of their recommendations. I am content that we should be judged on our record since Tuesday morning last as to whether we intend to continue embarrassing Orders any longer than the state of affairs compels. We have already released a great many things, and I am just as anxious as the hon. Member for Hexham that we should get rid of these embarrassing restrictions as fast as we can, and all I have to say is the way he proposes would mean that the House would be in constant session for the whole of next year. He understands Parliamentary procedure as well as I do.

Mr. HOLT

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us when the Committee is going to report on the second part of its reference?

Dr. ADDISON

I do not know. But we shall expedite matters if the Committee has not reported. If we obtain power to declare for an earlier date it will be all in the direction the hon. Member wants, and I am still very puzzled to find out on what grounds he bases his objection, because we are doing the very thing he wants us to do, namely, to expedite the abrogation of a number of these embarrassing recommendations. The hon Mem- ber for Huddersfield and the hon. Member for St. Pancras wanted to be reassurred on various points. I am afraid I cannot reassure them on particular details, and I do not think it can fairly be expected of me, but our general desire is to get released as soon as we can consistent with the national interest. We have already shown our good faith in the last three days in that respect, and with respect to the abrogation of the Military Service Act, and so we shall do. The hon. Member for Huddersfield suggested that we were guilty of sloth, although as he is well aware the Orders under the Ministry Service Act were suspended on Tuesday morning. I believe telegraphic notices were sent out, and the operation of calling up, at any rate, ceased at that time. I shall not be expected to go through a long catalogue of things. Our desire is to obtain power to get rid of these embarrassing restrictions as soon as we can. We can get that power in anticipation of a date mentioned in this Bill, and I think in so doing we are serving the very thing which hon. Members, with me, so anxiously desire.

Mr. SHERWELL

Is it proposed to modify or abolish the censorship before the General Election?

Dr. ADDISON

I do not know anything about those Regulations. I must ask for notice. I have not the faintest idea what they are.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to Committee of Whole House for Monday next.—[Dr. Addison.]