Commons Sitting of 9 August 1920

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Dublin Port and Docks Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
London Electric Railway Companies (Fares, etc.) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Huddersfield Corporation (General Powers) Bill,
Yeovil Corporation Bill,
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 6th August, and agreed to.
Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock (Finance) Bill,
Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.
Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Osborne's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Royal Bank of Scotland Bill [Lords],
Shekleton's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Cardiff Corporation Hill [Lords],
As amended, considered; an Amendment made.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Llanelly Corporation Water Bill [Lords], As amended, considered;
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
King's Consent signified; Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Salford Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now

3
read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
King's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified; Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (New Windsor Extension) Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

ALLOA WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Alloa Water," presented by Mr. Munro; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.
PERSONS IN RECEIPT OF POOR LAW RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy ordered of Statement of the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law Relief in England and Wales on the night of the 1st day of January, 1920 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 230, of Session 1919).—[Dr. Addison.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    FLAX.
    Mr. WATERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government sale of flax by public auction resulted in a complete failure to sell; whether the bidding did not reach Government price; whether this price bore any relation to the state of the market; and whether it is the policy of the Government to exploit the needs of the community in this commodity?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Horne): The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. No flax has been offered for sale at auction by the Government. I presume that the sale to which the hon. Gentleman refers was a sale of flax which was the property of the Latvian and the Lithuanian Governments, and His Majesty's
    4
    Government have no control over it or over the policy pursued in regard to its sale.

  BRITISH CLEARING-HOUSE (ENEMY DEBTS).
  Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, on the expiry of the time limit on 15th August, the Peace Treaty requires him to await further the convenience of the German Clearing-house authorities before the British Clearing-house disburses to British creditors payment for due and unpaid direct obligations of the various German Governments and municipalities of which proofs in proper form have been lodged with the British Clearing-house prior to 15th May, 1920; whether the British Clearing-house will in the absence of such requirement pay out on 16th August to British creditors who have before 15th May, 1920, lodged their securities and coupons and proved their claims in proper form, provided that the German authorities have not proved that the securities and coupons are not genuine; if not, if he will say why this will not be done; and if he will say why it is considered necessary for him to take diplomatic action before making disbursements on claims that have not been confirmed by Germany before 15th August, as provided by the Treaty, seeing that Great Britain holds enough German assets to meet British claims lodged and proved against German debtors before 15th May, 1920, and that a time limit has been provided by the Peace Treaty to protect British creditors specifically against the delays which cause this and similar questions to be put down?
  Mr. SHORTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will ascertain through the German Clearing-house for enemy debts how many properly sworn claims for British-owned credit balances with German banks, lodged with the British Clearing-house before 1st March, 1920, have not yet reached the German banks concerned; what he proposes to do at the expiry of the stipulated date on 15th August about these British funds in German banks if they have not been agreed by the German Clearing-house before 15th August; and whether it is in the public interest that these British-owned credits should be handed over to

  5
  their owners in Britain at the earliest day after 15th August, in order to be used in the working of British trade and finance?
  Sir R. HORNE: Under the terms of the Treaty, debts notified to the German Clearing Office on the 15th May are deemed to be admitted unless they are objected to by the 15th August, or such later date as may be agreed upon. A similar provision applies in the case of debts due from this country to Germans. Owing to the size and complexity of the operation involved, however, it will, I fear, be impossible for all claims to be disposed of within the period laid down by the Treaty as a mimimum, and it may be necessary to agree to extend the time. Subject to this, debts admitted or not objected to within the stipulated period will be paid to British creditors as speedily as practicable. Diplomatic action would only become necessary in the event of Germany failing to comply with the terms of the Treaty, and the payment of British creditors will not be dependent upon it. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by asking the German Office to give the information referred to by the hon. Member for Wednesbury. Every effort is being made on this side to expedite the settlement of the debts passing through the Clearing Offices; and, so far as I can judge, the German Clearing Office also is endeavouring to fulfil its obligations. I trust that hon. Members will appreciate, however, that the settlement of tens of thousands of claims for a total of fifty or sixty millions sterling is a task which inevitably requires a certain amount of time. If creditors have to wait a few weeks longer than they would wish for their money, they are at any rate relieved from the trouble and risk of collecting it for themselves, and interest continues to run upon the debt until its admission.

  TRANSPORT.

    LONDON TRAFFIC (CONGESTION).
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether traffic congestion in the Metropolitan area has increased since the Report of the Select Committee on London Traffic was issued; whether any new proposals have
    6
    been made by public authorities and private companies, and brought forward since the publication of the Report referred to; whether these proposals would have the effect of further adding to the traffic congestion in the London streets; and whether, in view of these circumstances and of the certainty of yet further traffic difficulties, he can make some statement with regard to the setting up of a Traffic Board for London before the Recess?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric GEDDES): I understand that the Report of the Advisory Committee on London Traffic is referred to. There are no data available to indicate that traffic congestion has increased since the Advisory Committee reported. On the other hand some improvements by the passenger carrying undertakings have been effected, more particularly by increases in rolling stock. As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which was given him in this connection on the 12th ultimo.

    RAILWAY RATES AND FARES.
    Sir R. NEWMANasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to state how the proposed new railway fares for passengers travelling in this country will compare with the fares charged on the railways in France, Canada, and in the United States of America?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The percentage increases in ordinary passenger fares in this country and the countries named in the question over pre-War fares are as follow:

    United States, 80 per cent., as from 1st September.

    France, 70 to 80 per cent., according to class, and further increase imminent.

    Canada, 40 per cent., and Press announce additional 40 per cent.

    Major MOLSONasked the Minister of Transport whether he can say what increase of revenue to the railways has resulted from the increased rates of 15th January; and whether he is now providing for a deficit of 86 millions, instead of the estimated deficit of 54½ millions?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The increase of freight rates by both goods and passenger trains

    7
    imposed on the 15th January last was estimated to produce additional revenue at the rate of £50,000,000 per annum, and the figures up to the 30th June last indicate that this estimate has been realised. I do not recognise the figure of £86,000,000 quoted in the hon. and gallant Member's question; but I answered a similar question by the hon. Member for the Leek Division (Mr. Bromfield) on the 29th July, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. and gallant Member.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Transport whether he has now come to a decision as regards the Report of the Advisory Committee on Railway Goods Rates; will he state what increase the Committee recommend; and what increase the Government propose to put on goods rates from 1st September, the date already announced when increased rates would come into force?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The Report of the Rates Advisory Committee on the interim revision of railway goods etc. rates, is under consideration, and I hope to be able to make a definite statement early this week. The Report of the Committee is being printed, and will be laid on the Table of the House.
    Mr. GILBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a definite announcement before the House rises?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I said I hoped to make it early this week. I will endeavour to do so before the House rises.

    TIMBER.
    Mr. FREDERICK GREENasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the loss and inconvenience suffered by timber merchants owing to the failure of the railways to deal adequately with this class of traffic; and whether he can take steps to ensure that in future this traffic is dealt with expeditiously?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I am aware that certain amount of inconvenience is being suffered by timber merchants owing to the shortage of bolster wagons for the transport of timber. During the War bolster wagons from the steel trade were available for timber owing to the decreased output of the kinds of steel re-
    8
    quiring this type of wagon; the home timber trade, which developed consider ably during the War, is now faced with a reduction in the supply of these special wagons, many of which have had to return to the steel industry. Every effort is being made to increase the stock of bolster wagons.

    LONDON AND ABERDEEN (OVER-CROWDED TRAINS).
    Mr. CHARLES BARRIEasked the. Minister of Transport if he is aware of the over-crowded condition of the night trains running between Aberdeen and London; that passengers have to travel the whole journey in the corridors of the carriages; and whether he can do anything to remedy matters?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I was not previously aware of any cause for complaint against the companies in regard to over-crowding on this service. While economy in adding to the load of existing trains, and in duplication is rigid and essential, there is no wish to do this to an unreasonable extreme I have had immediate inquiries made, and will communicate further with the hon. Member as soon as I receive replies.

    HEAVY VEHICLES (REGULATIONS).
    Viscount CURZONasked the Minister of Transport whether any regulations exist with reference to heavy public-service vehicles or heavy vehicles adapted to carry passengers which limit their size, the number and disposition of passengers which may be carried, the amount of overhang over the rear axle, the width of the tyres in relation to the total weight fully loaded, the efficiency of the brakes and steering gear, in the interest of public safety and the safety of the passengers; and, if not, and in view of the enormous increase in the number of such vehicles and of the urgency of the problem, will he consider issuing emergency regulations until such time as a properly considered legislation can be passed?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The only general Regulations on the matters referred to are those contained in the Motor Car (Use and Construction) Order, 1904, and the Heavy Motor Car Order, 1904, to which I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend. With regard to such of these

    9
    vehicles as require to be licensed to ply for hire, the licensing authorities can impose such reasonable conditions on the grant of a licence as they may think desirable in the general interests of safety.
    Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these vehicles have largely grown in size since the period mentioned, and that the Order to which he refers never contemplated vehicles of such size using the roads, and can he not give an assurance that the matter is really receiving urgent attention?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will remember that I have stated on several occasions that this is being considered, but that legislation is necessary.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that his Department will not unnecessarily hamper motor chars-a-banes, against which a lot of prejudice is being aroused by selfish interests?
    Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that danger is caused by the great overhang of these vehicles?
    Major MOLSON: Is he aware that in Sussex many of the lanes are very narrow, that a great deal of danger is caused by these chars-a-banes, and that there have been very bad accidents?
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these chars-a-banes are very hard on the county rates, and will he also tax them?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I am aware of all these things. I do not take up an attitude either for or against the chars-a-banes until the matter has been fully investigated, but I think it would be a great calamity if we had to do anything to prevent the economic use of the char-a-bane.

    DAY EXCURSION TRAINS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he can now make any statement as to the running of excursion trains by the various railway companies; whether it is proposed to run any such trains during the present year; if so, about what date, by what companies, and to what places; can he state on what basis the approximate
    10
    excursion fare will be fixed, whether on an extra percentage over pre-War fares or on the principle of a double journey for a present single fare;
    (2) whether he has now approached all the railway companies on the matter of excursion trains; whether some of the companies are against giving such facilities; whether the southern companies are willing to provide such trains, and, if so, will he authorise the railway companies willing to meet the desires of the public to supply such trains forthwith; can he state if societies like the National Sunday League, who in pre-War times were given special rates for holiday trains by certain companies, will be allowed to have such facilities now; and if special rates for trains can be given to such societies so as to enable them to issue cheap day railway trips as before the War?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I am glad to be able to state that arrangements have been made under which special "Holiday Day Excursion" trains, available to all members of the public without distinction, at fares less than the ordinary fares, will be run at an early date—possibly in the week commencing 16th August—by the principal railway companies, with the exception of the Caledonian, Cambrian, Glasgow and South Western, Great Western, London and North Western, London and South Western, and North British Railways. [HON. MEMBERS: Which are left?] Some of the latter companies may be in a position to run such trains at a later date.
    The conditions under which these special trains will be run are as follow:

    1. The tickets to be available for both the outward and return journey on the date of issue only, and by the scheduled public excursions trains only.

    2. The fare to be charged to be the single ordinary fare in operation for the time being for the double journey; fractions of 3d. to be reckoned as 3d.

    3. No luggage to be allowed.

    4. The trips to be run during mid-week only and to be available to the public generally; they should be for purely holiday traffic, and only introduced from centres of population to holiday resorts.

    Mr. GILBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state if on these excursion trains the companies will book tickets three or four days ahead, so that people can secure their places?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: What is the reason for Scotland being excluded?
    Sir E. GEDDES: It is not a question of nationality, but of the ability of the railways to supply the locomotives.
    Mr. KILEY: Will week-end excursions be arranged?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I do not think I can answer anything further than I have done, which is a good deal.

    AMBULANCE TRAINS (DISPOSAL).
    Sir WALTER DE FRECEasked the Minister of Transport whether he has seen the advertisements in the Press issued by the Disposal Board inviting tenders for four ambulance trains now lying at Didcot, composed of 61 passenger vehicles; and whether, seeing that the railway companies express their difficulty in running excursion trains owing to the shortage of rolling stock, and that these trains were originally the property of the Great Western, the London, and North Western, and Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Companies, he will advise the withdrawal of these advertisements so that the companies concerned can recover their rolling stock and refit the trains for ordinary passenger use?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. The second part does not correctly state the reason given on behalf of the railway companies, as it was shortage of locomotives and not coaches which was given in evidence as the principal obstacle to running excursion trains. As to the conclusion of the question, the companies have been invited many months ago to do what the hon. Member suggests, but the offers which they submitted to the Disposal Board were insufficient in the opinion of that authority.
    Sir W. de FRECE: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that any other persons or companies can pay more for railway trains than the railway companies themselves?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I do not know what other people want, but the railway companies are short of locomotives, not rolling stock.

    MIDLAND RAILWAY STATION, NOTTINGHAM.
    Mr. ATKEYasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that he has no legal power to require the Midland Railway Company to reopen the closed exit to their Nottingham station, he will press upon them the desirability of taking this step in order to allay the local irritation and ill-feeling which will exist until the convenience is restored to the travelling public, as shown in the humble petition which was presented to this House by 18,000 users of the station at a time when the petitioners believed that power to grant their petition was vested in his Ministry?
    Sir E. GEDDES: I do not think I can usefully add to what I said on the 2nd August and on previous occasions.

    NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.
    Mr. GRATTAN DOYLEasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the increase of unemployment in Newcastle-on-Tyne, and that many workmen have been thrown out of employment in some of the large firms in Tyneside owing to shortage of material due to lack of transport; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to deal with the position so created?
    Sir E. GEDDES: No, Sir, I am not so aware. If my hon. Friend will send me particulars, I will be glad to look into the matter and let him know the result.
    Mr. DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman confer with the Ministry of Labour on this matter?
    Sir E. GEDDES: Certainly; I shall be glad to do so.

    SEASON TICKETS.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Minister of Transport if his Department on the 27th July issued instructions authorising the railway managers to renew season tickets expiring before the 6th August for periods of six, nine, and twelve months, at the same time instructing them not to grant to new applicants tickets for a longer period than three months; and, if this is so, will he state his reasons for

    13
    giving preferential treatment to one class of applicants over the other?
    Sir E. GEDDES: In view of the alteration in charges that came into operation on 6th August, the railway companies issued instructions that season tickets expiring before that date were not to be renewed for a longer period than that covered by the expiring ticket, and that no new ticket was to be issued prior to 6th August for a longer period than three months. In the circumstances, I consider this was a reasonable arrangement.
    Mr. KILEY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this was put into effect by instruction of his Department, and not by that of the railway managers; and is he not further aware that this means subsidising one set of passengers at the cost of another?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The instruction was put into force on the recommendation of the general managers. They asked me if I concurred, and, as my answer shows, I did concur, and the course we have adopted is a very common course in all cases of effort to prevent forestalling when any new impost like this comes in. It is a very common practice that the regular customer gets the regular ration, so to speak, and the now customer has to take a moderate amount.

  PERSIA.

    ANGLO-PERSIAN AGREEMENT.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the Persian Government has decided to lay the Anglo-Persian Agreement before the Persian Mejliss for ratification; when His Majesty's Government intends to lay it before the British Parliament for ratification; and whether the Russian Government has been notified of the termination of the Anglo-Russian Agreement with regard to Persia entered into by Viscount Grey?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the Anglo-Persian Agreement has already been presented to Parliament in Command Paper 300 of 1919, and does not require ratification. In reply to the last part, the hon.
    14
    and gallant Member is aware that diplomatic relations have not been established between His Majesty's Government and a Russian Government, and no statement has been made in the sense indicated. In the meantime His Majesty's Government regard the agreement as in suspense.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that this Parliament is to have less powers than the Persian Mejliss, and also may I ask whether, because we do not recognise the present Government of Russia, we are going to tear up the agreement made by Viscount Grey before the War?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the last question, I said it is in suspense. As regards the comparative powers of this Parliament and the Mejliss, I would back this Parliament.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why was it not submitted to us for ratification or discussion, in view of the fact that this may lead us to vast commitments and the loss of valuable lives?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The agreement has been before the House for more than a year. If the House desired to discuss it, surely it could have done so.
    Captain W. BENN: Is it not a fact that we have already violated vis-à-vis Russia this agreement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Not that I am aware of.

    TABRIZ AND KASVIN (ZANGALI BRIGANDS).
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give to the House the latest information concerning the situation at Tabriz and Kasvin?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Considerable nervousness reigns among the population at Tabriz owing to the proximity of enemy forces at Nakhitchevan. The Acting British Consul is understood to be still at his post, but circumstances may force him to leave. The recent murder of Captain Geard is, according to present information, considered to be an isolated crime without political significance. The situation at Kasvin is believed to be normal. A body of British troops under General Champain is near the town.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What are the enemy forces?
    Lord R. CECIL: I, too, was going to ask of what are the enemy forces composed—are they Zangali brigands, or forces from outside?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: According to my information, they are Zangali brigands.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask what interest we have that we should have armed forces, British officers in danger of their lives, and—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member had better give notice of that question.
    Captain BENN: Is not the presence of these forces a breach of the Anglo-Russian Agreement?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think so.

  MESOPOTAMIA.

    OIL.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister whether representations have been made to Great Britain by the United States of America regarding equal opportunities for American citizens in the development of oilfields in countries where mandates will be exercised under the League of Nations, including those of Mesopotamia; whether a reply has been made; and, if so, what are the terms of the reply?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 5th instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister whether, before a decision is finally arrived at as to the manner in which the oil of Mesopotamia is to be exploited, he will give an opportunity for the suggested plan to be discussed by the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The House is already in possession of information on the general facts of the situation, and on the possible alternative methods of development, but although there will probably be opportunities for discussion,
    16
    I cannot give the definite undertaking asked for.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if these questions are inspired by a fear lest British trade should profit by the expenditure of British blood and treasure?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister cannot know what is their source of inspiration.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Prime Minister whether a decision has yet been come to as to the manner in which the oil of Mesopotamia is to be exploited; and, if so, what is that decision?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No decision has yet been reached on this question.

    BRITISH POLICY.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister if he is assured that the British officials at present occupying high administrative positions in Mesopotamia favour the Government policy of establishing there an Arab state; when Sir Percy Cox will return to Mesopotamia; and will he be instructed to facilitate the economic development of the country by promoting and encouraging local initiative in accordance with the Anglo-French Proclamation of November, 1918?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, Sir Percy Cox will return shortly to Mesopotamia, but the date is not fixed. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the officials responsible for the administration in Mesopotamia are in favour of the Government policy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly. I cannot say what men's individual opinions are. They are servants of the Government, and must carry out the Government's policy.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is it not a fact that one distinguished official has published something quite contrary to the Government's policy, namely, the Proclamation of that area?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of that, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give me particulars.
    Mr. MILLS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many of these persons are qualified by knowledge of Arabic?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know the proportion. I know a great many are.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Are the local officials in favour of what has been rumoured, namely, the appointment of a Sunni Chief from the Hedjaz to rule over an Arab State which consists mainly of Shiah Mohammedans?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The House, I am sure, knows that one of our main difficulties in Mesopotamia is the absence of unanimity as to the form of Arab State they want. That is one of our difficulties. We have been doing our best to overcome it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why not send Colonel Lawrence to Bagdad?
    Lieut.-Colonel ROUNDELL: Why not send Colonel Wedgwood?

    MILITARY SITUATION.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Lord Privy Seal if he can give the House any further information regarding the position on the Lower Euphrates?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The 34th Brigade Column, under Brigadier-General Cuningham, which relieved Rumeitha, had reached Jerbuiyah, en route to Hillah, on 7th August. The newly laid railway lines, since the raids, have been distorted by the extreme heat, and this has caused the delay of the return of this relief column. On the 4th August, rebels concentrated for attack on Hillah, but were frustrated by a cavalry reconnaissance. The Kufa garrison is still holding out. The health of the troops is good, although the heat and weather are very oppressive. All the railways in Mesopotamia are intact except between Samawah and Mahmudiyah. Arab raids still go on.
    Sir J. D. REES: How are the troops housed at Hillah?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.
    Viscount CURZON: Of what is the garrison at Kufa composed?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot say, without notice.

  PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague is to coexist with the contemplated Permanent Court of International Justice of the League of Nations; and, if so, what Super-Court or Super-Council will determine the respective spheres and functions of these institutions?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Until the Council of the League of Nations has formulated the scheme for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice, and that scheme has been accepted by the members of the League, it is impossible to state what will be the relations between such Court and the existing Permanent Court of Arbitration.

  SUPPLY (CLOSURE).
  The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. BOTTOMLEY:
  34. To ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that on Tuesday evening last week upwards of £160,000,000 of public money was voted under Standing Order No. 15 without any kind of discussion; and whether he, will consider what alteration can be made in Parliamentary procedure to prevent the recurrence of such an incident?
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: The phrase at the end of the question, as handed in by me, was "the recurrence of such a scandal."
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My answer is not altered by the change in the phraseology of the question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I do not know of any method by which all the Votes could be discussed.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question of re-setting up the Estimates Committee we had before the War?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That did not in the least save the necessity for this procedure.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Will my right hon. Friend consider this as a mitigation, and

  19
  allot next Session 23 days to Supply, as he can do, rather than 20 days?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am quite willing to consider that suggestion, but that would be a very small mitigation.
  Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is not the only remedy for this, Home Rule all round?

  PEACE TREATIES.

    GERMAN INDEMNITY.
    Captain BENNasked the Prime Minister on what basis, for the purposes of the German indemnity, the ships and coal surrendered are respectively calculated?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In accordance with the Inter-Allied agreement arrived at at Spa, Germany will be credited (a) in respect of ships, with a value to be ascertained by the Reparation Commission based on the prices realised by their sale, subject to any adjustments rendered necessary by repairs or the expenses of delivery; and (b) in respect of coal, if delivered by rail or inland navigation, with the German internal price in accordance with paragraph 6 (a) of Annex V of Part VIII of the Treaty of Versailles, and if delivered by sea, with the German export price f.o.b. German ports, or the British export price f.o.b. British ports, whichever may be lower, in accordance with paragraph 6 (b) of the same Annex.
    Mr. G. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister the date of and method to be employed in the proposed sale of German ships, as indicated in his recent statement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not at present in a position to add anything to what was said in Debate on the 21st July. The matter is at present under consideration.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Prime Minister if, as stated by him in October last, the Licensing Bill is drafted; and whether, in view of its importance, it
  20
  can be introduced before the Recess in order that the country may have ample time to consider the provisions of the Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that it will not be possible to introduce this Bill before the Recess.
  Mr. BRIANT: Is the Bill ready for presentation? It was apparently agreed to last October.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not ready for presentation. A Bill has been drafted, but it has not been considered.

  RUSSIA.

    SOVIET DELEGATION.
    Viscount CURZONasked the Prime Minister how the Soviet delegation to this country is composed; whether any further news has come through with regard to our officers and men retained as prisoners at Baku; whether the Government have any information as to whether Bolshevik money is being spent in revolutionary interests in Great Britain and, if so, what steps are being taken to deal with it and with those who are responsible; and whether it is proposed to continue negotiations irrespective of the Polish question while such a state of affairs exists?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Soviet delegation is composed of Messrs. Krassin, Nogin and Rozovsky for trade negotiations; Messrs. Kameneff and Milutin for political questions arising out of trade negotiations; M. Klishko, secretary; eight technical advisers and six secretarial staff.
    The most recent information received goes to show that the British prisoners in Baku, including Mr. Hewelcke, are now receiving better treatment. His Majesty's representative at Tiflis telegraphed on 31st July that letters, parcels and money were being sent to the prisoners by a Bolshevik courier. I understand that British women and children in Baku have not been molested, and they have been allowed to look after their male relations in prison.
    In answer to the third part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by the Home Secretary on the 3rd August.

  MANDATES (MESOPOTAMIA AND SYRIA).
  Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister what is the exact scope of the powers embodied in the Mandates granted to Great Britain for Mesopotamia and to France for Syria; and if these Mandates empower military occupation without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The terms of the Mandates have not yet been finally settled.
  Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister on what date the Mandate was given to France regarding Syria; by whom and on whose behalf the Mandate was signed: and if he will now acquaint the House with the exact terms of the Mandate?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: An answer to this question was given to my hon. Friend on Thursday, 29th July.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would it not be better to drop the whole pretence of Mandates, and come to some other arrangement at once?
  Mr. RAPER: May I ask if the previous reply was not to the effect that he could not tell us? May we now be told?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That was one of the questions as to which we said it was impossible to give the terms of the Mandate, and it is not possible now.
  Mr. RAPER: Will it be possible before the Recess?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think so.
  Major ENTWISTLEasked the Lord Privy Seal what were the precise terms of Rustem Haibar Bey's protest to the League of Nations against the French action in Syria?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: It would seem to be for the League of Nations itself to publish such communications if it thinks fit to do so.

  WIDOWS (PENSIONS).
  Mr. RAPERasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that there is a widespread demand throughout the country that mothers' pensions should be paid to necessitous widows with children; and
  22
  whether, in view of the general support which this question has received in this House, it is proposed to take steps to introduce legislation to this effect?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I can only refer to the reply which I gave last Wednesday to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Tyson Wilson).

  CHANNEL TUNNEL.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the Prime Minister whether on 12th November, 1919, he stated to a deputation on the subject of the Channel Tunnel that the problem would again be examined carefully from the military, engineering, and naval point of view; that the Government would then be in a position to give a definite answer; that if the military advice were favourable the Government would be prepared to support the scheme on general grounds; whether the problem has now been examined; and, if so, when can a definite answer be given on the subject of the tunnel?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the reply given to my right hon. Friend on Monday last.
  Mr. CLYNES: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the matter has been referred to the engineering and military authorities, and that these authorities have reached a decision, and the Government have not been able to consider that decision?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The matter has been referred, and the views of the experts have been expressed. They are conflicting. It is a very difficult and complicated question, and the Government is not now in a position to give the time to the consideration of it.

  EGYPT (MILNER REPORT).
  Major ENTWISTLEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can now state when the Milner Report will be published?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is hoped that the Report will be in the hands of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

  23
  in a few weeks' time, and there will be no avoidable delay in its subsequent publication.

  IRELAND.

    VATICAN (CAMPAIGN OF MURDER).
    Mr. LYNNasked the Prime Minister whether the British Government has made any representations to the Vatican with regard to the campaign of murder that is being carried on in Ireland; whether the Vatican has refused to interfere; and whether the Government is now in a position to say when the British envoy will be withdrawn?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first and second parts of the question, I cannot add anything to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone on Thursday last. The answer to the last part is in the negative.

    DOMINION HOME RULE.
    Mr. MORRISasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the immediate cessation of disorder in Ireland, he will undertake on behalf of the Government to introduce a Bill, and carry the same through all its stages by Christmas, giving Ireland self-government on the basis of Dominion Home Rule, reserving only the control of the Army and Navy and giving any Ulster county the right to vote itself out of the scheme should it desire to do so?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the statements made in debate on Thursday last.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman is there any system of Dominion Home Rule in the world to which such reservations as these could be applied?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It certainly would not be Dominion Home Rule, but people would call it that.

    DR. MANNIX.
    Major BARNESasked the Lord Privy Seal by what means and under what powers it is proposed to prevent Archbishop Mannix from landing in Ireland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Under an Order made by the Competent Military Authorities under the Defence of the Realm Regulations.

    CLERKS OF THE CROWN AND PEACE (ASSISTANTS).
    Mr. T. W. BROWNasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the recommendations in paragraphs 66, 67, 68, and 69 of the Report of the Vice-Regal Committee appointed to inquire into various matters connected with the offices of clerks of the Crown and Peace, etc., in Ireland, have been considered; and what steps he proposes to take to carry these recommendations or any of them into effect?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): The recommendations referred to by my hon. and learned Friend relate to the position of assistants in the offices of the clerks of the Crown and Peace. The alternative proposals suggested for the improvement of the position of these assistants would, in the opinion of the Viceregal Committee, require legislation, and the matter is being considered in connection with the other recommendations in the Report of the Committee.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many magistrates and how many members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, respectively, have tendered their resignations during the past three months?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The number of magistrates who have resigned from the 1st May to the present date is 315. The number of resignations from the Royal Irish Constabulary from 1st May to 31st July, is 556. The number of recruits for the same period is 816.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I did not ask for the number of recruits?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I thought I would give the hon. Member all the information I could.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How many fresh magistrates have been sworn in?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot say without notice.
    Mr. CLYNES: How many of the recruits came from this country?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must ask for notice of that question.

    MURDER OF MR. F. BROOKS (FUNERAL).
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that although a special train was provided for the conveyance of directors of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway to the funeral of their late chairman, Mr. Frank Brooks, such is the terrorism in the district that not one of the directors dared attend; and whether any special police or military protection was afforded to the train in question?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: A special train was provided, as stated by the hon. Member, for the conveyance of directors and their friends to the funeral of the late Mr. Brooks. No special police protection was asked for, nor was it considered to be necessary. The train was not interfered with in any way either before or during the journey. So far as I am aware there is no reason why anyone should have refrained from travelling by the train in question.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is it not a fact that none of the directors did attend?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not know.
    Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: If that is the case, does it not show a singular lack of courage on the part of the other directors?

    ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION, BARKING.
    Mr. KILEYasked the Minister of Transport whether the Electricity Commissioners have received a proposal from the County of London. Electric Supply, Limited, for the construction of a generating station at Barking; whether it will be possible for the company, with the approval of the Commissioners, to connect the proposed generating station with the various areas of supply of authorised undertakers in the County of London; whether the Commissioners are prepared to give their consent to this application; whether the London County Council, as the purchasing authority, and the other authorised undertakers have had an opportunity of making representations to the Commissioners?
    Sir E. GEDDES: The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Commissioners have the application under consideration at the present moment, but have not yet given their decision; and they are in communication with the London County Council as the purchasing authority under the terms of the London Electric Supply Act, 1908, and the Council have been given an opportunity of making representations to the Commissioners. The Commissioners do not propose to consult with other authorised undertakers unless a local inquiry is deemed necessary.
    Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the County Council has now gone into Recess, and they are, as a matter of fact, preparing a scheme for the electricity supply of London, and will he give an assurance that he will not in any way prejudice the possibilities of coming to an agreement by giving approval to the scheme now before him?
    Sir E. GEDDES: As to the first part of the question, I was not aware of that; as to the second part, I should like to have notice.

  KOREAN REFUGEES.
  Lieut.-Colonel PARRYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that Japanese police attempted to board the British steamer "Kuilin," owner Mr. G. L. Shaw, and arrest certain Koreans suspected of being on the ship; whether, upon the refusal of the owners to allow them to do so, the Japanese consul complained that Mr. Shaw was concealing Korean political refugees in his house, which the Japanese police attempted to raid; whether the British consul in Mukden wired that he was coming down to see for himself that there were no Koreans in Mr. Shaw's house; whether there has been similar instances of Japanese attempting to seize Korean or other political refugees in British houses or on board British ships in Manchuria or China; whether His Majesty's Government proposes to make representations to Japan protesting against such action on the territory of a friendly Power; and whether any instructions have been given to His Majesty's consuls or other representatives

  27
  in the Far East which would lead to the surrender of Chinese or Korean political refugees to Japan without formal extradition proceedings?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: As regards points 1 and 2, His Majesty's Government were informed by His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Peking that the Japanese Consul-General at Mukden had complained privately to His Majesty's Consul General about the sympathetic attitude shown by Mr. G. L. Shaw towards Korean agitators. It was alleged that Mr. Shaw kept one of the upper rooms in his house at Antung as an asylum for Koreans, where they plotted against the Japanese, and that he allowed the Koreans to use his steamers as a means of flight and of communication with Korean Provisional Government at Shanghai. In view of these complaints Mr. Shaw was privately warned by His Majesty's Consul-General to be careful. His Majesty's Government have no official information, however, about an alleged attempt to board a British steamer, nor of an attempt on the part of the Japanese police to raid Mr. Shaw's house. His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokio, who has reported fully on the whole subject, has made no mention of this story. If the hon. and gallant Member has particulars, I shall be glad if he will supply them. As regards points 3 and 4 of the hon. and gallant Member's question, His Majesty's Government have no knowledge, and point 5 does not therefore arise at present. The answer to point 6 is in the negative.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that these people who are referred to as "Korean agitators" are really Korean patriots?

  GOVERNMENT TRAWLERS.
  Mr. DOYLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture how many trawlers fishing for the Government have been shifted this summer from East Coast to West Coast ports; what reason there is for this change of base; what is the approximate cost per vessels of such a move; and will the cost be debited against the earnings of the ships?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Six trawlers have
  28
  been moved from the East Coast to West Coast ports because it was considered they could be more profitably employed at these ports. It is estimated that the cost for moving each vessel will not exceed £150 which sum will be debited against the earnings of the boat.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many Government trawlers there are and whether they are competing with private trawlers?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will give me notice.

  ALLOTMENT HOLDERS.
  Mr. JOHN DAVISONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he is aware that 7,500 allotment holders are threatened by the London County Council and several hundred by His Majesty's Office of Works with dispossession at the end of this year; whether, in view of the constant appeals for increased production, any action is being taken for these allotments to be retained until at least the food supply becomes normal; whether any steps are being taken to furnish alternative allotments; and whether he will consider the possibility of the setting up of an independent inquiry to adjudicate on this matter, as between these two bodies and the allotment holders, with a view to extended tenure being granted?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The question of the continued use of land in the London parks and open spaces for the provision of allotments was fully discussed in this House on the 18th December last, when I explained the attitude of the Ministry towards the decisions which had been come to by His Majesty's Office of Works and the London County Council. I understand that the decisions referred to have not been modified in any way since the date mentioned, and I have nothing to add to the statements I made on that occasion, a copy of which I will send to the hon. Member. With regard to the provision of alternative land, I am informed that the London County Council ask each plot-holder on whom a notice to quit is served whether he desires to be provided with an allotment elsewhere, and that every step is being taken to

  29
  satisfy those who signify their desire for alternative land. I regret I am unable to adopt the suggestion contained in the last part of the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. DAVISON: Is the land held by these allotment-holders required for any other purpose?
  Sir A. BOSCAWEN: This land belongs to the London County Council and the Office of Works, and it is available for the use of the general public as open spaces for recreation and other such purposes.

  MUNITIONS.

    SALES TO BRADFORD CORPORATION.
    Mr. MYERSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions why the following articles have been sold by the Disposal Board to the Bradford corporation, namely, 20,000 pairs of gloves, 20,000 pairs of socks, 5,000 collars, 4,200 caps, 2,000 suits, 1,000 overcoats, 2,000 vests, and 500 capes and mackintoshes; having regard to these transactions, will he state the reason why subsequent tenders of 5th and 14th May for 50,000 pairs of worsted socks, 10,000 flannel shirts and collars, and 3,000 pairs of white drawers have been declined by the Disposal Board in a letter of 27th July, after numerous communications from the corporation; having regard to the standing of this municipality and the check upon profiteering they have been able to exercise by these operations, will he reconsider that decision; and if he will state to what extent the decision not to accept further tenders from the corporation has been influenced by objections to municipal trading held by the Disposal Board or urged upon the Board by outside agencies?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): The Disposal Board were advised that a Municipal Corporation had no legal power to purchase goods for retail sale, and it was on this ground that the offers referred to were refused.
    Mr. MYERS: Why was this illegality not discovered in respect of other transactions.
    Mr. HOPE: It is understood that the offers to purchase were made because the Bradford Corporation wished to accumulate stock for their own employés.
    Mr. MYERS: Was it not because they are in competition with the ordinary private trader?
    Mr. HOPE: No. I am advised that the Disposal Board have not been approached.
    Dr. MURRAY: Is there any difference between this and the Government going into partial nationalisation of the fishing industry?
    Mr. HOPE: I did not catch the hon. Member's question.

    KANTARA STORES.
    Sir PARK GOFFasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the whole or, if not, what proportion of the stores at Kantara in Egypt, have been declared surplus to military requirements and are available for disposal; and what steps have been taken to dispose of them?
    Mr. HOPE: Approximately 10 per cent. of the whole of the stores at Kantara have been notified to the Disposal Board as surplus to military requirements. All stores so notified have already been offered for sale by public tender, and a large proportion was sold within one month of notification.

  CENOTAPH FLAGS.
  Lieut.-Colonel MURRAYasked the First Commissioner of Works whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the placing of flags on the Cenotaph?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): It has been decided that silk flags are to be placed on the Cenotaph. The flags will be the Union Jack, the Red Ensign, and the White Ensign.

  HOUSING.

    GUILDFORD SCHEME.
    Mr. MYERSasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that houses erected at Guildford under the Municipal Housing Scheme, at a cost of roughly £900 per

    31
    house, are being offered to the tenants for the sum of £600 per house; and, if so, will he say why this reduction is being made and where the loss on the transaction will fall?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have not up to the present received any proposal for the sale of houses at Guildford. Local authorities are required to obtain my approval to any schemes for the sale of houses, and I am prepared to assent to sale at the best price obtainable as the Housing Act provides.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (INDEBTEDNESS).
  Mr. PURCHASEasked the Minister of Health whether he can state the amount of indebtedness on the part of local authorities in England and Wales?
  Dr. ADDISON: The outstanding loan debt of local authorities in England and Wales (deducting sums standing to the credit of sinking funds for repayment of loans) amounted to £513,000,000 for the year 1916–17. Owing to delays caused by the War, the returns for the later years are not yet complete.
  Mr. MYERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what the annual charge is for interest on these loans?
  Dr. ADDISON: I could not say without notice.

  HEALTH AND HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION (STATE CONTROL).
  Mr. PURCHASEasked the Minister of Health whether there has been submitted to him a scheme for the State control of health and of hospital administration; and whether he can give an estimate of the cost of such scheme?
  Dr. ADDISON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

  DENTISTS ACT, 1878.
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Minister of Health whether it is still the intention of the Government to introduce legislation prior to the Parliamentary Recess for the purpose of carrying out the recommenda-
  32
  tions of the Departmental Committee on the Dentists Act, 1878?
  Dr. ADDISON: I hope that the Bill may be introduced this week.

  KING'S PROCTOR, INQUIRY OFFICERS.
  Mr. W. GRAHAMasked the Secretary to the Treasury why the King's Proctor's inquiry officers are not receiving the 135 per cent. on their salaries as allowed by the Cost of Living Committee award; and why these men are not allowed representation on the Departmental Whitley Council?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): These officers are independent inquiry agents employed as and when required at daily rates of pay, which I am informed compare favourably with those paid by private agents for similar work. They are not covered by the Report of the Cost of Living Joint Committee of the Civil Service National Whitley Council, nor are they eligible for representation on a Departmental Council affiliated to the National Council.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In view of the constant menace of the King's Proctor to the domestic peace of the country, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of abolishing that office altogether?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I will consider that point.

  STATUTES (ANNUAL VOLUME).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the annual volume of Statutes for the previous Session is not yet available for Members at the Vote Office; and whether steps will be taken to expedite its issue?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Every effort is being made to expedite the issue of the annual volume of the Statutes. It is hoped that copies will be available at the Vote Office, by the first week in September.
  Mr. SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is about a month ago since it was published by the Stationery Office, and is there any reason why it should not now be issued to Members?

  EDUCATION.

    CENTRAL SCHOOL, LLANDUDNO.
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Llandudno Education Committee have declined a request made for the use of the Llandudno Central School to accommodate 120 children during the holidays; and what steps he intends to take in the matter?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION COMMITTEE (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I have no information on the matter, which in any case does not appear to be one in which I have any authority to intervene.

    CATHOLIC GRAMMAR SCHOOL, ST. HELENS.
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the President of the Hoard of Education if he is aware that six successful candidates in the bursar examination at St. Mary's Roman Catholic School, Earlestown, were granted leave to continue their studies at Catholic secondary schools, and that the principal of St. Helen's Catholic Grammar School was willing to accept the boys, but the Director of Education has refused assent, thus forcing the scholars to travel to Liverpool, a distance of 17 miles, instead of five miles to St. Helens; and whether he will say why the school at St. Helens is not recognised by the Board of Education, seeing that it has to keep up the requirements of the Board and that its scholars are accepted both at the Hammersmith and Liverpool training centres?
    Mr. FISHER: The St. Mary's Roman Catholic Grammar School is not recognised by the Board of Education as an efficient secondary school, and bursar-ships, therefore, cannot be held there. The governors of the school have not applied to the Board for the recognition of the school as efficient. The school was inspected by the Board in January, 1919.

  CHEPSTOW SHIPYARDS (SALE).
  Sir BURTON CHADWICKasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether the contract for the sale of the Chepstow shipyards has now been signed; whether the syndicate concerned in the purchase of
  34
  these yards has withdrawn its request for the rescission of the sale; and whether it has also withdrawn the statement made to the effect that the original agreement to purchase was arrived at on an understanding that the Government proposed to abolish the excess profits duty?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): The heads of agreement for the purchase of these yards have been signed, and I hope the contract will be completed and signed in a short time. As I stated on the 13th June in reply to my hon. Friend, a request for the rescission of the contract has been received. This request has now been withdrawn, and I have received a letter from the syndicate concerned acknowledging that there was a misunderstanding on the question of the Excess Profits Duty. I should like to make it clear that there was no misunderstanding on the part of the Ministry, and to repeat what I have said in the House before,; that no kind of undertaking direct or indirect was given by the Shipping Controller or myself during the negotiations for the sale that the Excess Profits Duty would be either reduced or abolished.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    INCREASE (COST OF LIVING).
    Mr. W. GRAHAMasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received representations on behalf of the widows and dependants of soldiers and sailors in Scotland and elsewhere and on behalf of discharged and disabled men on pension drawing attention to the great increase in the cost of living; whether, under Section 24a of the Royal Warrant of 6th December, 1919, there can be no readjustment of pension in respect of the cost of living before April, 1923; whether this places such dependants and others at a great disadvantage compared with industrial workers, who have the benefit of changes in a sliding scale based on the cost of living at much earlier dates; and whether, in view of the hardship now endured by many dependants, he is prepared to take steps to make provision for increase in the cost of living by pension and other allowances on more generous lines?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply which the Leader of the House gave to the hon. Member for the Western Division of Derbyshire on the 16th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

  LITIGATION (REPRESENTATION BY SOLICITORS).
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Attorney General whether, in view of the high legal costs which bear so hardly on litigants of moderate means, steps can be taken to allow litigants to be represented by their own solicitors, not merely in county courts and chambers, as at present, but in all courts in the land?
  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I am not, as at present advised, aware that the complaint is well founded, or that there is any general desire for the change suggested, or that the change, if made, would yield the desired result.

  CEYLON (FRANCHISE REFORM).
  Mr. SPOORasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to include the Indian immigrant labourers in the electorate for the Indian seat in the proposed scheme of constitutional reform for Ceylon; if so, what is the total number of such labourers; the probable number of them qualified to vote; and the total number of Indians other than immigrant labourers in the island?
  The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): Definite proposals for the Indian electorate will not be laid before the Secretary of State until the matter has been examined on the spot after the return of the Governor to Ceylon. I am therefore not at present in a position to make any statement in the matter.
  Mr. SPOOR: Are we to understand that before these franchise arrangements are finally decided on they will be considered by this House?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: It is a very small matter indeed: it is a question of settling the details of the way in which the Indian immigrants shall have the vote.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that this giving the franchise to Indians in Ceylon will not be made a matter of enfranchising the rich merchants in Ceylon but will include immigrant labour as well as the merchant classes.
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I assume the same conditions will apply in each case.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Do I understand that the Government are not yet in a position to state all their proposals? I Shall we have them definitely before the House for discussion before they are put into effect?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The general proposals are within the knowledge of the House. This is only a question as to the exact way in which the Indian immigrant population can secure the franchise.
  Sir J. D. REES: Have the Indian immigrant population made any representations on their own behalf that they desire to participate in this reform?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I am not sure of the facts, but whether they have or not, it is desirable they should have some say under the new constitution.
  Sir J. D. REES: Although they come over to Ceylon in large numbers they are not a resident population.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it the desire of the Government to establish all these various interests, in order that one may compete with the other? Is not that a communal basis?
  Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The hon. Member must not assume that.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    HUTS, GWALCHMAI, ANGLESEA.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are a large number of Army huts and an aerodrome at Gwalchmai, Anglesea, not being utilised for any purpose; and will he allow them to be used by Boards of Guardians who wish to send children to the country for a holiday?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The huts at this station

    37
    will be handed over in the course of a few days to the Disposal Board. Any applications that Boards of Guardians may wish to make with regard to the huts should, therefore, be addressed to the Ministry of Munitions.

    3RD ROYAL IRISH RIFLES (LIEUT. GLENDENNING).
    Mr. MILLSasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the alleged persecution of Lieut. C. H. Glendenning, 3rd Royal Irish Rifles, who was arrested in 1917 while on active service and detained in a wire compound, with a German spy under an armed guard, at Bombay; and whether he will take steps to ensure this officer such redress as can be obtained under Section 42 of the Army Act?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 6th May last to the hon. Member for Wrekin. As regards the last part of the question, if an officer wishes to claim redress under the Army Act, it is for him to take the initiative in the matter.
    Mr. MILLS: Has he not taken the initiative for a period of 18 months?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know.
    Mr. MILLS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been articles in almost every newspaper in London on this case and that there are a good many people who feel that this man has a claim on the State, but the War Office are afraid to face the situation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I cannot add to the information contained in the answer I have just given. I see I gave an answer on the 6th May in regard, I think, to a stigma of lunacy said to attach to this officer, and I refer the House to that answer.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that four columns on this appeared in "John Bull"?
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Of course, he is.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is no part of my duty to read "John Bull."

    ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY, GUNNER ELSLEY (INQUEST).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the Coroner's inquest at the Edmonton Infirmary on the 17th inst. on the death of Gnr. George William Henry Elsley, of the Royal Field Artillery; whether he is aware that the jury returned a verdict that the soldier died from pneumonia, supervening upon the administration of an anæsthetic to perform a necessary operation, necessitated by reason of the deceased being pushed down a flight of stone steps by a sergeant whilst his hands were handcuffed behind his back, and further expressing the opinion that there was no justification for such procedure, that a staff sergeant was deserving of censure for issuing the order for handcuffing behind, and calling upon the military authorities to hold an inquiry into the whole matter forthwith; and whether steps have been taken to institute the inquiry called for?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I regret that I can add nothing at present to my reply on 4th August to the hon. Member for Spelthorne. The investigation in this case is not yet completed.

  RUSSIA AND POLAND.

    MUNITIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether any of the munitions of war surrendered by the Central Powers have been or are being supplied to Poland.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.
    Captain LOSEBY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is within his knowledge that some of the most deadly munitions of war, notably 1918 guns, have not been surrendered at all, but have found their way to Russia and are now being used against Poland by the Bolshevists?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should give notice of that question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether the s.s. "Poznan," of London, was discharge-

    39
    ing Handley-Page aeroplanes at Danzig on or about 29th July last; whether the Dutch s.s. "Triton" was discharging British rifles at Danzig on or about the same date; and whether British soldiers were used to discharge munitions at Danzig from the latter ship.
    Captain BENNasked the Prime Minister whether the steamer "Triton," carrying munitions from Poland, has been unloaded by British troops at Danzig.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As has already been stated in answer to a previous question, British troops at Danzig have assisted in unloading supplies for Poland, but, as the House knows, this was not done until after the Soviet forces had passed the ethnographical frontier of Poland.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to whether the "Poznan" was unloading aeroplanes on the 29th July, and why did he inform me in the House last week that we were not supplying munitions of war to Poland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no evidence whatever that these are our munitions. If they are, I am not aware of it.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: But if British ships have handled aeroplanes, surely the Government must have information of it, and could stop it if they liked? Must not the Government give export licences to export these munitions of war?
    Captain BENN: Are we to understand that if the Russians have already crossed this boundary that would commit us to intervention?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: What my hon. and gallant Friend will understand is exactly what was stated last week by the Prime Minister, that the Russian forces, without being ready to make an armistice, began to cross the frontier and we stated that our whole position was then changed.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand from that that we are now sending munitions to Poland, in spite of the fact that the armistice is still under discussion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It was stated last week that in view of the fact that an
    40
    Armistice was not being concluded and that ethnographic Poland was being invaded, we should have to consider in what way we could strengthen them in the event of the Russian Government not making peace.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have we actually sent munitions and thereby started war?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I said the other day that we have not sent munitions from this country, but I did not say we will not send them.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was the right hon. Gentleman misinformed when he told me last week that we had not sent munitions, when these British rifles in the "Triton" must have come from British sources somewhere?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think I did not consider the question referred so much to that as to our unloading them. I shall make inquiries.
    Mr. JAMESON: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure hon. Members that we shall do nothing to assist smaller nations in maintaining their independence against the big nation?
    Captain BENNasked the Prime Minister whether General Haking recently stated that British workmen might eventually be brought to Dantzig for the unloading of munitions and other work in the harbour; and, if so, on what authority he made the statement?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no truth in the statement that General Haking announced that British workmen might eventually be brought to Dantzig in this connection.

    HUNGARY AND ROUMANIA.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government is taking any part whatsoever in inducing Hungary or Roumania to attack Russia in defence of Poland; and whether any compensation is being held out to either country at the expense of Czecho-Slovakia?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In view of the existing situation this is the kind of question to which I am not prepared to give an answer.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that, as you cannot give an answer, the suggestion made in the question is correct?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That would be quite a mistake. If one is to answer one kind of question like this, one must answer others. Therefore, it does not follow that the question is correct.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the British Government is taking part in stirring up other countries to go to war instead of us?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It would be a mistake to understand that also.

    BRITISH POLICY.
    Sir DONALD MACLEANasked the Prime Minister what is the attitude of the Government with regard to the suggested intervention by this country in the Russo-Polish war; and whether he will to-day make a statement on the whole position?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: In view of the fact that the conference is still sitting at Lympne, it has been necessary for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to postpone his promised statement until to-morrow.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: While agreeing, of course, that the statement must be deferred until the Prime Minister returns to-morrow, may I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government intend to go on with the prospective arrangement for the Adjournment of the House, while this crisis is hanging over us; and, if so, is he aware that very many of us will do our very best to prevent the Adjournment of the House until the crisis is over?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We had better wait, I think, until the time comes for the Adjournment. As regards the statement, the documents since we last met have been published, and there is really nothing which I could give to the House to-day.
    Lord R. CECIL: May I ask whether it is clearly understood that we shall not be committed to war till a communication has been made to this House, and an opportunity given to the House to express its opinion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think there is the least danger of that. It was made
    42
    quite plain last week—quite plain—that in view of the fact that an armistice had not been given, we were taking steps to do all possible to prevent a new Brest-Litovsk treaty.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister, in terms, promised in reply to a question of mine, that they would not go to war without a full and free discussion in this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; and I hope I have said nothing contradictory to that, because, of course, it is the fact.
    Mr. CLYNES: May we take that answer to mean that no warlike measures are being privately prepared?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It depends upon what is meant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Don't answer!"] It depends upon what is meant by "warlike measures." I am sure the whole House will feel that, as I was not present at the Conference—as, indeed, I stayed in London on the chance of being useful here—I am not fully informed; and it would be very unwise for me to add anything to what I have said.
    Mr. MILLS: I should like to ask the Leader of the House what justification he has for the statement that the Russians are not willing to make peace, seeing that the facts, as far as the whole Press of the world makes out, are that it was precisely because the Polish delegates were not armed with a mandate to make peace, that peace was not made?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would much prefer to say nothing; but I cannot allow that to go uncontradicted. A Government mission is at Warsaw, and our information is the exact reverse of what the hon. Member has now said.
    At the end of Questions—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask my private notice question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has already asked it in the form of a supplementary question.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I tried to do so, but you would not allow me. I wish to ask if we can be assured that no warlike measures against Russia will be taken before a statement has been made in this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was under the impression that that question had been answered in answer to a supplementary question, but I am quite ready to answer it again. I can only confirm what was said by the Prime Minister—that we shall certainly not go to war without asking the House of Commons. As to what is meant by "warlike operations." that is another question, and we have already described what we are doing. I should like to say to the House definitely that the last thing we want is to have the responsibility entirely on the shoulders of the Government. We shall certainly take the House of Commons entirely into our confidence.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: What I want to know is, has this country been let into any expenditure in connection with these warlike operations as yet, and can we have the pledge that was given to us before carried out—that we shall not embark on this policy till the Prime Minister's statement has been made in this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That pledge was never given. On the contrary, the Prime Minister stated in the most explicit way last week that we are now taking steps, in the fear that the Bolshevists mean to destroy the independence of Poland, to do what we can to put Poland in a position to obtain reasonable terms of peace.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the taking of warlike measures against Russia without this House having had an opportunity of dis-
    cussing the matter or of sanctioning the expense, and without any declaration of war."
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member? Of course, I know that he can do just as he likes, but this will certainly be discussed tomorrow, and I think that that will be a much better opportunity—
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Too late to-morrow!
    Mr. BONAR LAW—and there will certainly be nothing done between to-day and to-morrow to make that course undesirable.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Between to-day and to-morrow the whole mischief will be done. The only chance we have of discussing this before action is taken by our Fleet is by discussing it to-day, and by registering our protest to-day against this country being committed to another war. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
    The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and, fewer than 40 Members, but not fewer than 10, having accordingly risen—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I claim a Division, under Standing Order No. 10.
    Question put, "That leave be given to move, 'That this House do now adjourn.'"
    The House divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 163.

    Division No. 321]

    AYES.

    [3.55 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Barnes, Major H, (Newcastle, E.)

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Sexton, James

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kiley, James D.

    Spoor, B. G.

    Briant, Frank

    Lawson, John J.

    Swan, J. E.

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Lunn, William

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

    Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

    Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

    Waterson, A. E.

    Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

    Mills, John Edmund

    Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Morgan, Major D. Watts

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Morris, Richard

    Wignall, James

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

    Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Myers, Thomas

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Grundy, T. W.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hirst, G. H.

    Robertson, John

    Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. Nell Maclean.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Rose, Frank H.

    NOES.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S

    Atkey, A. R.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.

    Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Barnett, Major R. W.

    Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Barrie, Charles Coupar

    Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

    Parker, James

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

    Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

    Bennett, Thomas Jewell

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Pearce, Sir William

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

    Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

    Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Blair, Reginald

    Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Perring, William George

    Berwick, Major G. O.

    Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

    Bottomley, Horatio W.

    Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

    Pratt, John William

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Purchase, H. G.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Jameson, J. Gordon

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Jesson, C.

    Rankin, Captain James S.

    Broad, Thomas Tucker

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Brown, T. W. (Down, North)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Bruton, Sir James

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

    Carr, W. Theodore

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Casey, T. W.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)

    Chadwick, R. Burton

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)

    Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Cope, Major Wm.

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Stevens, Marshall

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lister, Sir R. Ashton

    Stewart, Gershom

    Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)

    Sturrock, J. Leng

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lorden, John William

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

    Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)

    Taylor, J.

    Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)

    Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

    Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Lynn, R. J.

    Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Tickler, Thomas George

    Fildes, Henry

    Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

    Wallace, J.

    Flannery, Sir. James Fortescue

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Molson, Major John Esdale

    Ward, Col, L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

    Fremant e, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

    Gange, E. Stanley

    Morden, Colonel H. Grant

    Winterton, Major Earl

    Ganzoni, Captain F. J. C.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Murchison, C. K.

    Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Neal, Arthur

    Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

    Grant, James A.

    Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

    Younger, Sir George

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Palmer, Lieut.-Colonel G. L.

    Lord E. Talbot and Capt. Guest.

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a Third time," put, and agreed to.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (THIRD REPORT).
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I desire to make a personal explanation on behalf of the Select Committee on National Expenditure and of myself. The Select Committee on National Expenditure, feeling that the Vote last Tuesday might be considered as a reflection on them, and might add to the difficulties of their position, have passed the following resolution:
  "That the Select Committee on National Expenditure, having carefully considered the situation which has arisen in consequence of the publication of their Third Report, and having reported the Evidence to the House, have requested their Chairman to take steps to obtain a day early in the Autumn Session for the House to discuss the Report after reading the Evidence, when the Evidence will have been officially published, and to
  46
  ask that the Government Whips should not be put on should a "Division take place."
  That is the personal explanation which I desire to make on behalf of the Committee and myself as their Chairman. I should like to add a request to the Leader of the House to give a day to the consideration of the Report at the beginning of the Autumn Session, by which time the evidence on which the Committee acted will be officially published, and I desire to ask hon. Members to read the evidence.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: This subject was very fully discussed last week, but it is quite possible that the evidence may put a new aspect upon it, and in any case I should desire if it were possible to fall in with the wishes of the Select Committee. I think, however, we must await the publication of the evidence, and after we have seen it I shall be glad to give a definite answer.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Amendment to—
North British and Mercantile Insurance Company Bill [Lords], without Amendment. Amendments to—
Exmouth Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Lever Brothers (Wharves and Railway) Bill [Lords],
Life Association of Scotland Bill [Lords],
Uxbridge and Wycombe District Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Restoration of Order in Ireland Bill, without Amendment.
Public Libraries (Scotland) Bill, with an Amendment.
Dangerous Drugs Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the qualification of and manner of enrolling women as jurors in Scotland." [Jurors (Enrolment of Women) (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend section one hundred and eleven of the Children's Act with respect to the constitution of juvenile courts in the Metropolitan police court district." [Juvenile Courts (Metropolis) Bill [Lords.]
Jurors (Enrolment of Women) (Scotland) Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 204.]
Public Libraries (Scotland) Bill,
Lords Amendment to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]
Dangerous Drugs Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 205.]
Juvenile Courts (Metropolis) Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

PENSIONS.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up and Read;
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 185.]
Minutes of Evidence to be printed. [No. 185.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MAINTENANCE OEDERS (FACILITIES FOR ENFORCEMENT) BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee; Reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  FIREARMS BILL [Lords].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  Mr. KILEYhad given notice of a new Clause—(Application to Ireland).
  Mr. SPEAKER: This should come as an Amendment to Clause 18.

  FIREARMS BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 1.—(Restriction on purchase, possession and use of firearms.)
    (2) (b) a firearm certificate in respect of firearms or ammunition to be used solely for target practice or drill by the members of a rifle club or miniature rifle club or cadet corps approved for the purpose by a Secretary of State may be granted to any responsible officer of the club or corps without payment of any fee.
    (3) A firearm certificate shall be in the prescribed form and shall specify the nature and number of the firearms to which it relates, and, as respects ammunition, the quantities authorised to be purchased and to be held at any one time thereunder, and the certificate may on the application of the holder thereof be varied from time to time by the chief officer of police by whom it was granted.
    (4) Any person aggrieved by a refusal of a chief officer of police to grant him a firearm certificate, or to vary such a certificate, may appeal in accordance with rules made by the Lord Chancellor to a court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessional division in which the applicant resides.
    (8) If any person purchases, has in his possession, uses, or carries a firearm or ammunition without holding a firearm certificate or otherwise than as authorised by such a certificate or, in the case of ammunition, in quantities in excess of those so authorised, or fails to comply with any condition subject to which the certificate is granted, he shall be liable in respect of each offence on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such imprisonment and fine:
    Provided that no offence under this Section shall be deemed to be committed—
    (e) in the case of any member of a rifle club or miniature rifle club or cadet corps approved by a Secretary of State, by using or carrying a firearm or ammunition or in connection with drill or target practice; or
    (f) in the case of an officer of the Post Office acting in the course of his duties; or
    (g) in the case of a person carrying a firearm or ammunition belonging to a person holding a certificate under this Act, by having in his possession such firearm or ammunition by order of such certificated person, and for the use of such certificated person only for sporting purposes; or
    (h) in the case of any person carrying on the business of butcher, slaughterman, knacker, of other person engaged in the business of the humane slaughter of animals for food or other purposes, by purchasing or having in his possession or using any humane killer for the purpose of such business.
    (9) Nothing in this Section shall relieve any person using or carrying a firearm from the obligation to take out a gun licence.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Baird): I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, b), to leave out the words "or miniature rifle club."
    The object of the Amendment is to give effect to an undertaking I gave in Committee excluding miniature rifles. It is to be taken in conjunction with an Amendment coming further on.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir J. BAIRD: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words "by whom it was granted," and to insert instead thereof the words, "of the district in which the holder is for the time being residing."
    That makes it easier for a man who is moving about the country, and possibly finds himself in a district different from that in which he got his certificate. In that case he would apply to the chief police officer in the district.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In Sub-section (4), leave out the word "applicant" ["in which the applicant resides"], and insert instead thereof the word "appellant."
    In Sub-section (8, e), leave out the word "by" ["by using or carrying a firearm or ammunition"], and insert instead thereof the words, "having in his possession."
    After the word "ammunition," insert the words, "when engaged as such member in."
    In Sub-section (8, f), after the word "office" ["officer of the Post Office"], insert the words, "by having in his possession, using or carrying a firearm or ammunition when."
    In Sub-section (8, g), leave out the words, "by order of such certificated person," and insert instead thereof the words, "under instructions from."—[Sir J. Baird.]
    Sir J. BAIRD: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (8), to insert a new paragraph—
    "(i) in the case of any person conducting or carrying on a miniature rifle range (whether for a rifle club or otherwise) or shooting gallery at which no firearms are used other than miniature rifles not exceeding 23 calibre, by purchasing, having in his possession, using, or carrying such miniature rifles or ammunition suitable therefor; or, in the case of any person, by using at such miniature rifle range or shooting gallery any such rifle or ammunition."
    The object of this is quite clear. It is to exempt miniature rifle ranges, and especially galleries, from the operation of the Act.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: After the words last added, add the words
    "(j) in the case of a person who hits been refused the grant of a firearms certificate by a chief officer of police or whose firearms certificate has been revoked by having in his possession a firearm or ammunition pending disposal thereof by him, provided that he has obtained from the chief officer of police a permit in the prescribed form for that purpose."—[Captain Bowyer.]

    CLAUSE 2.—(Restrictions on manufacture and sale of firearms.)
    (1) A person shall not manufacture or sell, or expose, or have in his possession for sale or repair, test or proof, firearms or ammunition by way of trade or business unless he is registered as a firearms dealer in accordance with this Act."
    (5) Every person who sells a firearm or ammunition to a person in the United Kingdom other than a registered firearms
    74
    dealer shall comply with any instructions addressed to the seller contained in the firearm certificate produced by the purchaser, and in the case of the sale of a firearm shall within forty-eight hours from the sale send by registered post notice of the sale to the chief officer of police by whom the certificate was issued.
    (6) Every person who manufactures or sells firearms or ammunition by way of trade or business shall provide and keep a register of transactions, and shall enter or cause to be entered therein the particulars set forth in the Second Schedule to this Act and every such entry shall be made within twenty-four hours after the transaction to which it relates took place, and in the case of a sale every such person as aforesaid shall require the purchaser, if not known to him, to furnish particulars sufficient for identification, and sign his name and address in the said register at the time of the transaction, and shall immediately enter the said particulars in the register.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "or sell or expose" and insert instead thereof the words "sell, repair, test or prove or expose for sale."
    Leave out the word "or" ["for sale or repair"].
    In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "by the purchaser."
    In Sub-section (6), after the word "shall" ["every such person as aforesaid shall"] insert the words "at the time of the transaction."
    Leave out the words "and sign his name and address in the said register at the time of the transaction."—[Sir J. Baird.]

    CLAUSE 6.—(Prohibition of manufacture, etc., of weapons discharging noxious liquids, etc.)
    (1) It shall not be lawful for any person without the authority of the Admiralty or the Army Council or the Air Council to manufacture, sell, purchase, or have in his possession any weapon, of whatever description, designed for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas, or other thing, or any ammunition containing or designed or adapted to contain any such noxious thing, and such a weapon is in this Act referred to as a prohibited weapon.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "purchase" ["sell, purchase, or have in his possession"], insert the word "carry."—[Sir J. Baird.]

    CLAUSE 8.—(Registration of persons manufacturing or selling firearms.)
    (5) Where a registered firearms dealer is convicted of an offence under this Act, or of an offence against the enactments relating to Customs in respect of the import or export of firearms or ammunition, the court may order—
    (b) that neither the dealer nor any person who acquires the business of that dealer, nor, if the dealer is a company or firm, any person who took part in the management of the business, and was knowingly a party to the offence, nor any company or firm in the management of which such last-mentioned person is concerned, shall be registered as a firearms dealer; and
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (5, b), leave out the words "if the dealer is a company or firm."
    Leave out the words, "nor any company or firm in the management of which such last-mentioned person is concerned."—[Sir J. Baird.]
    Sir J. BAIRD: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (5, b), to add a new paragraph—
    (c) that any person who, after the date of the Order, employs in the management of his business the dealer convicted of the offence or any person who was knowingly a party to the offence shall not be registered as a firearms dealer or, if so registered, shall be liable to be removed from the register; and."
    Captain BOWYER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "order" ["after the date of the order"], to insert the word "knowingly."
    Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Production of firearm certificates.)
    (1) Any constable may demand from any person whom he believes to be in possession of, or to be using or carrying, a firearm or ammunition (except in circumstances where the possession, using, or carrying a firearm or ammunition without a firearm certificate does not constitute an offence) the production of his firearm certificate.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "the possession"
    76
    ["where the possession, using, or carrying"], and insert instead thereof the word "possessing."—[Sir J. Baird.]

    CLAUSE 12.—(Interpretation.)
    (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
    The expression "firearm" means any lethal firearm or other weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet, or other missile can be discharged, or any part thereof, and the expression "ammunition" means ammunition for any such firearms, and includes grenades, bombs, and other similar missiles, whether such missiles are capable of use with a firearm or not, and ingredients and components thereof:
    Provided that a smooth bore shot-gun or air-gun (other than the type of air-gun having a reservoir of compressed air) or air-rifle and ammunition therefor shall not in Great Britain be deemed to be a firearm and ammunition for the purpose of the provisions of this Act other than those relating to the removal of firearms and ammunition from one place to another or for export:
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "(other than the type of air-gun having a reservoir of com pressed air) or air-rifle," and insert instead thereof the words, "or air-rifle (other than air-guns and air-rifles of a type declared by rules made by a Secretary of State under this Act to be specially dangerous)."—[Sir J. Baird.]

    CLAUSE 15.—(Power to Secretary of State, to make rules.)
    A Secretary of State may make rules for prescribing the form of firearm certificates, and the book required by this Act to be kept by persons manufacturing or selling firearms by way of trade or business, and other documents, and for prescribing any other thing which under this Act is to be prescribed, and for regulating the manner in which chief officers of police are to carry out their duties under this Act, and generally for carrying this Act into effect, and may by those rules vary or add to the Second Schedule to this Act, and references in this Act to that Schedule shall be considered as references to the Schedule as for the time being so varied or added to.
    Amendment made: After the word "firearms" ["manufacturing or selling firearms"], insert the words "or ammunition."—[Sir J. Baird.]
    Captain BOWYER: I beg to move, to leave out the words
    "and may by those rules vary or add to the Second Schedule to this Act, and references in this Act to that Schedule shall be considered as references to the Schedule as for the time being so varied or added to."

    77
    This Clause deals with the powers of the Secretary of State to make rules, and the words I move to delete expressly give the Secretary of State the power to amend and alter the Second Schedule, and the Second Schedule deals with the particulars, which are to be entered in a book which is to be kept by firearms dealers. I move this on two specific grounds. First of all, generally, here we are enacting special words in an Act of Parliament, and we say that certain things shall be done. If these words remain in the Bill the Secretary of State after the Act has reached the Statute Book can alter the Second Schedule just as much as he pleases, and can undo many of the benefits which have been arrived at, after some contention, in Committee and in the various stages of the Bill. It is on that broad question of principle that I think these words should not be allowed to remain in the Bill. Secondly, if I might bring the issue down to a specific case, the Secretary of State for War might easily come to the conclusion that all ammunition makers should present a daily record, for report, of what ammunition they have in stock, and such an order would be perfectly within their power, and would make the life of anyone engaged in the occupation of making ammunition or of dealing in firearms absolutely intolerable. I hope the Secretary of State will agree to the deletion of these words, because the words say
    "and may by those rules vary or add to the Second Schedule to this Act, and references in this Act to that Schedule shall be considered as references to the Schedule as for the time being so varied or added to."
    The particulars, presumably, were very carefully decided upon by the Home Office before this Bill was brought in, and during the time it has been under consideration of the House, and I do submit that the particulars at which we have now arrived, and which form part of the Second Schedule, are quite ample and sufficient to meet all the necessities of the case.
    Mr. KILEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It has been my misfortune to have from time to time to approach the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on similar powers which he has the right to administer, and I have been so dissatisfied with the attitude which he has repeatedly taken up that I am more than
    78
    reluctant to put any undue discretion in his power. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken states that in this Bill it is clearly set forth what a dealer is expected to do and what he is expected not to do. He knows his responsibilities, and therefore if he makes a mistake or does wrong he must bear the penalty. I do not like to put a power in the hands of the Home Secretary which might or might not, either by himself or by his staff, be unfairly or injudiciously exercised. For that reason I support the Amendment which my hon. and gallant Friend has moved.
    Sir J. BAIRD: The other side of the argument which has been advanced by the two hon. Members who proposed and seconded the Amendment is a very simple one. If these words are struck out of the Bill, then the Second Schedule in its present form can never be varied, however disagreeable and inconvenient it may prove to be in its working. It may very easily prove to be the fact that in order efficiently to carry out the intention of the Act, alteration may be necessary. It is quite possible that the time may come when the arms manufacturers or dealers, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may come to the conclusion that in the interests of all concerned this Second Schedule should be altered. If these words are not left in then this Second Schedule remains cast iron and permanent. There has been but little experience of this matter. Prior to the War there was no experience of it at all, and in the interests of those concerned in the trade, just as much as in the interests of the efficient working of the scheme of the Bill, I suggest it would be premature to try to lay down now, on the insufficient experience we have had in the working of the measure, a set of particulars such as you will find in the Second Schedule. Of course, if it is taken for granted that the Secretary of State would use his powers capriciously or vexatiously, legislation would become very difficult; but the intention with regard to this matter, as in all other matters, is that we should meet, so far as we possibly can, the views of those who are directly concerned. It is impossible for us to do so if these words are not left in the Schedule, and I hope, therefore, in view of the short experience we have had in dealing with this matter, the House will be content to leave in these

    79
    words, and to leave the Secretary of State with the power and opportunity to exercise his discretion, and to act, at any rate, upon any good suggestion which he may receive from those people who might conceivably find these Regulations unnecessary and vexatious. I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke for the Government said the Home Secretary is not going to make any vexatious Regulations. How can we know that? During the War the great complaint of traders, manufacturers, and merchants throughout the country was the vexatious and innumerable rules, Regulations, forms, and so on, which the War, I suppose, inevitably cast upon them, and which became almost an intolerable burden. This Second Schedule is very comprehensive. It seems to me to contain every possible information which it is fair and right to ask merchants and gunmakers and others to keep, and to provide the Government with. The bureaucrats have been so diligent in inventing new forms and other means of badgering and hampering traders in this country that I am not at all certain that this may not introduce some further vexatious details which the Government will insist upon from traders and merchants. All my hon. and gallant Friend asks for in this Amendment is to force the Department to come to the House for a short amending Bill, and if they come with a good cause I am quite sure the House would give them their Bill, as they have given them the main Bill. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will insist on his Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 18.—(Application to Ireland.)
    This Act shall apply to Ireland, subject to the following modifications:—

    (1) A reference to the Chief Secretary shall be substituted for any reference to a Secretary of State:

    (2) The expressions "police district" and "chief officer of police" respectively mean in the police district of Dublin metropolis that district and any of the Commissioners of the Police for that district, and elsewhere any district for which a county inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary is appointed and such county inspector:

    (3) For the purposes of this Act a court of summary jurisdiction shall, except
    80
    in the police district of Dublin metropolis, be constituted of a resident magistrate sitting alone or with one or more other resident magistrates, and the decision of a court of summary jurisdiction on a prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be final:

    (4) "One year" shall be substituted for "three years" as the maximum period during which a firearm certificate may continue in force or for which a firearm certificate may be renewed:

    (5) In the provisions as to penalties "two years" shall he substituted for "three months" as the maximum term of imprisonment:

    (6) In the provisions restricting the purchase, possession, and use of firearms by persons under fourteen, "sixteen years" shall be substituted for "fourteen years":

    (7) A reference to the enactments relative to pawnbrokers in Ireland shall be substituted for the reference to the Pawnbrokers Act, 1872:

    (8) Section eighteen of the Criminal Justive Administration Act, 1914, so far as it limits the aggregate term of imprisonment where two or more sentences of imprisonment passed by a court of summary jurisdiction are ordered to run consecutively, shall not apply in any case where any of the sentences is passed for an offence under this Act:

    (9) Provisions as to appeals shall not apply:

    (10) Any constable authorised in writing in that behalf by the chief officer of police shall have the same powers as if the authority were a search warrant issued by a justice of the peace under this Act:

    (11) In addition to any other powers conferred on him under this Act, or otherwise, any constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he believes to be in possession of, or to be using or carrying, a firearm or ammunition in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, and may search any such person, and whether arresting him or not may seize and detain any firearm or ammunition in his possession or used or carried by him:

    (12) For the purposes of the Explosives Substances Act, 1883, any firearm within the meaning of this Act shall be deemed to be an explosive substance.

    Mr. HOGGE: I desire to move to leave out the Clause which says "This Act shall apply to Ireland." For one or two specific reasons. I think possibly the Government might agree to leave it out in this case. In the first place, I think it is always wrong to make a differential law between different parts of the United

    81
    Kingdom, and if this Bill becomes an Act, then we shall have running in the United Kingdom a different code of laws with regard to the purchase and carrying of firearms than we have in Ireland. I would like to draw the attention of the House to some of those differentiations, and to ask why such differentiations are made. For instance, a certificate for carrying firearms in this country may continue in force for a period of three years, whereas in Ireland the period is limited to one year. With regard to the question of imprisonment, the maximum penalty in this country is three months, and in Ireland it is two years. There is another distinction, which is not quite so glaring, namely, that the limit of age in this country is 14 years, and in Ireland 16 years.
    Either this Bill means what it says on the face of it, or it does not. If it is a Bill dealing with the carrying and use of firearms generally, then it ought to be applicable alike all over the country. There ought to be no specific reason why in Ireland you require to be 16 before you get a certificate rather than 14 in this country, and surely there is no reason why in Ireland, if you are using a firearm in the wrong sense as intended by this Bill, you should be liable to two years' imprisonment, as against three months' in this country.
    The only reason that one can give for this differentiation is the disturbed state of Ireland at the present moment. That is a fact which the Government have a perfect right to take into consideration, but I want to submit that, as a matter of fact, the Government have now got another Bill, which I presume will become law at the same time as this Bill may become law if it is not amended, namely, the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Bill. Under the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Bill the Government have taken what are described by themselves as carte blanche powers to deal with disturbances in Ireland. Therefore, any power which the Government may desire for the purposes of dealing with the disturbed state of Ireland are already conferred by them by the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Bill. I submit that that is a point which it is worth the Government's while to take into consideration. It is always a bad thing to have differential legislation, and if the powers they
    82
    want to deal with firearms are covered by the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Bill, then it is a pity to put through the House of Commons and the House of Lords a general Bill dealing with the question of firearms in which there is a special reference to what we hope may be temporary circumstances in Ireland.
    Presumably this Bill was brought in by the Government as a result of the incidents which occurred about six or nine months ago, when banks and post offices were held up in this country by people with revolvers who were carrying them without licence. That is what the Bill was aimed at. Incidentally, in passing the Bill, the Irish situation being what it is, this Clause 18 was inserted. I venture to suggest that, as my right hon. Friend has now got the other powers, he does not require these powers. He has powers to deal with the abnormal situation in Ireland. This presumably would be the normal Bill that would remain on the Statute Book for dealing with the use of this kind of firearm when the Irish situation was cleared away. Because I think it is always a mistake to have this differential legislation when the Government have other powers to deal with a temporary situation, I beg to move that Clause 18 be left out.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The effect of leaving out Clause 18 would be to make the whole Bill applicable to Ireland, without any qualification.
    Mr. HOGGE: As a matter of fact, I did hand in a manuscript Amendment putting in the word "not" after "shall," making it read "This Act shall not apply to Ireland." If you think it advisable, I shall be glad to move my Amendment in that form.
    Amendment proposed, after the word "shall" ["This Act shall apply to Ireland"], insert the word "not."—[Mr. Hogge.]
    Mr. KILEY: I rise to support the proposal of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, and I desire to emphasise the point which he has made of the different penalties that will arise for the same offence. I will repeat a proposition which I put before the Committee when it was considering this Bill upstairs. Take the question of an Irishman leaving Dublin and going to Glasgow, and purchasing a firearm. If he is in Glasgow

    83
    with that firearm in his possession without authority from the Chief of Police, the utmost he can receive is three months' imprisonment, but if he is able to get across the water and land in Dublin with that very same firearm the penalty is two years. I think this in the first time in the history of the making of laws in this House that we have inflicted a totally different penalty for the one and same offence, and if I am correct in assuming that, then I do ask the House to consider well the proposition. If for the same offence two totally different penalties can be inflicted, I think we are justified in hesitating to consider where this position might eventually land us. I do not know whether any hon. Member has studied this Bill. Here is a Bill with eighteen Clauses of a far-reaching character, and they will have the result of producing an immense number of criminals for the first time. The Clauses have been so tightened up that there is practically little loophole or excuse for any variation from the strict letter of the law. These Clauses may be very useful and may be suitable for the conditions in England, but if you consider the effect they will have in Ireland, where the conditions are totally different, and where the people will have little or no knowledge of the provisions of this Act, I can see any amount of trouble that will arise, and the great difficulty which will confront the Government in administering it. We may assume that there is very little chance of this Clause being put into effect. If the present Defence of the Realm Act regulations, or if the special Bill which we have just passed, are not sufficiently stern, we ought to have made them sterner. Now this Bill is brought in, and if a person understands one Bill and evades it, he may immediately find himself drawn in by the provisions of another Bill. Is it not more or less a farce? We are going to concede to the Irish people the right to manage their own affairs; yet in this Bill and in the Irish Census Bill which is on the Paper for to-day we are legislating on matters referring to that unfortunate country.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I support the Amendment, but on somewhat different grounds. At the present time there are many statutes and restrictions in force, including the Defence of the
    84
    Realm Act, for preventing the illegal carrying and possession of lethal weapons in Ireland. The powers of the Defence of the Realm Act are very wide. Hon. Members may say, "We may one day get peace"—but I suppose they will agree with me that it is very doubtful at the present time whether we shall get peace in our time; "therefore the Defence of the Realm Act will lapse." There are many other statutes, some of which are mentioned in the Bill, which deal with the carrying of firearms in Ireland, but there is this difference, that under this Bill special permits can be given to certain persons to carry firearms. My objection to that is that it would not be applied impartially. I am as strongly in favour as anyone could possibly be of taking possession of all the arms in Ireland. I would go further, and remove all the armed forces. Meanwhile, I would take possession of all the revolvers and rifles scattered about that unhappy country. Eighteen months ago, before there were any political murders to speak of, a young man was arrested for carrying a revolver in his pocket, and was taken before a court-martial in Cork and sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour. I do not know whether that was a serious penalty to inflict upon him, but I do know that during the recent disturbances in Londonderry five gentlemen were arrested for having rifles and ammunition in their possession, and for carrying the arms openly and using them, and when they were taken before a special Court of two resident magistrates they were fined £5. I questioned the Chief Secretary about this, and he gave me the additional information that some Catholic Irishmen had also been arrested for carrying rifles, and they had been given the same penalty of £5. I want to say that to be quite fair.
    Why should it be that eighteen months ago, when there was comparative peace in Ireland, a young man in Cork should be sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour for carrying a revolver, and that in Derry after several days of severe fighting, when many people had lost their lives, certain persons should only be fined £5 for being in possession of rifles. That passes my comprehension. The only explanation is that there are two laws in Ireland, one for the political opponents of the Government and another for their political supporters and

    85
    friends. Since these unfortunate troubles in Londonderry I have put question after question to the Chief Secretary asking what progress has been made with the disarmament of the citizens of Londonderry, and the answers have usually been evasive. Recently I have had an answer to the effect that a small number of revolvers and one or two rifles have been taken. I am unable at the moment to recollect the exact figures, but the House may take it from me that the property seized was very small. The Government have taken no adequate steps to search out—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are discussing the future in this Bill. The hon. Member is discussing the past. That is not the question before the House.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to contravene your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but it seems to me that the Government could have taken possession of the arms which we know to be in Londonderry under the powers which they possess, and I do not think that we should give them the powers asked for in this Bill until they show their good faith. I would like to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can assure us that when this Bill is passed Clause 18 will be applied impartially. When these additional powers have been given to him is it the intention to take steps to seize the arms which are scattered about, the north-east of Ireland, or is he only going to use the powers in this Bill to give permits to certain favoured individuals to carry arms, and that that is the only part of the Bill which is to be applied? I object to the ages set up in this Bill for Ireland as compared with England. I asked for some explanation on Second Reading, but I got no satisfactory answer. I asked why Ireland should be treated differently in this matter from England. Why is a person only dangerous when he is 16 in England and when he is 14 in Ireland. In other words, why should a boy of 14 be allowed to carry firearms in England as compared with the age of 16 in Ireland. I have seen a good many Irish boys and English boys, and I have not noticed much difference between them age for age, and I cannot understand why that difference is made. If the Government are sincere in desiring to give a full measure of self-government
    86
    to Ireland, or to the two portions of Ireland into which they insist on dividing the country, why not leave this legislation to them? Why bring in a special clause applying to Ireland in this Bill? One doubts, and there is good reason for doubting, the Government's declared policy when we see special legislation brought in for Ireland, and I ask the House to reject this Clause.
    Mr. JAMESON: I oppose the Amendment. I have a certain objection to the Clause, but it is of an entirely different character from those put forward by the hon. Member. For very many peaceful, law-abiding people it is a necessity of life almost that, if they are to remain in life, they shall have firearms with which to defend themselves against murderers and rebels. It may be very strongly urged that in this Bill by taking away from them very possibly their chance, or diminishing their chance, of getting arms with which to defend their lives and property you may strengthen the disloyal and criminal forces in Ireland. An alleviation of that—and without it I should probably vote against the Bill being applied to Ireland—is that permits are allowed to be granted under this Clause. The Government are enabled to grant permits to people who are in the position of having very likely to defend themselves, because the Government do not show a very great enthusiasm in defending the loyal subject in Ireland against the campaign of outrage and crime that is going on there. By granting these permits they will give them a chance of defending themselves. It is nonsense to talk about impartiality between the two sections in Ireland, because that obviously means impartiality between the murderer and the person he is trying to murder. The danger is that if you pass a law like this it will be obeyed by the peaceable subject, but not by the murderers and criminals. Therefore, the latter will retain their arms while the murderee, if I may use the word, will be deprived of his arms. That is the reason for these permits being granted, and without that provision the Bill would be against the loyal section of the population. You cannot deal impartially between the criminal and the peaceable citizen. It is the business of the law to take the side of the peaceable citizen, and be against the criminal and the murderer. Accordingly, everything that tends to

    87
    deprive the criminal and the murderer of the chance of committing his crimes, and which gives the loyal citizen the chance of defending himself against the criminal, ought to be supported by anybody who hates to see the reign of anarchy and terror and the sort of hell that rages in three-quarters of Ireland at the present time.
    Major BARNETT: I trust that the Government will not accept the Amendment, which rests upon a very patent and transparent fallacy—the fallacy that the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition in Ireland is the same offence as the unlawful possession of arms and ammunition in this country. Let us test that proposition. If I lit my pipe in the smoking room of this House and threw a lighted match into the waste-paper basket I should be accused of carelessness and that would be the end of it. If I lit my pipe at the London Docks and threw the match into one of the warehouses where wool and other things are stored, I should very probably be fined 40s. and costs for my carelessness. If I lit my pipe and threw the match into a powder magazine I should very probably be sent to prison. [HON. MEMBERS: "To Heaven!"] It seems to me that if we apply that test to the argument of the Mover of the Amendment it disposes of the Amendment absolutely.
    Major ENTWISTLE: I have listened to the last two speakers with some surprise. Their arguments are entirely to advocate differential treatment for Ireland in view of the present state of affairs in that country. The whole point made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh was that this provision is going to impose permanent law on Ireland as regards the use of firearms. There is no limitation in this Act as to the length of its duration. It repeals the Pistols Act of 1903, and will form a permanent part of the law of this country and of Ireland. The point is: Is there any justification for making a permanent differentiation between Ireland and England? If you say that the present state of affairs calls for exceptional measures and precautions, that is agreed, and the answer is that you have those in the Defence of the Realm Regulations and in the powers under the Act recently passed by this House for the Restoration of Order in
    88
    Ireland. That is the only point which is really relevant to this Section. What is the excuse for putting on the Statute Book a permanent Act when you have powers to deal with a temporary situation? For the same offence an Irishman would be sentenced to two years' imprisonment, and an Englishman to only three months' imprisonment. Is there any justification for casting this permanent stigma on the Irish nation and character? It seems like gratuitous provocation, and there is no object at all in this Section remaining in the Bill. I am sorry that the Amendment has been put in the form moved by the hon. Member. I would have preferred to say that "This Act shall apply to Ireland," and to eliminate all succeeding words. That would leave the Act to apply to Ireland in exactly the same way as it applies to England.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. D. M. Wilson): If this Bill is necessary in England it is 100 times more necessary in Ireland. Reference has been made to the condition of affairs which led to this Bill being brought in and applied to Great Britain. In Great Britain there have been attacks on banks and post offices and the holding up of citizens by people with arms. To meet those conditions this Bill was considered necessary. In reference to Ireland, after the Debate we had last week I do not propose to weary the House by going into the facts. You must remember that in Ireland there 300,000 or 400,000 people in possession of arms, and they are organised and drilled. A certain percentage of them are committing assassinations and murders, and a still greater percentage are engaged every day and night in making attacks on patrols of police and oh companies of soldiers. When you read your newspapers you see that the attackers have captured arms and that they have inflicted great injury, and sometimes death, upon the servants of this House and of the Government, who have nothing whatever to do with the political matters which are debated in this House. I think all hon. Members will agree that, no matter what may be the ultimate settlement of the Irish Question, it is the duty of the Opposition, as of the Government, to give every conceivable protection to those officers who are carrying out the instructions of this House. What is the fundamental condition which makes these attacks and assas-

    89
    sinations successful? It is the possession of arm and ammunition and explosives. The necessity for the Bill is far greater in Ireland than in England, and punishment by three months' imprisonment, which might be sufficient in England, is by no means sufficient in Ireland. One of the great advantages of the punishment proposed is that it may intimidate people from committing crime and induce them to give up their arms.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are not all these powers already in force in Ireland, and is not the carrying of arms there already illegal?
    Mr. WILSON: All the powers in this Bill are not already in force in Ireland. The full provisions of this Bill have never been carried out by any Order under Defence of the Realm Act. It is necessary that we should be in a position to defend the servants of the Crown. As the Prime Minister said last week, it is our duty to see that every resource and every protection is used to prevent these people from being massacred in the performance of their duty. I am sure all hon. Members would agree with that. This Bill will apply automatically to the whole of Ireland. As hon. Members know, orders made under Defence of the Realm Act, and also under the Restoration of Order Bill, are curtailed to the objects of those Bills, and they apply by Orders in Council, and not automatically to the whole of Ireland. The provisions of this Bill will be carried out by the Government absolutely impartially in the whole of Ireland. Everyone is looking forward, after the speech of the Prime Minister, to the Irish Question being settled, and, no matter what form of government is set up in Ireland, I submit that it will be necessary, in order to bring about stable government in that country, that the people should be disarmed. At present the officers of the Government, the magistrates and officials walk through the streets, and the men who carry arms are in mufti. A policeman sees a respectable-looking man, and does not know what he is or what he intends to do. The provisions of this Bill should be very valuable in the hands of any Government, however extreme, which may be set up in Ireland.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. D. M. WILSON: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert a new Sub-section—
    90
    "(10) The exemption in favour of any person conducting or carrying on a miniature rifle range or shooting gallery or using a miniature rifle or ammunition at any such range or gallery shall not apply."
    Mr. KILEY: Has not the Government already all the power it requires under its Regulations? Why should a fair in Ulster, or anywhere else where all is peaceful, not be permitted, if the people want it, and if the authorities do not anticipate trouble? If the authorities anticipate trouble, they could put their special legislation into effect. As has been said, this legislation is for all time. I should have preferred special legislation for special purposes.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    5.0 P.M.
    Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I desire to refer to the position of rifle clubs under this Bill. As a result of many years' experience I have found that the members of civilian rifle clubs are a loyal law abiding body of men, and the very last men in the whole world who would use the rifle club as a centre of agitation or for the dissemination of Bolshevist propaganda. During the War these clubs were a very considerable strength to the country and I do not think anybody can speak too highly of the value of the recruits which many of the territorial units received from those clubs. I can assure the House that had it not been for the fact that at least 50 per cent. of the recruits of territorial units at the outbreak of war came from the rifle clubs, it would have been impossible to send territorial units out to Prance as was done in the early days of September, 1914. I think, generally, that has been the experience of a very large number of those who were charged with the recruiting of thousands of Territorials, who helped to fill the gap between the old Army and the appearance of the new Army, which we knew then under the name of the Kitchener Army. I must admit that the Government have not been altogether unyielding on this point, and they have so altered the wording of the Clause as to allow the use and carrying of firearms by Territorials and members of civilian rifle clubs when engaged in drill or in practice. That is a very useful concession, but in spite of my efforts in Committee

    91
    I was unable to induce the Government to give way on the question of purchasing or obtaining possession of these weapons.
    As the Bill stands, although a Territorial may use and carry a rifle, he cannot purchase or retain possession of same. That means that he is unable to use a private weapon for practice on a range, and in that way to make himself efficient. I know, of course, that all he has to do is to obtain a permit from the local chief police officer at a cost of 5s. That is not an insuperable difficulty, nor is the amount exorbitant, but failing definite instructions from the Home Office, it is quite possible the local chief of police may consider it his duty to issue as few permits as he possibly can, and may place every obstacle in the way of members of rifle clubs or Territorials. Those may be men whose pleasure it is to use their spare time in making themselves proficient in the use of the rifle, in preference to playing golf or tennis or idling on the river, amusements which, while pleasant, have a very small national value. Throughout the War the National Rifle Association was empowered under Order-in-Council to issue permits to certain members to purchase arms and ammunition. Although I quite recognise the difficulty of making exceptions in a Bill, I do suggest that the Government should issue such Regulations as will facilitate, or, at any rate, not place insuperable difficulties in the way of Territorials or members of rifle clubs obtaining weapons, so that they may make themselves proficient in their use. As the Teritorial Force is a principal part of our armed forces, it cannot, I suppose, be the intention of the Government to place obstacles in the way of these men practising and becoming efficient. I suggest that no unnecessary obstacle should be placed in their way, so that in the event of the country being confronted with another war, we may be able to rely on that great reservoir of semi-trained men who proved so useful in 1914.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I agree with much of what has just been said, and I join with the hon. and gallant Member as to the value of the rifle practice before the War. We are faced with another War now, and we will not get peace until the present Government goes out. Having utterly failed to estab-
    92
    lish the reign of peace we were promised, I think we had better encourage rifle clubs in every possible way and train young men to the profession of arms and let us give up the idea of disarmament and the reign of peace which the Government have taken care shall not come. When this Bill passes any possessor of firearms who does not go to a magistrate is liable to a fine not exceeding £20 or to three months' imprisonment, or to both. The Bill does not apply to shot-guns, but it does, I understand, to rook-rifles. It has been the habit of many householders to keep a revolver. The householder might only want it once in a lifetime, but when he did want it it would be very badly indeed. According to the common law if a householder finds his house being broken into between sunset and sunrise he is entitled to fire upon the intruder. That householder will have to go at once to the police or incur a penalty. Then you have demobilised men who have got revolvers and with no evil intent. There are also the professional burglars and robbers, for whom I am not pleading. All those alike will be liable unless they get permits. What steps is the Home Secretary going to take to make this law known? I have got several firearms in my house, and it is only by chance, because I am a Member of Parliament, that I happen to know of this Bill being passed. I am sure many Members do not know of it, and as an evidence of that look at the number present in the House now.
    I would ask the Attorney-General for Ireland whether this Bill is going to be used to disarm the civil population in Ireland. The Solicitor-General for Ireland told us just now that this Bill was going to be applied impartially. Are they now going to take possession of all arms which they can lay hold of in Ireland, and to take the stores of revolvers in Ulster? Are they going to ask General Hackett Payne, the Chief of Police in Belfast, where the stores are, and to demand their surrender? Will they do so before there is more bloodshed? In Londonderry armed men sprang out of the ground like the mythical dragon's teeth in the ancient story, and it gave the authorities considerable difficulty to put a stop to the rioting. That is simply disgraceful. Will the Government take possession of all weapons all over Ireland?

    93
    We on this side are against the murders and assassinations of which the Solicitor-General spoke, and we are in favour of all weapons being taken possession of, irrespective of the creed or politics of those who have them. The Government have been doing their level best in the South and West to get possession of the weapons. Thy have carried out several thousands of raids, mostly by troops in the dead of night, and they have made most exhaustive searches for weapons and documents, and I suppose they managed to capture them. It is not this Bill they want to enable them to get hold of assassins, and it is a very unfair advantage to represent, because of certain criticisms, that we are not equally in favour with them of getting possession of the weapons. We are, and we want the thing done impartially.
    Is Ireland, as far as possible, going to be, disarmed now, or are we going to wait for more bloodshed and suffering in that island? One hon. and gallant Member who spoke just now, I think it was the Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Jameson), pleaded for differentiation. He said that certain people in Ireland ought to be armed. I want to make one protest against that. I will not enter into details, but it is admitted that, in the South and West of Ireland, Catholics and Protestants are perfectly safe. An hon. and gallant Member representing one of the Southern constituencies in Ireland bears me out in this. His co-religionists in the South and West have left alone the Unionists and Protestants as such, and impartial and fair-minded testimony has been borne to that fact in this House, and by the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and others whose words carry weight. The hon. Member for West Edinburgh says it is necessary to pick out certain people in Ireland and to arm them. That is preaching pure anarchy and madness. What we want to see is a different rule of order in Ireland, and that is not going to be brought about by this Bill. I will not indicate how that can be brought about, as it would not be within the scope of this discussion, but I do say that this Bill will not do it. By all means, get possession of those rifles in the north-east of Ulster, which are probably one of the main excuses for the possession of arms in the country.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend below the Gangway (Colonel L. Ward) that the last thing the Government intend is to bring discouragement to any single rifle club. The Bill makes specific provision to give certain privileges to members of rifle clubs. It is necessary for those members to get permits to use their rifles. Anyone who wants to use his individual rifle can do so on getting a permit. This is a small thing and must be done in future.
    Colonel L. WARD: I agree that it would be a small thing if the chief officer of the local police is willing to grant the permit; but, if he is not, unless specific orders are made by the Secretary of State, the applicant may, under certain circumstances, have to go further.
    Mr. SHORTT: Had the hon. and gallant Gentleman not interrupted me by repeating a portion of his former speech, I should have dealt, with that point. He must not assume that any police officer will act in hostility to any member of a rifle club or from sheer stupidity. If any undesirable person should be a member of one of these clubs and should apply for a permit it would be right that he should not receive that permit, but any man who is refused a permit can always appeal to the local Bench and the local Bench will know him and will know therefore how to take in all the circumstances. Any man who wishes to use his own rifle will be able to do so if he obtains a permit. This Bill will not harm any single rifle club, and is not intended to do so. With regard to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), I will consider very carefully what can be done to make these regulations generally known. It always is the case that, where fresh regulations are made, there are always a number of persons who do not know that there has been a change in the law and who do not know the new provisions and who, therefore, have to be warned of them. I will consider carefully how that can best be done in these cases. With regard to Ireland, I do not think I need to repeat what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland, that the intention of the Irish Government is to carry out this Act as completely and as

    95
    impartially as possible. This Bill has been very fully considered. It has been considered on the Second reading and it has been very well considered in Committee, and all promiss made during the Committee Stage to be dealt with on the Report Stage have been loyally carried out, and, therefore, I ask the House to give this Bill a Third reading.

CENSUS BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to direct taking of Census.)
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council from time to time to direct that a census shall be taken for Great Britain, or for any part of Great Britain, and any Order under this Section may prescribe—

(a) the date on which the census is to be taken; and

(b) the persons by whom and with respect to whom the returns for the purpose of the census are to be made; and

(c) the particulars to be stated in the returns:

Provided that—

(i) an Order shall not be made under this Section so as to require a census to be taken in any part of Great Britain in any year unless at the commencement of that year at least five years have elapsed since the commencement of the year in which a census was last taken in that part of Great Britain; and

(ii) no particulars shall be required to be stated other than particulars with respect to such matters as are mentioned in the Schedule to this Act.

(2) Before any Order in Council is made under this Section, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than twenty days on which that House has sat, and, if either House before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of a new draft Order.
(3) Any Order in Council made under this Section may be revoked, amended or varied by a subsequent Order.
The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words
"Provided that if by part of any such Order it is proposed to prescribe any particulars with respect to any of the matters mentioned in paragraph 8 of the Schedule to this Act, that part of the Order shall not have effect unless both Houses by resolution approve that part of the draft, or, if any modifications in that part are agreed to by both Houses, except as so modified."
During the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill various opinions were expressed by hon. Members with regard to this part of the Clause and to paragraph 8 of the Schedule, and I promised that I would consider very carefully whether it would be possible to introduce any words which would act as a safeguard so far as this Order in Council was concerned. The words I have proposed seem to me adequately to meet the case. The Amendment secures that if any particulars are asked for under paragraph 8 of the Schedule they shall receive the express approval of both Houses of Parliament before they are required. I think that fully meets the criticism advanced by hon. Members on the Second Reading.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having met the objection which I raised on the Second Reading of this Bill. I understand that what will happen is this. Under paragraph 8 of the Schedule the words are
"Any other matters with respect to which it is desirable to obtain statistical information with a view to ascertaining the social or civil condition of the population."
These words give wide power to the Government of the day to make inquiries from the people. It is therefore important that this House should limit very carefully the power of the Government in making inquiries. I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I should like to hear from him an explanation of this Amendment. I understand that he says that, supposing this or any subsequent Government wish to get any particulars under paragraph 8, namely, some new form of information, before they can do it, they would have to have a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament.
Dr. ADDISON indicated assent.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Then there lies a safeguard. May I ask in what way that would be done? I am afraid I am not familiar with that form of procdure, and can the right hon. Gentleman tell me any other case where it has been done? Would we have an opportunity of discussing the resolution in this House, and would an opportunity also be given in the other House of discussing it before it became law? Should we be allowed to divide upon it and to move Amendments to it?
Dr. ADDISON: The procedure here is the same procedure as has been adopted in respect of certain Orders made under the Ministry of Health Act. The Minister in charge of the Department has to put down a Resolution for the House to approve of such Order, and that Order cannot be assented to until the House has passed that Resolution. There was a case last week where I happened to put down such a Resolution, but there there was no discussion. Where a discussion takes place, and where Amendments are moved and agreed to, then the Order is taken back and amended.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. G. THORNE: Do we understand that it is the intention of the Government to have a census taken every five years, instead of every ten years, or whether, under this Bill, the Government are simply taking powers to take a census when necessary?
Dr. ADDISON: As far as this Government is concerned, I am glad to hear from my hon. Friend that he thinks it will be in power at the end of five years. This Bill does not express any intention, but it only gives the necessary power to take a census, and an Order would have to be made and approved by the House if for any reason any local authority thinks it desirable to have a local census. There is no intention to have a census at the end of five years; the Bill only gives the necessary power to the local authority.

CLAUSE 2.—(Duty of Registrar-General to carry out census, and provision for expenses.)
(1) It shall be the duty of the Registrar-General to make such arrangements and do all such things as are necessary for the taking of a census in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of any Order in Council or Regulations made thereunder, and for that purpose to make arrangements for the preparation and issue of the necessary forms and instructions and for the collection of the forms when filled up.
(2) The Registrar-General in the exercise of his powers and in the performance of his duties under this Act or under any Order in Council or Regulations made thereunder, shall be subject to the control of, and comply with any directions given by, the Minister of Health.
Amendment made: After Sub-section (2) insert a new Subsection:—
"(3) Any expenses incurred with the sanction of the Treasury by the Minister of Health or the Registrar-General in connection with the taking of a census or otherwise in connection with the exercise of his powers or the performance of his duties under this Act shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."—[Dr. Addison.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 3.—(Regulations with respect to proceedings for taking census) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Preparation of reports and abstracts.)
(1) The Registrar-General shall, as soon as may he after the taking of a census, prepare reports on the census returns, and every such report shall be printed and laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(2) The Registrar-General may, if he so thinks fit, at the request of any local authority or person, cause abstracts to be prepared containing any such statistical information, being information which is not contained in the reports made by him under this Section and which in his opinion it is reasonable for that authority or person to require, as can be derived from the census returns.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "request," insert the words "and cost."—[Dr. Addison.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
CLAUSE 5.—(Preparation of statistics in respect of periods between one census and another) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Provision with respect to local census.)
(1) If an application is made by a local authority to the Minister of Health asking that a census may be taken for the whole or any part of the area of the authority, or for

99
an area consisting of the whole or any part of that area and of the whole or any part of an adjoining area, the Minister may if he thinks fit submit the application to His Majesty, and His Majesty may by Order in Council, if it appears to His Majesty expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating the due performance by the local authority of its statutory duties, direct that a census shall be taken for the area specified in the application, or for any part of that area.
(2) The provisions of this Act with respect to the taking of a census for Great Britain (other than the provision with respect to the interval between one census and another) shall, subject to such exceptions, modifications and adaptations as may be specified in the Order, apply to the taking of a census under this Section.
(4) The expression "local authority" in this Section means the council of a county, of a borough, or of an urban district:
Provided that—

(a) in the application of this Section to the Administrative County of London the expression "local authority" means the London County Council and the Common Council of the City of London; and

(b) an application may be made by the council of a county and an order may be made under this Section with respect to the whole of the area of the council, including the areas of any authorities which are local authorities for the purposes of this Section.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "By a local authority" ["If an application is made by a local authority"].
This Amendment and the next one are purely drafting Amendments in order to make the Clause read better, and the last Amendment which I shall move later on this Clause is in order to give a better and precise definition of the term "local authority" so far is this Act is concerned.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), after the word "health," insert the words "by a local authority to which this Section applies."—[Dr. Addison.]
Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), to leave out
"(4) The expression 'local authority' in this Section means the council of a county, of a borough, or of an urban district:
Provided that—
(a) in the application of this Section to the Administrative County of London the expression 'local authority' means the London County Council and the Common Council of the City of London; and,"
100
and to insert instead thereof the words,
"(3) The local authorities to which this Section applies are the Common Council of the City of London, Metropolitan borough councils, the councils of counties, the councils of boroughs, and urban district councils.
Provided that, without prejudice to the power of any other authority being a local authority to which this Section applies to make an application under this Section."
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I did not quite follow what was said about local authorities in reply to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. G. Thorne) on a previous Amendment. Is there any limit of time for these local authorities calling for censuses? Can they do it every year?
Dr. ADDISON: I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that they would have to pay their own expenses in connection with a local census, and I do not think it likely they would apply very often.
Mr. JOHNSTONE: If this Amendment be carried, will it shut out my Amendment to Clause 8 proposing to insert the words "or insurance committee"?
The CHAIRMAN: Oh, no; Scotland always has its peculiarities.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Penalties.)
"(1) If any person—

(a) refuses or neglects to comply with or acts in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any Order in Council or regulations made under this Act; or

(b) being a person required under this Act to make a statutory declaration with respect to the performance of his duties, makes a false declaration; or

(c) being a person required by any Order in Council or regulations made under this Act to make, sign, or deliver any document, makes, signs, or delivers, or causes to be made, signed, or delivered a false document; or

(d) being a person required in pursuance of any such Order in Council or regulations to answer any question, refuses to answer or gives a false answer to that question;

he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(2) If any person—

(a) being a person employed in taking a census, without lawful authority publishes or communicates to any person any information acquired by him in the course of his employment; or

(b) having possession of any information which to his knowledge has been disclosed in contravention of this Act, publishes or communicates that information to any other person;

he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, a), to leave out the words, "without lawful authority."
I have put this Amendment down with the object of getting from the Government some assurance or statement as to the degree of secrecy which will be observed in regard to returns, and I have a further Amendment down which, if carried, would make the paragraph read:
"If any person, being a person employed in taking a census, publishes or communicates to any person otherwise than in the ordinary course of such employment to a person or persons employed in taking that census any information acquired by him in the course of his employment."
The right hon. Gentleman's attention was drawn on Second Reading to the fact that the inquiries proposed to be made under this Bill are very wide indeed, and until he moved the Amendment which he did this afternoon, there was really no limit to them, but even apart from that particular paragraph in the Schedule, the other inquiries which may be made are very much more extensive than under the previous Census Act, and if in particular there are to be inquiries about infirmities and disabilities of any and every kind without any sort of restriction, it surely is a matter of very great importance to the individual concerned, and it is in the interests of the Government that there should not be great resentment roused by these inquiries and by the possibility, or indeed, in some cases, the probability, of their becoming known improperly, unless some very strong steps are taken to ensure the absolute secrecy of these returns. I think my Amendment would tend to make it more certain, but I do not want to press it too far if we can have a satisfactory assurance from the Minister as to the
102
degree of secrecy which is going to be observed. Some people to whom I have spoken are a little disquieted about the intentions of the Government in regard to the inquiries in this census.
The Second Reading was supported by a Member of the medical profession, and no doubt rightly from his own professional point of view, because the medical profession would be able to make very great use of the Bill; but I think we are entitled to ask whether there is going to be such use made of these returns that everybody who is honest enough to confess to an infirmity or disability that he or she believes he or she has got, is going to have that fact published locally. We should also like to know a little more as to what is intended, because if every infirmity or disability from which every person is suffering is to be put down, it will entail nothing less than the medical examination of the whole household. If you put down all the disabilities from which some people think they are suffering, you may get something upon which the doctors may not agree, and again, on the other hand, we were shown in the late War that many people were suffering for years from disabilities of which they were quite unaware, and therefore a medical examination would be required if we are to get down all the disabilities from which a person may be suffering. I hope at least we shall get an assurance that the information obtained will not be published to the prejudice of the individuals concerned.
Sir F. BANBURY: I think this is an extremely important Amendment, and I hope the Government will accept it, because it seems to me that the words which the hon. Member proposes to move in will safeguard the professional census taker in the exercise of his duties. I cannot see that the Government are in any way damaged by accepting the Amendment, but, on the other hand, if they do not accept it, I am afraid a loophole will be left. You may have, and you probably will have, a large number of people taking this census. All of us sometimes commit acts of indiscretion when we are talking to friends, especially if we are smoking, or something of that sort, and we let out things which we ought not to let out. Under this census, unless we alter the Schedule, the secrets of a household will become known to the person taking

103
the census, and therefore we should be very careful how we word the Bill. In regard to the words "lawful authority," is there any definition of such a term as that? If a man was prosecuted in a court of law for having revealed something which he had ascertained in the course of his business of taking a census, and said he had lawful authority, what is the lawful authority? Is it merely the authority of his superior officer or of the Minister in charge of the Bill? I do not think the Government will be hurt in any way by accepting the Amendment, whereas if they do not accept it, it may put power into the hands of people, perhaps quite unintentionally, to create mischief. It is all very well to say that disabilities must be disclosed, but there are a large number of people suffering from disabilities who do not want to disclose to everybody what their disabilities are, and unless great care is taken, are we not by this Clause opening the door to blackmail? A Mr. Jones may have got some disability which he desires to keep secret, and, being an honest man, he reveals it to the census taker. What is there to prevent the man who takes the census going round to Mr. Jones and saying, "I can get lawful authority to communicate this, and if you do not give me £10 I shall disclose it." One really must guard against such eventualities it one is really going to pry into everybody's domestic economy. Therefore, I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman for having moved this Amendment and raised this question.
Dr. ADDISON: Of course, for officials to use information acquired under this Bill for the purposes of blackmail would be entirely wrong, and if this Amendment will help us to guard the public against that, and at the same time secure the benefits which the community may expect to obtain in various ways from having a Census taken, there would be a good deal to say for it, but, in the first place, there is nothing new in this particular phrase in a Census Bill. It was in the last Census Act. The Schedule to this Bill is practically identical with the first seven items of inquiry in the Census of 1911. It goes no further. Therefore, the point that more extensive inquiries are possible under this Bill than under the last Census is not, confirmed.
Mr. HERBERT: There were only the most definite and restricted questions as to infirmity or disability under the Act of 1910.
Dr. ADDISON: I have here the questions asked in 1911, and I think I am correct in saying they are about as extensive as you can have. I think a good many of them are quite useless, and I do not propose to ask all those questions, we did examine whether we needed the words "infirmity or disability" at all, because it is a vague term, but I found in some special cases, such as the Bill for dealing with blind persons, which we have just passed through the House, it might be very desirable that they should have a special register of blind persons so as to know the extent to which they should make provision under the Act and so forth. I come to consider whether my hon. Friend's words would do any good, and am sorry to say they would not. Although I am not a lawyer, it is quite clear that nobody would be entitled to disclose information as to the Census unless he had been instructed so to disclose it by some person who had lawful authority over him in the exercise of his duties. It is very questionable as to whether the people who forward the Census returns are really the people employed in taking the Census. I am advised that if these words were omitted it might well be illegal for certain of these officers to send up returns, and certainly illegal for the Registrar-General to publish the result of the Census.
Mr. HERBERT: Surely it would not prohibit the Government.
Dr. ADDISON: Yes. The effect of the Amendment would be that even the Registrar-General would not be able to publish the statistics. The Amendment would stultify the whole census. Of course it is clear that lawful authority would be required, and we have to issue Regulations giving instructions as to how this is to be carried out. I will see to it that in the Regulations issued we define as well as we can the safeguards against any disclosure, and I will see that the Regulations particularly deal with this point. But I am sure my hon. Friend would do much harm and no good by this Amendment.
Mr. RAWLINSON: The right hon. Gentleman's speech divided itself into two parts. The first part was that in

105
which he said there was no extension of the powers given by the Government in this Bill over the 1910 Act, except under Clause 8. That I must respectfully controvert entirely, and particularly with regard to the point as to infirmity. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment has an Amendment to the Schedule to omit the words "infirmity or disability," and I shall certainly support him when he comes to move it, because the word "infirmity" is far wider than any word in the Act of 1910, and, in fact, might include such things as consumption, cancer, and diseases of that sort. I therefore enter a caveat against the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he is taking no greater powers in this Bill than in the 1910 Act. Undoubtedly the Bill does take greater powers. Personally, I do not see the harm of these words. My right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) put a question to me, and I am always willing to oblige him, but I should prefer to have notice of that, and would refer him to the Law Officers of the Crown, who, no doubt, will give him a proper answer when the Bill comes up for Third Reading. I shall not support my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division, but I shall certainly support his Amendment to the Schedule restricting the powers of the Government to what they got under the 1910 Act.
Major BARNETT: I wish to move to amend this Amendment by leaving out the last words, namely, "to a person or persons employed in taking that census."
The CHAIRMAN: It is rather difficult to do that, because we are at present discussing the Amendment to leave out the words "without lawful authority."
Mr. HERBERT: I was thinking rather that I was moving the two together, but certainly, so far as the first Amendment is concerned, I shall be glad to withdraw that at once in order to enable us to discuss the words in the second Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. HERBERT: I beg to move, in Subsection (2, a), after the word "person" ["communicates to any person"], to insert the words
"otherwise than in the ordinary course of such employment to a person or persons employed in taking that census,"
Major BARNETT: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the words "to a person or persons employed in taking that census."
6.0 P.M.
My right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill has pointed out that the words as they stand would involve an absurdity and prevent those taking the census from communicating the information so obtained to the public. Although we have retained the words "without lawful authority," I hope they will be left out as consequential if the words "otherwise than in the ordinary course of such employment" are inserted.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Application to Scotland.)
In the application of this Act to Scotland—

(1) The Secretary for Scotland shall be substituted for the Minister of Health and the Registrar-General for Scotland shall be substituted for the Registrar-General;

(2) The expression "local authority" in the Section of this Act relating to the taking of a local census shall mean a county or town council, and any expenses incurred by such council under the said Section shall be defrayed in the case of a county council out of the general purposes rate, and in the case of a town council out of the burgh general improvement assessment or any other assessment leviable in equal proportions on owners and occupiers, provided that the ratepayers of a police burgh shall not be assessed by the county council for any such expenses;

(3) Sheriffs, sheriff clerks, chief magistrates, county clerks, town clerks, inspectors of poor, and assistant inspectors of poor shall, in connection with the taking of a census, perform such duties as may be prescribed by Regulations made under this Act.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Secretary for Scotland" and to insert instead thereof the words "Scottish Board of Health."
Under the Ministry of Health Bill the duties of the Registrar-General were transferred to the Minister of Health.

107
Similarly in Scotland the duties of the Registrar-General as regards births, deaths, and marriages were transferred to the Scottish Board of Health. In this Bill, in its application to Scotland, it is provided that the name of the Secretary for Scotland shall be substituted for that of the Minister for Health. I do not know why this differentiation should be made in regard to Scotland. Does it mean that the Scottish Office in London will supervise the census instead of the Scottish Board of Health in Edinburgh? Surely if in England the supervising authority for the census be the Minister of Health it ought to be provided that in Scotland the Scottish Board of Health should be entrusted with the supervision of the census there!
My Amendment would not in any way deprive the Secretary for Scotland, who is President of the Board of Health, of any of his controlling powers. There is also the Vice-President representing the Board. In any event, it is surely proper that the census in Scotland should be controlled by the Board of Health. The Secretary for Scotland may have good reasons to urge why the Secretary for Scotland should be in this part of the Bill substituted for the Board of Health. Perhaps he will be able to relieve my mind on the subject. What I generally object to is that we should have to come to London for what may very well be done in Edinburgh. I hope my fears are groundless, and if my right hon. Friend can reassure me on this point I will not press my Amendment.
The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I hope, also, that I shall be able in a few sentences to reassure him on the subject. The reason why the Secretary for Scotland is inserted instead of the Board of Health is because the Census inquiries cover a very much wider field than the functions of the Board of Health. If my hon. Friend will look at the Schedule, he will find in regard to a number of the inquiries, for example, those which relate to occupation, profession, trade or employment, birth-place, nationality, and so on, that the Home Office is involved, that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries is involved, that the Ministry of Labour is involved. In regard to Question 6 the Board of Health is involved, and the
108
Board of Education in respect of No. 5. It is quite true, as he says, that, so far as births, marriages, and deaths are concerned, these matters come under the Board of Health. But then vital statistics are fully germane to the work of that Board. These other inquiries, as I have endeavoured to point out, cover a very much wider field, and also impinge upon the functions of the Government actuary, the Inland Revenue Department, and the Ministry of Pensions. The House will see that the claims of these various authorities may compete or conflict, and may require conciliation or adjustment. It seems to me that the appropriate Minister for the purpose is the Minister who is wholly responsible for, and has control of, Scottish affairs.
There is another reason which points in the same direction: we should have the greatest possible measure of uniformity in the Census as between England and Scotland consistently with the due recognition of national characteristics. That requires that the supervising authority for Scotland should be in close touch with the supervising authority for England and Wales—with the Department of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health, as well as other Departments in London, such as the Ministry of Labour, whose administration extends to Scotland. This can best be done, I think, by the Department of the Secretary for Scotland, as the central and co-ordinating authority. If my hon. Friend suggests, or thinks, that the Board of Health is likely to be robbed of any of its rights under the proposal, he is quite mistaken. Scottish interests will be secured by conferences among the officials of the Departments in Edinburgh, or, if it be more convenient, by the attendance of representatives from Edinburgh at a conference held in London. If my hon. Friend suggests that there is some difference in what is proposed in regard to the Minister of Health in England, and the Secretary for Scotland in Scotland, he must remember that the Minister of Health becomes the supervising authority in England—and my right hon. Friend (Dr. Addison) will bear me out in this—not by the transference of powers from other Departments, but by inheritance from the Local Government Board. In Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland, and not the Local Government Board,

109
was the supervising census authority in the past. The Minister of Health in England, under the Act, is the supervising authority for census purposes, and certainly acts in a much wider capacity than in the discharge of his ordinary health functions If I may say so, with all respect and deference, there is not in England or Wales any single Minister who has the weight of the general charge of the country's affairs on his shoulders as has the Secretary for Scotland. In the light of these considerations, and having given my hon. Friend, I think, the assurance he desires, I hope he will not press the Amendment, and, indeed, that he may now see his way to withdraw it.
Mr. JOHNSTONE: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for his lucid explanation, and, in view of it, I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, that in regard to his next Amendment, there is no need to propose to leave out words underlined.
Mr. MUNRO: I desire to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words
"The expression 'local authority' in the Section of this Act relating to the taking of a local census shall mean a county or town council,"
and to insert instead thereof the words
"The local authorities, to which the Section of this Act relating to the taking of a local census applies, shall be the councils of the counties and burghs, and any expenses incurred by such councils under this Act."
This is really an Amendment consequential upon the alteration that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has made in Clause 6. It is really a drafting Amendment, and I do not think it requires any further explanation to the House beyond this: I have endeavoured to give effect, so far as Scotland is concerned, to the same principles and practice as my right hon. Friend has adopted in regard to England. I will read this manuscript Amendment, so that the House may appreciate what it proposes to do, and I apologise for it being in manuscript. The reason for that is that it hinged upon the adoption of the Amendment of the Minister of Health in Clause 6. You, Mr. Whitley, may put it in two sections, but perhaps you will permit me to read it as one.
The CHAIRMAN: I think the simplest way, perhaps, would be to leave out the whole sub-section and then insert the words required.
Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert instead thereof the following new Sub-section:
"(2) The local authorities to which the Section of this Act relating to taking the local census applies shall be the councils of the counties and the burghs, and any expenses incurred by such under this Act shall he defrayed in the case of a county council out of the general purposes rate, and in the case of the town council out of the burgh general improvement assessment, or any other assessment leviable in equal proportions on owners and occupiers, provided that the ratepayers of a police burgh shall not be assessed by the county council for any such expenses."
Mr. JOHNSTONE: I am not sure whether I should be in order at this point to move my Amendment adding to these authorities the Insurance Committees.
The CHAIRMAN: When I put the question "That the words proposed be inserted there" they will be capable of Amendment, but let me first of all get the other words out of the Bill.
Question "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the Bill," put and negatived.
Question "That the proposed words be there inserted."
The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see how the words "Insurance Committees" will read into the others. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to substitute "Insurance Committees" for the other local authorities?
Mr. JOHNSTONE: No, Sir, but in addition to the county council and burgh councils who act as authorities, there are insurance committees, both in counties and burghs, and I desire that the insurance committee should have the right or the power to make an application for this local census.
Mr. MUNRO: May I say that if I can in any way facilitate my hon. Friend in moving his Amendment I shall be glad to do so. I told him of the manuscript Amendment I was going to propose, and suggested to him that he might be permitted to propose an Amendment to my manuscript Amendment.
The CHAIRMAN: I am only trying to assist the hon. Gentleman to the best

111
words. I will take his words and see how they read.
Mr. JOHNSTONE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "burghs" ["councils of the counties and the burghs"], to insert the words "or the insurance committees."
The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that the insurance committee of the district may represent to the Board the desirability of a local census. It might be desirable for the Insurance Committee to secure certain health statistics, especially if there is any alteration in the system of obtaining statistics in regard to the population in the different areas. One of the vexed questions in connection with insurance is the unreliability of the index register system. In a very ordinary insurance committee area comprising 40,000 persons, there is a divergence to the extent of 2,000 or 3,000 persons on the register. For a variety of reasons the register is never up-to-date or accurate, and long delays have taken place in the payments made by the Committees. The only practical method of displacing the present index card system is that each area should be dealt with on the basis of population. In order to arrive at the number of insured persons in a given area it is extremely desirable that insurance committees should have the right to take a local census, and if a scheme of this sort matured, it would empower an area to approach the Board for permission to take a local census, and they would require a good case to be made out before giving their sanction. I propose that the cost of the taking of such census should be borne out of the sum available for administration expenses. I think insurance committees ought to have this power of applying for permission to take a local census.
Mr. MUNRO: The object of my hon. Friend's Amendment is to put an Insurance Committee in the same position as a local authority, and enable it to apply to the Central Authority for permission to take a local census. I hope, on reflection, that my hon. Friend will not press this view. On general grounds I think it is undesirable to have frequent inquiries of this kind, because it tends to irritate the public. There is a reasonable check
112
upon the undue frequency of local censuses in the present Bill, because it provides for the payment of the costs out of the rates, and that would be a salutary check upon unnecessary and wasteful inquiries.
What is the position of the Insurance Committees? If they were given similar powers the cost would be borne by the sums available for the administrative expenses of those Committees, and three-fourths of those sums are contributed by the State. Accordingly you would introduce a new principle in conflict with the principle of the Bill, namely, that the Exchequer would be called upon substantially to meet the cost of the local census. My hon. Friend argued that it was desirable to secure reliable figures regarding insured persons. That matter is now under consideration I do not think, however, that this is the way to do it. It is clear that if such a basis of apportionment were adopted it would have to be stereotyped for all areas till the next census. If you had a revision of one particular area, you would want to have it for another. If the enquiry were granted the result would be constant unsettlement and irritation. If the enquiry were refused there would be a sense of grievance. If the census figures were adopted as a basis of apportionment, the only course is to make them a permanent basis without any readjustment between the dates of the respective censuses. This Amendment does not follow the principle of the Bill. It would not work well and I suggest that reliable figures can be obtained in a less objectionable manner than my hon. Friend proposes
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 (Short title and extent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Expenses of local authorities.)
Any expenses incurred in connection with the taking of a census under this Act in pursuance of an application made by a local authority, including the publication of any reports or returns relating to the census, shall be paid by the local authority by which the application for the census was made, and any expenses so incurred, and any other expenses incurred by a local authority under this Act, shall be defrayed in the case of

113
the common council of the City of London and a metropolitan borough out of the general rate, in the case of a county council as expenses for general county purposes, and in the case of other councils as expenses incurred in the administration of the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1908.—[Dr. Addison.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is proposed in order to meet the point that the Bill does not appear to empower local authorities to pay for the cost of local censuses, and that is the only object of this Amendment.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

SCHEDULE.

  MATTERS IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS MAY BE REQUIRED.
  1. Names, sex, age.

  2. Occupation, profession, trade, or employment.

  3. Nationality, birthplace, race, language.

  4. Place of abode and character of dwelling.

  5. Education.

  6. Infirmity or disability.

  7. Condition as to marriage, relation to head of family, parentage, issue.

  8. Any other matters with respect to which it is desirable to obtain statistical information with a view to ascertaining the social or civil condition of the population.

  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in paragraph 4, to omit the words "and character of dwelling."
  I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman is going to defend these words. In the 1910 Act you had to give the number of rooms, but that apparently is left out now. Even that proposal gave a considerable amount of unnecessary trouble, and what does it matter whether you live in a house with five rooms or eight rooms. All these little unnecessary matters give great annoyance to the subject without giving any corresponding advantage to the State. I should like to know what is the object of these words.
  Dr. ADDISON: I hope this Amendment will not be accepted. In cases of overcrowding this information is fundamental. We want to know how many rooms the people occupy, and then we shall be able to obtain fairly exact information with regard to the condition of the population
  114
  so far as housing conditions are concerned. If these words were omitted you could only obtain the address of the people, and that would be of no use to anybody except the registration agents, and would serve no real statistical purpose. I agree that the phrase "character of dwelling" is rather vague, but it is as good as any other. The questions which were asked in 1911 were of the greatest possible consequence in connection with the social condition of the people and as to the extent to which overcrowding was taking place. I am afraid the right hon. Baronet has somewhat misinterpreted the meaning of these words. I think they are most important, and should be retained.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If the words are going to be used in a reasonable manner, I have nothing to say against them. I am rather inclined to think the words "character of dwelling" might be construed to mean that you have to describe the architecture, and in that case if the owner gives a wrong answer, will he be liable to three months' hard labour? If these words are going to be interpreted with reasonableness I will not press my Amendment, and will ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out paragraph 5.
  What is the object of putting education in this Schedule? Have you got to put in "board school" if you were educated at a board school, or "Oxford" if you were educated at Oxford? What service will be done when those words have been put in. I think this proposal is quite unnecessary. We have to remember that the vast majority of the people who have to fill up these forms are busy, and have not much time, and they are not accustomed to filling up forms. I have to fill up a good many forms, and I nearly always fill them up wrongly, not intentionally, of course, but they are so complicated that the spaces where you have a great deal to put in are nearly always very small, and the places where you have almost nothing to insert are always very large. Often I write things in the wrong space and scratch them out, and often wish I had never been born. I hope my right hon. Friend will accept this Amendment, unless he can give me some very strong reasons for retaining it.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I think the Minister of Health has told us before that there is nothing in this Schedule contrary to what was proposed by the Act of 1910; but paragraph 4 is clearly outside the Act of 1910. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman was willing that paragraph 5 should be struck out, and if it is necessary to have an educational census it should come under Clause 6 of the Bill.
  Dr. ADDISON: I accept this Amendment, and perhaps I may be allowed to that I am willing to accept the next Amendment for the same reason.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: Leave out paragraph "6.—(Infirmity or disability.)"—[Mr. Dennis Herbert.]
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in paragraph 7, to leave out the words, "parentage, issue."
  I would like to point out that, as far as the word "issue" is concerned, the Act of 1910 was confined simply and solely to the case of persons who are or have been married. The objection which was raised in 1910 was to the Government having power to ask unmarried women as to the number of their illegitimate children or any question of that kind, because it was calculated to cause a great deal of feeling. The object of my Amendment is to prevent questions of that kind being put. There is an Amendment on the Paper next to mine to insert the words, "and in the case of persons who are or have been married," and I think that if that were adopted it would largely secure what I want. In 1910 the greatest feeling existed against the Government having power to ask questions as to the legitimacy of people living in a particular house. That objection applies equally to the use of the word "parentage," because if the head of a house is to inquire of a servant who her father is and it turns out that the woman is illegitimate, much worry and trouble may be caused. I remember one instance in which a member of my own family was responsible for a particular return, and discovered that a person was illegitimate. It was a secret jealously guarded, and certainly ought never to be passed on to anybody else. Great friction is therefore caused by a question of this nature. The right hon. Gentleman may suggest that
  116
  we can trust him not to put such a question, and he may tell us that he has settled in his own mind the draft question which is to be put, but I want to point out that the Bill now before the Committee does not apply to this census only, it will give power to every Government every five years in the future to take a census in the terms of this Bill, and therefore we must be very careful indeed not to allow this Bill to go through and to grant powers of the kind indicated here. If in years to come the Government find it necessary to obtain powers of this kind they can, under another Clause, bring in a Resolution asking the House to give them the power.
  Dr. ADDISON: I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment. If it were only from the point of view put forward by the hon. and learned Member there would be a good deal to say for it, but a very much wider question is involved. It is evident, for example, that it is most important to know how many children there are in a family under sixteen years of age. Necessary vital statistics are involved in this. So far as I know, under the census of 1910 no friction was caused. It is necessary to have the details of a family, the ages, and so forth. My hon. and learned Friend's objecton is that some people may be gravely embarrased by these questions. As a matter of fact, what happened in the last census was that the question of illegitimacy was not raised directly. It was found quite possible to avoid the embarrassment which my hon. and learned Friend referred in individual cases, and under the circumstances I do not see how I can possibly accept this Amendment, because it would destroy the value of the census.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not think there is much difference between us. The speech of my right hon. Friend was based on the absolutely false assumption that he had the power under the 1910 Act to get this information, and that he got it without any friction. As a matter of fact, he had not the power.
  Dr. ADDISON: Yes, the question of parentage was raised under that Act.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: No, the words were "born of the marriage." Illegitimate children are not born of any marriage. That is exactly the point of difference between us. I am only asking

  117
  my right hon. Friend to continue the power which was contained in the Act of 1910. I am in favour of getting all the information about legitimate children, their ages, and so on. I know if that were withheld it would do away with the value of the census. I am asking my right hon. Friend to confine himself to the powers which he had under the Act of 1910, and I submit that his powers under that Act were confined to the cases of the children "born of the marriage." Still, if he will accept the words, "and in the case of persons who are or have been married," I shall be content. I believe that the substitution of those words would eliminate an exceedingly difficult question. This is not a mere point of form. It is a question of substance, and I shall ask the House to go to a Division on it if the right hon. Gentleman cannot meet me. I submit that the power here provided is a most objectionable one.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: I support what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend, but I do not think that his suggestion quite meets his own point. He wants the word "parentage" omitted altogether. He wants to get information as to the families of married men or women, and where the children are illegitimate that fact should not be disclosed.
  Dr. ADDISON: I think I can meet both hon. Members if I put in after "issue" the words "born in marriage."
  Mr. RAWLINSON: That goes a long way to meet me, but I wanted the word "parentage" omitted altogether.
  Dr. ADDISON: I cannot do that.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: What I want to avoid is, asking whether a person is legitimate or illegitimate. I quite agree that the greater half of my grievance has been met by my right hon. Friend, but the other half still remains.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The main value of a census is from the point of view of public health statistics. One of the most important questions at the present day is the question of infant mortality. That question has to be subdivided, and the main sub-division is as to whether the children are legitimate or illegitimate. Innumerable social and public health questions turn upon that point, and it is impossible to go into them
  118
  scientifically at the present moment. It would give us a great deal of help, as medical officers of health, if we retained both of these requirements as originally drafted, and I should be extremely sorry if the right hon. Gentleman gave way, even in the direction which has been suggested.
  Major BARNETT: I have the greatest possible sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, but I feel considerable difficulty in understanding what would be the position of these children if it were adopted. Would the result be to leave out of account all illegitimate children?
  Dr. ADDISON: Of course, they will be included under the other heads; it is only in the case of this class of questions that they will be excluded. I have gone a long way to meet my hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. KILEY: Do I understand that the Minister wants to know whether a grownup person was born in wedlock or not? If that is so, may I ask what the object is?
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not think I can do any more at the present moment. I have put my point quite clearly, and, as I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to meet me, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: As the right hon. Gentleman shook his head just now, I should like to appeal to him either to leave out the word "parentage" or to state his reason for retaining it. If it remains in, a Minister who takes his place in the future may require every individual in the country to give particulars of his or her parentage, whether legitimate or otherwise.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Paragraph 7, after the word "issue," to add the words "born in marriage."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Herbert) has an amendment later, to insert, after the word "parentage," the words, "and in the case of persons who are or have been married." If I accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, the hon. Member's Amendment will not be in order, and I take it that this will replace it.
  Mr. HERBERT: Yes, I do not want to press my Amendment. It does not deal with the question on which I appealed to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. ADDISON: I have endeavoured to explain this two or three times, and that is why I did not rise to answer the question of the hon. Member for White-chapel (Mr. Kiley).
  Mr. LORDEN: If these words be inserted, I cannot see how the illegitimate children are going to be enumerated. I understand that it is desired to have the Census correct, and it is no use if it does not include every person, whether legitimate or illegitimate. If it is to be limited to persons born in marriage, then there will be no responsibility upon anyone to put in any illegitimate children that there may be in the house.
  Dr. ADDISON: All the children will be enumerated, of course, under Item 1 of the Schedule. All that would happen would be that these particulars would not be required in respect of any particular child or children.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule of the Bill."
  Mr. KILEY: I return to the point at which we left off a few minutes ago. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would make it quite clear why he wishes to insist upon an adult person being compelled to disclose whether he was born in wedlock or not. I can quite understand that there would be some advantage in having children so described, but he is willing to waive his desire in the case of children, while he insists in the case of adults. At any rate, that is as I understand it. If I am incorrect, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear, and will also make clear the reason why he desires to have that information. If there be no real reason, perhaps, between now and the Report stage, he would give the matter further consideration.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Under paragraph 1 of the Schedule, every individual in England will have to be returned. The question is whether he is bound to answer at the same time as to his parentage. As the Bill stands at the present moment, he can be called upon to state whether he
  120
  is legitimate or illegitimate, and that is what I object to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments.
  As amended, considered.

SCHEDULE.

  MATTERS IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS MAY BE REQUIRED.
  7. Condition as to marriage, relation to head of family, parentage, issue.
  Mr. KILEY: I beg to move, in paragraph 7, to leave out the word "parentage."
  My object in moving this Amendment is again to press the Minister in charge to reconsider what I regard as a matter of considerable importance. I understand that he has agreed to waive the necessity for parents having to di close whether their children are born in wedlock or not, but, when it comes to the question of an adult, he insists upon the adult stating whether he was or was not born in wedlock. I have endeavoured to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman what is his object in insisting upon this. As I have already said, in the case of children solid and definite reasons can be urged for the information being forthcoming, but why on earth he insists and persists in demand-that, when a person is of adult age, he must disclose whether he was born in wedlock or not, I cannot understand. There seems so little reason for it that I can only fear that it must be a case of being obstinate or something of that kind. If the Minister could give us some solid reason for it, one's point of view might be altered, but in the absence of any solid or definite reason I must press my Amendment.
  7.0 P.M.
  Dr. ADDISON: I did not rise when I was last asked on this matter, because it has already been discussed twice, and I did not think I was called upon to repeat the arguments which had already been advanced. There are two reasons why it will be very useful to have these words in. We have no desire to frame the Regulations in such a way that this question of legitimacy or illegitimacy of adults will be brought in. It is desirable to have information as to what portion of the population is of alien parentage or alien born, and

  121
  there is the question of the relation of the person to the other parties named in the Schedule. If he is a parent, then their dependency becomes established. Without such information any proper statistics as to the degree of dependence of the juvenile population could not be extracted. I will promise my hon. Friend that we will make the Regulations so that the past parentage will not be dug up. No one wants to do that. We want to know what the condition of the young population is, and we want statistics as to dependency. It is solely for that object that the word "parentage" is put in.
  Dr. MURRAY: From the public health point of view, it is absolutely necessary that we should know whether children under a certain age are legitimate or illegitimate, but I cannot see what reason can be alleged for demanding that information in regard to adults.
  Dr. ADDISON: I said we do not want that, but it is important to know their nationality.
  Dr. MURRAY: I heard the right hon. Gentleman say it was important to know whether they were born in wedlock or born in Germany. If it is put in without intending to be acted upon, I have no objection. I do not mind how you disturb the feelings of undesirable aliens, but I do not see what help will be got from any public health point of view, from a criminal point of view, or from a social point of view, and I think it is quite unnecessary to ask questions of adults as to their being born in wedlock, or otherwise. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could show any useful purpose, but I have not heard any yet.
  Dr. ADDISON: The word "parentage" applies not only to adults but to the people mentioned in the Schedule.
  Dr. MURRAY: I am afraid I cannot pursue the discussion. I am at a loss to know who it to be included in the statistics. The inquisition into domestic affairs is getting a little too exacting, and I do not see any useful purpose that can be served by it.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: It is necessary again to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Bill is not providing merely for the census which he
  122
  is proposing to take next year, and therefore it is utterly useless to tell the House that he does not intend to ask these questions. Still less is it any good for him to do that when the hon. and gallant Gentle man. (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) only a minute or two ago urged that he wanted every possible information he could get as to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of anyone returned in the census. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may be occupying the post at present occupied by the right hon. Gentleman in five years, and we shall then have everyone being asked what his or her parentage is. The right hon. Gentleman, in the Committee stage, appealed to my hon. and learned Friend opposite, when he gave way with regard to one part of the Clause, to let him have the rest of it. I do not think that is an appeal which this House on this occasion ought to give way to too readily. The fact of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman's advisers or draughtsman have drafted a Bill of such an extensive and inquisitorial nature that, he has been absolutely unable to defend it and carry it through the House, and he has, with a very good grace, except in the particular instance, given way on a number of very important points. When the question of parentage was being discussed someone asked whether the right hon. Gentleman wanted it or not. We gathered, at any rate, from a shake of his head that he did not want it, and he has now told us be is not going to ask these things except in so far as he wants them in regard to children. Why, therefore, could not this particular question of parentage be restricted to children? The right hon. Gentleman gets what he wants in effect by the other part of it by getting the enumeration of every other child who is an inmate of the house, although perhaps not the isue of marriage of persons living in the house.
  Dr. ADDISON: May I make a suggestion? On the understanding that the necessary questions relating to parentage will be included under Item 8, I will then omit the word "here" and insert "any inquiry relating to the parentage under Section 8 of the Schedule." That ought to meet my hon. Friend.
  Mr. HERBERT: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

CENSUS (IRELAND) [EXPENSES]
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred with the approval of the Treasury for the purposes of the Census for Ireland under any Act of the present Session for taking the Census for Ireland in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one."
Resolution read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would really ask the House to pay some attention to this item which is going to be rushed through. We are asked to vote £90,000 to take a census in Ireland. If things go on as they are in Ireland the census will be a farce, because the great aim of about three-fourths of the people of Ireland to-day is to defy this Government in every possible way they can, and the greatest delight of every Irishman to-day is to say he has done something the Government does not want him to do or has not done something the Government want him to do. This census, if it is taken next year in Ireland, will give a Heaven-sent chance to all these people at no large risk to themselves, because you cannot prosecute 500,000 or 600,000 people who refuse to fill up the forms, and the thing will be a farce. In fact the White Paper that hon. Members have says the reason why the cost of taking the census has gone up from £19,000 to £90,000 is that in past years the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police were appointed as enumerators, and they did not get any special remuneration. It was part of their duty to enumerate the people. Now apparently it is anticipated that special enumerators will have to be appointed and will have to be paid for their services. If you cannot even use the police to go round and collect the forms in the morning which have been filled up on the night appointed by Parliament, what is the good of proceeding with the thing at all?
124
The whole thing will be a farce if things in Ireland next year are as they are now. If, on the other hand, the Irish, as we all say we hope, have got some broad measure of self-government, it is their business to take the census of their people, and this is just the sort of domestic legislation that ought to be left to the Irish Parliament or Constituent Assembly, or whatever you have. They ought not to come to us for £90,000 for any such service. I do not think there is an hon. Member who, if he is honest with himself, will not agree with me. I challenge any hon. Member to say, with his hand on his heart, that he thinks a census taken in Ireland to-day will be anything else than a screaming farce, and what on earth is the good of wasting money and time and piling insult on to injury by passing this sort of legislation? I shall certainly vote against this sum of money, and I hope hon. Members with some sense of responsibility and sense of humour will support me.
Mr. KILEY: Several appeals have been made to the Government to reconsider the position and to consider the advisability or otherwise of wasting any further time on this proposal. We realise full well that whilst the people of Ireland are in their present temper they will not fill up these forms, and if such be the I am sure we all agree it will be, it seems to be futile to proceed with the expenditure of £90,000 or more for a purpose of this kind, in defiance of what we know will be the wishes and desire of the Irish people, and, what is more, a sheer waste of money. There will be plenty of time, if the Government feels so disposed, in the Autumn Session to proceed with this if they think it advisable, but there can be no object gained in our passing this Bill, because we know no census will be taken, and an amount of printing and money will be wasted without any result. I therefore suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider his position and carry the thing over until the autumn.
Mr. E. WOOD: I should like to associate myself with what has fallen from hon. Members opposite, but from a rather different point of view. Whatever may be our views as to the precise usefulness of the proposal, it is surely evident that it is bound to be futile in the present state of Ireland. I cannot see that any great damage will be done by delaying this matter for a year. For a work like

125
a census some sort of quiet condition in a country is a sine quâ non. I do hope very earnestly, therefore, that unless the right hon. Gentleman is able to give very strong reasons to the contrary, which I cannot conceive he is, he will agree to this proposal for saving money.
Sir F. BANBURY: Unless I am mistaken, it is not proposed to take the census until 1921. Seeing that in the un fortunate state of Ireland at the present time it will be quite impossible to take the census, and in view of the enormous expenditure of the country, and in view of the fact that we ought to save in every direction, would it not be wise if we postponed this Resolution until at any rate the Autumn Session, when it is to be hoped matters will be better in Ireland. If they are, we could then arrange to take the necessary steps. It seems to me that if this Money Resolution is passed, it will only result in enumerators being appointed, and, after that, £90,000 being spent. We know perfectly well that, as things are now, those enumerators would have no work to do and be of no use at all. As the Bill does not propose to do anything until 1921, does it not seem a reasonable request that matters should be postponed, at any rate until the Autumn Session, or even possibly until 1921?
Captain ELLIOT: Although I do not often find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend, I wish to register my hearty agreement with his opinion on this occasion. I spoke against this Bill on a previous occasion. Vital statistics are urgently necessary. I submit you will not get accurate statistics, and inaccurate statistics are the most misleading of all things. They lead to hastily conceived, and all sorts of false, theories. I cannot imagine anybody considering that under present conditions the Irish census could be carried out in that calm and judicial atmosphere which is so necessary for the collecting of accurate statistics. For that reason I beg the administration to consider the question of withdrawing this Resolution, at least for the present, until the Government has proceeded a little further with its policy, if it has a policy, for the South and West, and also for the North-west of Ireland.
Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I merely rise to suggest that the Government should postpone this Resolution. It is
126
quite clear that the census could not be brought into operation under the present condition of affairs in Ireland. It is not suggested to hold it until 1921, and therefore there seems no possible reason for bringing forward this request for this very large sum of money at the present moment. I hope the Government will consider the request which has been made to them, and withdraw the Resolution.
Dr. MURRAY: I owe an apology to my right hon. Friend. The last time this matter was before the House, I thought I detected an injustice to Scotland in the amount given to Ireland. I understand the sum given for Scotland was based on 1911, and I understand also that, whereas previously the Royal Irish Constabulary did the work for nothing, they are now to be paid for it. But I join in the request made at any rate to postpone this Resolution, because once the Bill is passed, the arrangements for the taking of the census will proceed, and will no doubt make a big hole in the £90,000. I think the authority of this House should not be given to this Bill until it is reasonably certain that the census will be carried through in a scientific manner. If it is carried through under the conditions which obtain in Ireland to-day, the matter will be a huge joke. I have no doubt that jokes will be registered upon the census papers. No importance could be attached to the census under these circumstances. I therefore join in the appeal which has been made to the Government, if not to withdraw the Bill altogether, at any rate to postpone it until the autumn or until next year, until we see a new spirit arising in Ireland, so that the census will be conducted under satisfactory and scientific conditions.
Major WARD-JACKSON: The only reason why I join in the request to the Government to postpone this matter is the fact that we are obliged to study economy all round, and if there is any ground at all for thinking that the taking of the census in Ireland under the present conditions will not be productive of any good result, the best thing we can do is not to spend this £90,000.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): During the whole history of census taking, the censuses for the two countries have been taken side by side, and although there

127
have been unsettled periods in Ireland before, there never has been the slightest suggestion that the taking of the census has been ineffective. Let us see the position in the present instance. It is suggested that because there is a certain amount of disorder in districts in Ireland the census will be a failure. It does not seem to me that there is very much force in that argument because the interest of the people in those districts will be to have an accurate record, say, for instance, of the Irish-speaking people, and people of that description, and of their population. There will be no object whatever in keeping back the information that is required through the local authorities. There will be, in fact, competition between the various elements in Ireland to show their respective strength. We have never found any hesitation in their giving such information, and we may be quite sure that it will be to the interest of the people in the North of Ireland to show that they are a bigger population than that of the South of Ireland. I, for one, do not think for a moment that difficulty will arise, and as the Bill suggests the work should be done through the local authority it will be comparatively easy
to carry that out. The same argument exactly might be applied to the registration of voters. It is found that such registration goes on absolutely as before, for the simple reason that the element of competition to which I have already alluded enters very strongly into it. Objections are filed in the ordinary way in the Courts by all parties in Ireland. There is absolutely no reason for throwing up the sponge in connection with a matter of this kind.
Mr. RAWLINSON: It is not a question of throwing up the sponge, but merely to postpone the spending of this £90,000 until we come back in October. Then, if no further trouble has arisen, I am sure this House will pass the Resolution. It is the fear that the money will be spent before next October which I think is influencing the minds of hon. Members. It is surely desirable that this money should not be spent, certainly for some months, before we see what sort of a turn affairs in Ireland take.
Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 42.

Division No. 322.]

AYES.

[7.25 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Lister, Sir R. Ashton

Atkey, A. R.

Flannery, Sir. James Fortescue

Lorden, John William

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Lynn, R. J.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)

Barnett, Major R. W.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Middlebrook, Sir William

Barnston, Major Harry

Gange, E. Stanley

Mitchell, William Lane

Barrand, A. R.

Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Barrie, Charles Coupar

Gilbert, James Daniel

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John

Morris, Richard

Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)

Goff, Sir R. Park

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Betterton, Henry B.

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)

Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland

Gregory, Holman

Murray, Major William (Dumfries)

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith

Greig, Colonel James William

Neal, Arthur

Breese, Major Charles E.

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Britton, G. B.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Parker, James

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

Bruton, Sir James

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)

Perring, William George

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Carr, W. Theodore

Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Pollock, Sir Ernest M.

Casey, T. W.

Hood, Joseph

Purchase, H. G.

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Raeburn, Sir William H.

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Ramsden, G. T.

Cope, Major Wm.

Jameson, J. Gordon

Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Jesson, C.

Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)

Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)

Jodrell, Neville Paul

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

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Johnstone, Joseph

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.

Dawes, James Arthur

Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr

Scott, A M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Seddon, J. A.

Duncannon, Viscount

Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)

Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)

Stewart, Gershom

Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.

Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.

Lindsay, William Arthur

Sturrock, J. Leng

Sutherland, Sir William

Wallace, J.

Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato

Taylor, J.

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.

Younger, Sir George

Tickler, Thomas George

Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)

Tryon, Major George Clement

Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Vickers, Douglas

Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

Capt. Guest and Lord E. Talbot.

NOES.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Hogge, James Myles

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Holmes, J. Stanley

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

Spencer, George A.

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

Borwick, Major G. O.

Kenyon, Barnet

Thomson, T. (Middlesborough, West)

Briant, Frank

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Molson, Major John Esdale

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Murchison, C. K.

Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

Entwistle, Major C. F.

Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)

Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)

Hayward, Major Evan

Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Perkins, Walter Frank

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Mr. Kiley and Capt. Sir Beville Stanier.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir G. Hewart.]

CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. Whitley in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 (Census to be taken in 1921), 2 (Enumerators and their duties), 3 (Enumeration in public and charitable institutions), and 4 (Provision as to household persons) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Forms, instructions, and expenses.)
(1) The Chief or Under-Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant shall prepare and issue such forms and instructions as he may think necessary for the taking of the census, and the census shall be taken by means of and in the manner prescribed by those forms and instructions, and no question shall be put for the purpose of obtaining information other than the information required by those forms and instructions.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided that such forms and instructions shall previously have been submitted for the approval of Parliament."
The object of this Amendment is that the House shall have an opportunity of seeing the form of instructions and approving the same. We have had a very animated and somewhat protracted discussion this afternoon as to the exact schedules and form that would be used in the English Bill, and certain hon. Members pointed out that a great deal of pain might be caused if certain information was asked for, especially as
130
regards the legitimacy of children. In I the case of Ireland, we are asked to give carte blanche to the executive to issue any form and any schedules, with any questionaire, they like. I do not suggest that objectionable questions will be put; nevertheless, it is only right that whereas in England we have had the opportunity of approving the instructions, the same principle ought to apply to the Irish Bill. In connection with the English Bill the Minister of Health, as the result of representations made on the Second Reading, proposed the insertion of the following words:
"Provided that if by part of any such Order it is proposed to prescribe any particulars with respect to any of the matters mentioned in paragraph 8 of the Schedule to this Act, that part of the Order shall not have effect unless both Houses by Resolution approve that part of the draft, or, if any modifications in that part are agreed to by both Houses, except as so modified."
We have insisted on the control of Parliament in the sort of question that can be put to people in this country, and we ought to have the same control in regard to Ireland. I do not suggest any fell design in regard to the occupants of the Treasury Bench; yet it is possible that some questions might be put for the purpose of obtaining information with which to dragoon or persecute, or possibly, as some hon. Members would say, to keep in order the Irish people. Certainly we ought to have a check on the questionaire that may be put for the purpose of the census by the Executive at Dublin Castle.
Mr. HENRY: The form in which the Clause is drawn is precisely the same

131
that has been used for a great many years. My hon. and gallant Friend will see that as regards Ireland, Clause 2 contains the particulars required for the census, and there is no schedule such as exists in the English Bill. One Amendment has been incorporated in the Irish Bill, namely, that no application can be made for information as to the number of children except in the case of persons married or having been married. Therefore, the Irish Bill is very much more limited than the English Bill, and there is no suggestion that any form that may be issued can be calculated to cause unnecessary pain to any person.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Attorney-General for Ireland has not quite met my objection. I have read the Bill very carefully, and it seems to me that Clause 5 has an over-riding effect in regard to Clause 2, because it says
"issue such forms and instructions as he may think necessary for the taking of the census."
The right hon. Gentleman is a very distinguished lawyer, and I am not a lawyer of any sort, and I should like to know whether those words do not in fact override the words in Clause 2.
Mr. HENRY: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that Clause 2 indicates the intention of Parliament and it over-rides Clause 5 to the extent that it gives the various heads under which the Chief Secretary may ask for information.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged, but I should like to have information on another point. Sub-section (5) of Clause 2 says
"Every enumerator may ask all such questions of all persons within his district respecting themselves or the persons constituting their respective families, and respecting such further particulars, as may be necessary for the purpose of taking the said accounts."
These enumerators, I suppose, will be guided by the heads laid down in Subsection (2) of the same clause. Nevertheless, we ought to be able to see the instructions and to see that they are bound down closely to them. What we fear is that over-zealous enumerators may ask certain questions of a political character under the guise of the census. My right hon. Friend knows his fellow-countrymen better than I do, and he must know that objection will be made.
Mr. HENRY: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that what he dreads will not occur for two reasons. First, because it would not be necessary to ask for the political views of any persons because they would be well known beforehand, and, secondly, he will see from Subsection 5 of Clause 2 that
"Every enumerator may ask all such questions … as may be necessary for the purpose of taking the said accounts."
That throws him back to Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, and the account that is to be taken by the enumerator is limited to the various heads mentioned in that Clause. Therefore, the danger which the hon. Member apprehends cannot arise.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. HENRY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add a new Sub-section—
[(2) The expenses incurred with the approval of the Treasury for the purposes of the census shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.]
Captain BENN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to insert the words, "provided that such expenses shall not exceed the sum of fifty thousand pounds."
We are told in the White Paper that the expenses are to be £90,000, spread over several years, so that the effect of this proviso will merely mean that in the first year not more than £50,000 can be voted. If more money was actually required it could come in the Estimates for the succeeding years, and no doubt the effect of that would be to over-ride the not too strict limitation in the Statute.
This Amendment does do something to limit the amount of money which is being spent on what we think is a totally unnecessary work, or rather, what we regard as work which will turn out to be a nullity. No one believes that there will be a census taken in Ireland. The Government are only hound to pass this Bill because it was put on the list of Bills to be taken, and it has to be passed by this House, which always follows the proposals made by the Government.
The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the Amendment would not have the effect he thinks.
Captain BENN: I well remember the case of money granted for the building of schools, and there was a Statute which forebade Parliamentary grants being made for the building of sectarian schools, but it was held that the grant of money in an Estimate when the Estimate itself became a Statute overrode the contract in any prior Statute.
Mr. HENRY: The expenses to be incurred are to be incurred with the approval of the Treasury, and only with the approval of the Treasury, and that, I submit, sufficiently safeguards the position. The effect of the Amendment would be that no matter how effectively the census might work out, it would be impossible to spend more than £50,000 on it. I hold that the same basis of calculation as will apply in England and Scotland should be allowed in Ireland, and that that country should not be given an additional grievance.
Sir D. MACLEAN: The explanation by which the hon. and learned Gentleman hopes to secure the support of the Committee is that the Treasury can be depended upon. That might have been so years ago, but we have to judge these things by our experience. What has been our experience in regard to the expenditure of many millions of money over which the Treasury was supposed to exercise effective control? It is that the control of the Treasury is quite nominal. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend will consent to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment, so that I can try the learned Attorney-General with another Amendment, limiting the sum to be expended during the first year to £10,000?
Captain BENN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add at the end the words "the expenditure for the first year to be limited to ten thousand pounds."
Does any sane person think for a moment that during the next year there is likely to be any chance whatever of a census in Ireland? If conditions arise in Ireland under which a census can be taken, then there will be an Irish
134
authority for taking it, and not this House. Ireland is now in a state of chaos, if not of, de facto, civil war, and the Government are asking this House to support them by giving authority for the expenditure of £94,000. Common sense demands that, at any rate for the first year, we should put an effective check on that.
Mr. HENRY: In view of the fact that the date fixed for taking the census is 24th April, 1921, it would be impossible to accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, because £10,000 would obviously be an absurd expenditure. The taking of a census is not a very controversial matter in Ireland. The people, having so much sanity, may be trusted to see that they return their own numbers. I can assure my hon. Friend that they will not find a majority in Ireland turning itself into a minority.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I understand the learned Attorney-General says that the Government are really proposing to proceed with the preliminary arrangements for taking this census. No more foolish expenditure has been contemplated, even in the long record of foolishness of this Government. It is an utterly absurd and ridiculous thing to do until Ireland is in a condition in which you may expect to be able to get a census.
Mr. HOLMES: If I may use the words of the Prime Minister, it appears to me that no more futile or inadequate contribution has been made to the legislation of the country by a great statesman than this proposal, first to take a census in the present financial year, and, secondly, to leave it to the Treasury to supervise the expenditure. The Attorney-General is apparently quite satisfied with the control of the Treasury. We have seen something of the expenditure which the Treasury has passed and the House of Commons has turned down. There is the case of a Labour Exchange at Manchester. An expenditure of £750,000 was passed by the Treasury as a necessary national expenditure, but the Government are compelled to withdraw it because the sense of the House was against such a waste of money. If the Attorney-General imagines that the nation is being protected in the direction of economy by any Treasury supervision, he is labouring under a complete delusion.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to make a prophecy. The hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that he thinks the census will be taken. I say that it will not be taken by this Government at all, but will be taken as a matter of propaganda and as a way of showing their authority by the Sinn Fein Government. If Sinn Fein can hold courts in spite of the efforts of the police and military to suppress them, and can keep order on racecourses and stop illicit stilling, it will take a census. Sinn Feiners will do it as a matter of pride, and they will pay for it. The learned Attorney-General may take a census in the North East, and it would be very interesting, and I daresay the Dial Eireann will be prepared to put the statistics of the South and West at the disposal of His Majesty's Government. That, too, would be interesting.
Major BARNES: We have before us a proposal to limit the expenditure in the present financial year to £10,000. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is tied to that figure or whether some small advance on it might be made. According to the Memorandum the expenditure for four years does not work out at more than £20,000 a year. Up to the end of the present financial year a comparatively small amount only can be spent. Could not the Government accept some limitation of the amount?
Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.
Original Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 (Certificates of accounts and abstracts of returns) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Penalties.)
(1) If any enumerator makes wilful default in the performance of any of his duties under this Act, he shall for each offence be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Acts to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

(2) If any person refuses to answer or wilfully gives a false answer to any question necessary for obtaining the information required to be obtained under this Act, he shall for each offence be liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Acts to a fine not exceeding five pounds. Provided that no person shall be subject to any such penalty for refusing to state his religious profession.

136

(3) If any person employed in taking the census communicates without lawful authority any information acquired in the course of his employment, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words, "or occupation."
8.0 P.M.
The heads under which His Excellency is allowed to demand information are given in Clause 2. He has power to demand the occupation of each person. I do not know that it is necessary, for reasons of health statistics or any other statistics, to demand the occupation. I can foresee cases in which people in Ireland would object to stating what their occupation is. It may be because they have not got one. If they object to giving their occupation I do not see why they should be asked for it. If you can excuse a man from giving his religious profession I do not see why you should insist on his telling you how he earns his money. After all, this is a census for purely scientific purposes, and I am trying to put in safeguards which will prevent it being used for political purposes.
Whereupon the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD (Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. P. Pulteney) having come with a Message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Overseas Trade (Credit and Insurance) Act, 1920.

2. Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920.

3. Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, 1920.

4. Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1920.

5. Pilotage Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1920.

137

6. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1920.

7. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Chesterfield Extension) Act, 1920.

8. Mid-Glamorgan Water Act, 1920.

9. Wallasey Corporation Act, 1920.

10. Life Association of Scotland Act, 1920.

11. Uxbridge and Wycombe District Gas Act, 1920.

12. Exmouth Urban District Council Act, 1920.

13. North British and Mercantile Insurance Company's Act, 1920.

14. Lever Brothers, Limited (Wharves and Railway) Act, 1920.

CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].
Again considered in Committee.
[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 (Certificate of population) and Clause 9 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, with an Amendment.
As amended, considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Major BARNES: I do not rise to oppose the Bill, because after listening to the Debate I have come to the conclusion that there is probably quite a good case for the Government in favour of proceeding with this Bill. I do not think it has been put, but I think if their case were put it would run something like this: This is a Bill for ascertaining the number and the condition of the people in Ireland. The Government is embarking on a policy in Ireland which is bound to have a considerable effect both on the number of the population and upon their condition. Probably they are going to hang a good many people in Ireland. They may probably, I think, shoot a good many;
138
and it is not at all unlikely that the policy which has been pursued by the Government there may lead to some incidents such as those which characterised the recent events in the Punjab. We may have an Amritsar there. That, of course, is bound to have its effect upon the condition of things there. The number of widows in Ireland will be increased, and the number of fatherless children, and that being so it does, I think, follow that this census should proceed in the interests of future historians, and as a scientific record of the effect of policy. From that point of view, I think the Government have some weight behind them in pressing forward this Measure. When the future historian of Ireland comes to write a record of this Government's policy, it will be a matter of scientific satisfaction that he is able to take the year 1921 and show what was the condition of things then and compare it with the result of the policy of the Government in Ireland.
Mr. MILLS: I just rise to say a word with regard to the passing of this Bill. I have not been present at the discussions, and so am not in a position to say whether it is good, bad, or indifferent. My point is with regard to expenditure. We can vote two or three millions in the course of ten minutes, and so, possibly, the sum required for working this Bill and for the printing of the census papers will not seem very large, but in view of the fact that they will most certainly be made bonfires of it is a ridiculous waste of time to go further. Irish people, whether we like it or not, are not in the frame of mind where communications, whether accompanied by a stamp or not, are likely to add to the merriment of the people before they come to the tragic side, and for that reason, and for the reason that we might save several thousand pounds if the Government withheld the taking of the census, or withheld the order for printing the papers, and also with a desire to save the Government from further ridicule amongst the people of Ireland, I have thought it well to say these few words.
Captain LOSEBY: I merely rise to put in a protest, as strong a one as I am capable of, against the type of speech that has come too frequently of late from the Opposition. I want to be allowed to describe the speech by the hon. and

139
gallant Member who spoke last but one (Major Barnes) as disgraceful and contemptible. I want to say that because it is coming too frequently. Is it right for an hon. and gallant Member to get up in the House simply and solely to put salt into wounds? He could have had no other object. I will rise in my place and I will protest every time when hon. Members opposite pursue tactics of that contemptible description. I find it hard to contain my indignation, but I did want to make that protest.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have made several speeches on the Census Bill. I was here and heard the Second Beading when the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Loseby) was in bed—it was several nights ago—and I spoke against voting £90,000. I do not think he was there then. Since he has been here to-day he seems to have found it a very interesting Debate, and he has made an extraordinary speech. I only hope that some Member of the Government will give the hon. and gallant Member a post as Private Parliamentary Secretary, or something of that kind.

FERTILISERS (TEMPORARY CONTROL OF EXPORT) BILL [Lords].
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [16 th June], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Debate resumed.
Major BARNES: Are we not going to have any further explanation? I think we ought to have some further statement from the Government. The matter was debated on 16th June. Since that time we have had the Nauru Island Agreement Bill, which has very considerably increased the supply—at all events, the possible supply—of phosphates to this country, and I think we might be told by the Minister in charge of the Bill at the present time whether the position remains unaffected by that fact. As far as I can see, the effect of this Bill is going to be two-fold. It is going to increase the supply of fertilisers to this country and
140
cheapen them, and so far that is quite right; but, on the other hand, we are going to diminish the supply of fertilisers to the outside world, which is going to increase their cost there. Therefore, the effect of this Bill should be to lessen the cost of production in this country, and to force up the cost of world production. We have been having measures brought forward the effect of which is to enable the agricultural industry in this country to get the advantage of world prices. Therefore, the effect of this Bill ultimately is to make the margin between the cost of production in this country and the general world price greater. That is bound to operate, of course, to the advantage of the agricultural community. Has that fact been calculated? If that is the case, is it still the intention of the Government to maintain the policy of giving the agricultural industry of this country the world price, because I am sure the Minister will see that that must result in a burden on the general consumer? I cannot believe it can be the deliberate intention of the Government to pursue a policy which will have that effect.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARREN: There is another point on which I should like to have some expression of opinion from the Minister in charge. Does not the effect of this Bill tend to the cornering of the products of these various companies, and is not the operation of the Bill such as practically to compel producers to hand over to an association all dealings in this particular product. I believe the Minister has had strong representations made to him in that direction, because there is a feeling of very great chagrin on the part of certain of the companies who produce sulphate of ammonia at the action of the Ministry of Agriculture in practically handing the business over to a combination or association of persons forbidding or prohibiting the producers from dealing direct. Will not the effect of that be in a sense to curtail their product? I am told that they are compelled to reveal certain of their business procedure and to make known to others the places to which they send their products. I should like the Minister to make it clear what the effect of the Bill will be in relation to these companies.
Captain LOSEBY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be kind enough to explain rather more fully

141
the conditions under which these licences will be granted under paragraph (b) of Clause 2. I hope he will be able to make some concession in regard to the attitude his Department has previously taken up and to alleviate the fears of some of us in regard to the conditions upon which these licences are being granted. These are very extraordinary powers that may be made by Orders in Council. Licences may be issued restricting entirely, I understand, the export of these fertilisers, or allowing it on certain conditions. The Department has been perfectly open in the matter, but I understand—I hope I have not been misinformed—that a private firm, a maker of these fertilisers, will only get an export licence if it becomes a member of what is called the Equalisation Committee. This is very strongly objected to by some of the greatest producers in the country. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us some assurance that the licences will be granted under the same conditions to private producers, who are not members of this committee because they are unwilling to submit their affairs to the Committee, as are granted to members? I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the fears of some of us on the question of policy are very considerable, and we should be most grateful if he could make us some kind of concession. I think we all understand the obvious convenience of the course that is being adopted by the right, hon. Gentleman, but I think he might be able to get out of his difficulty in some way by making some such rule as that a certain proportion of export shall be allowed to produce that is made for use in this country. We want the assurance that a firm that is unable for any reason to become a member of this Equalisation Committee shall not be met with a point-blank refusal to export.
Captain KNIGHTS: I wish to support the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down and to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to put a stop to what has been a very unfair procedure for many years past in connection with the sale of these fertilisers Unless the producer was a, member of this Equalisation Committee or its corresponding committee during the period of the War, he could not obtain an export licence, and I take it that all we are trying to do at the present time is to
142
increase our export of everything possible that we produce in this country. We ask that common fairness should be handed out to one and all. I have given notice of an Amendment when the Bill comes into Committee, which I trust will be acceptable to the Minister, to the effect that any individual producer shall be entitled to have a licence, when he applies for it, for any sulphate of ammonia produced by him over and above the amount which the Government may decide shall be the proportionate quantity of all producers to be supplied to the home market. If persons have been in a particular trade and have got a trade mark, and a name, and a good character for their product, surely it is only common business that they should be entitled to retain their export facilities in that commodity in the future rather than have to go through the Equalisation Committee, which is practically handing over their private business arrangements to others.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): I am quite aware that I have exhausted my right to address the House on the Second Reading of this Bill, but several Members have asked me to reply, which I therefore do by leave of the House. Nothing has happened since 16th June, when this Bill was last before the House, to alter the attitude of the Government in regard to it.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: War with Russia.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: That has got nothing whatever to do with it, as the hon. and gallant Member knows quite well. This is a Bill simply to prevent a large exportation of necessary fertilisers taking place. Inasmuch as the price of sulphate of ammonia agreed between the Government and the trade is £23 10s. for the home market, and on export something like £40 or £50 can be obtained, it is quite clear that unless the export is prohibited or regulated, practically the whole of the amount in this country would be exported, or else the price here would go up to a very high figure. That is the case for the Bill, and nothing whatever has happened since I spoke before to alter that position. With regard to the question of licences, the principal matter

143
concerned is the question of sulphate of ammonia. The Government had to consider how they could best arrange for the exportation of the surplus over and above what is required here. Of course, we do not want to stop the exportation of any surplus over and above what is necessary here. In order to do this, a Committee of the trade was formed, representing 86 per cent. of the output. Practically every firm came in, and an arrangement was made whereby export licences should be granted on the advice of this Committee, and the profits of the export will be divided equally among the firms constituting the equalisation scheme, in accordance with their output. Nothing more convenient from the point of view of railways and shipping could be devised; nothing more economical and nothing more fair. That scheme has worked so well that we do not propose for a single moment to depart from it. This very honourable agreement, for which we are very much obliged to the trade, has been made with the great bulk of the trade, and I think it is a little unreasonable that we should be asked to upset it for the sake of a few who have refused to come into this arrangement, which has been made in the national interest. Of course, if my hon. Friend moves an Amendment in Committee, I will give it my full consideration. I cannot say more at the present time, and I hope the House will allow, without any further delay, the Second Reading of the Bill.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

DUCHY OF LANCASTER BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill of three Clauses, dealing with the question of bringing up to date the administration of the Duchy of Lancaster in regard to the three points which are specified in the Bill. It is very long
144
time since the affairs of the administration of the Duchy have been embodied in any Act of Parliament, and the statutory powers of the Duchy for the investment of the funds that may come into their hands are governed by statutes themselves more than a century old. It is most desirable that the power of investment under the terms of the Trustee Act, 1893, should be given to them, instead of their being dependent on these old Acts, which give them no power of investment except in certain forms of annuity and the purchase of land. The second Clause deals with their right to grant mining leases. So far back as the first year of Queen Anne, the period specified in which they might make a lease of that description was 31 years, and for mining leases they are still held to that term. It is common knowledge among Members of this House that at the present day a term of that kind is practically useless, and that a term of 99 years, as is now proposed, will enable them to let mineral properties in a way that would be impossible for them to do if they were restricted under their present powers. The third Clause constitutes the Solicitor of the Dutchy a Corporation sole, in the same way that the Treasury Solicitor was so constituted in 1876. The reason for that, I think, will be apparent. In matters such as dealing with intestate property, with which the Solicitor has to deal, it is a matter of great inconvenience when, on his death or retirement, the estates have to be transferred into the hands of his successor. It means delay in the various processes, and it means expense to the estates. It would be merely giving the Duchy a method of administering that part of their work which is very much more up-to-date than the one they enjoy at present. That is the whole of the Bill. The Bill has been before the House of Lords, and has come down to us from them, and I am very anxious that the House should pass this Bill into law at as early a date as possible, so that the business affairs of the Duchy may not be hampered by being worked on an out-of-date system.
Mr. CLYNES: I do not rise in any way to object to the Bill, or to stand in the way of its provisions becoming law, but, on the Second Reading of the Bill, a great margin is usually allowed for the purpose of raising matters relating to the particular Department of State to

145
which the Bill refers. I am wondering whether you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, think this the proper place for me to address a few observations with regard to the functions of the Chancellor of the Duchy with reference to the appointment of magistrates in the county of Lancaster. Should there be no objection from the Chair, I would like to address a few observations to my right hon. Friend on that point. We have felt on this side of the House, for a considerable time, a real sense of grievance with regard to the conduct of the Chancellor of the Duchy with reference to these appointments. I do not mean with regard to the present occupant of the office, or to any particular Chancellor who has preceded. I am referring rather to a tradition, to a general practice, than to the manner in which any individual occupant of the office has discharged his duties. The fact of the matter is that until quite recent years appointments as magistrates in the different counties and boroughs were of a distinctly partisan or political character. It is well known that, in turn, Liberal and Conservative Governments made appointments on the recommendations of party agents, and that only those who rendered certain particular political or party services were in turn appointed to these positions.
That, I say, was the general rule. A general rule always admits of a few exceptions, and we know a few exceptions occurred. In more recent years that practice has been criticised, and has been modified. A Commission was appointed some years ago to consider this matter, and, in the main, made two recommendations. One was that it was desirable to recruit a much larger number of magistrates from the working-classes, and to make appointments which would be more representative of the general body of the citizens in these different towns. The other was that the appointments, on the whole, be made on the recommendation of a Committee, and that that Committee should consist of persons acquainted with the local circumstances, for they would have knowledge of whom it was advisable to appoint to these positions. That Committee was to be called the Advisory Committee, and was to consist of representative persons drawn from the particular area. I think that the Commission recommended that Labour should be represented on this Advisory
146
Committee; so that the first complaint I want to offer is that steps have not been taken, through the Chancellor of the Duchy, to secure the representation suggested on these Advisory Committees. For it seems to me that in the main the appointments in the last few years have been made almost solely on the recommendations of the different Advisory Committees.
I admit that some improvement has been made in regard to these appointments, and that there is scarcely an occasion now on which appointments are made where some Labour representative is not found on the list. But there is at present a very much larger proportion that represents other activities, other organisations, other interests, and other classes; there is a much larger proportion of persons drawn from those quarters than the quarters which can be said to be representative of the mass of the people. I want to make it as plain as I can that I am not asking for ordinary-class representation for Labour—representation in the ordinary sense of the term. What I am asking for is that there should be a larger number of persons, men and women, drawn from the ranks of labour placed in these positions, because inevitably, from one cause or another, the duties performed from magisterial benches are performed mainly in relation to the working classes. I need not explain what is the cause of the offenders who come before the courts being mainly drawn from the working classes. That will be clear enough to every Member of the House. I suggest that the composition of the Benches should be such as to secure on each Bench, to begin with, the greatest possible sympathy with those who are brought before the Bench. In addition to the judicial mind, there should be general knowledge of the locality and the circumstances in which the offences are committed—of course, I am now referring to minor offences—with which these Benches have to deal. It is advisable in these days to look at these offences with sympathy in order that a greater wrong should not be caused by imposing excessive punishment in the case of any wrongdoer.
There are other duties besides these that I have enumerated. I may say I have personal experience of one or two constituencies in the county where con-

147
siderable inconvenience is caused to the mass of the people because of the absence of any magistrate residing in the locality, or approachable, and who can be got at by persons who have to get documents signed and declarations of various kinds filled in. This is all the more true following the War. Documents in connection with pensions, certificates, declarations of various sorts have to be signed by the magistrates. Rightly or wrongly, it is the fact that there are many members of the ordinary working classes who do not like to go to people except those of their own class. I know a particular constituency, indeed, in which there is no single resident magistrate of this particular class. It is not merely a hardship. It is a condition which gives rise to a real sense of injustice. I hope, therefore, that some step will be taken to cause a far larger preponderance than has yet occurred in the direction I have indicated.
It will not do—and this is my last point—when we see the addition to the Board of eight or ten new men merely to see only one or two Labour men. That still leaves the grievance there. It does not redress it, or produce anything like that evenness and balance which ought to be created as between the different classes, interests, and concerns in this matter, I do not make any complaint against the present Chancellor or his predecessors, but against what has been the custom, and is still the system. I hope, as Mr. Deputy-Speaker has given me the opportunity of making these observations, that they will be conveyed to the proper quarter in order that we may have the matter reasonably considered and the redress which is sought for conceded.
Mr. RAFFAN: I have no doubt the points which my right hon. Friend has just made will be conveyed to the Chancellor of the Duchy. I presume that is all he hopes for following his very interesting speech, and, after all, I think there is no Clause in the Bill which deals with that particular matter. I desire to ask for some information in regard to a Clause in the Bill which deals with the extension of the period of mining leases. As I understand it, at present a lease can only be granted for 31 years. The Bill gives power to the Duchy to extend that period to 99 years. I desire to ask whether the policy of the
148
Government in regard to the nationalisation of mining royalties has undergone any change, because if it is still the policy of the Government to introduce a Bill for the purpose of the nationalisation of mining royalties, I should have supposed that that measure would deal with the whole question, and would include in its scope the mines under the Duchy of Lancaster.
With regard to the particular provision in the Bill, I have no objection—quite the contrary—to the extended security being given to those who invest their capital and undertake great risks of its being lost in undertakings of the sort, the sinking of mines, and so on, increased security for a moderate period. With that I am in entire agreement. But I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that when these leases are drawn up they should be drawn in such a way that the terms could be revised periodically. Confiscation of the capital after 31 years ought not in these days to be allowed by either the Duchy or any other owner of minerals. That is altogether oppressive. On the other hand, it may well be, when a lease is granted, that it is not fully realised that the benefit may be very much larger than had been originally supposed, and, therefore, I suggest that it is only right that the Crown should be able to revise its terms either by an increase of royalty or ground-rent, so that the full value of the minerals should accrue to the State. While I do not propose any Amendment to the Bill, or seek to tie the hands of the Duchy by putting any stipulation in this measure, I suggest that this is a matter of policy which ought to be kept in mind. If this additional security is given, it is all that can reasonably be expected, and the owner ought to give such period as may be determined, and there should be a revision of the terms frequently. There should be a periodical revision of the terms, and that is the suggestion which I make and which I hope will be kept in mind.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I am thoroughly in accord with this Bill, but I want to ask a question. I want to know who is responsible in this House for answering questions relating to work done in the Duchy of Lancaster apart from this Bill? Perhaps I might be told who is responsible in the case of the Duchy of Cornwall?
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the suggestion put forward by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) does not mean that we are going to have any more Ministerial appointments, because the Government now are kept in a permanent majority by their Ministers, Deputy-Ministers, and Parliamentary Secretaries, and I do not want to see two more gentleman appointed to answer for the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to disabuse my mind on this point.
Major BARNES: I understand that this proposal is to extend the period from 31 years to 99 years.
Mr. BALDWIN: It gives power to make the period 99 years.
Major BARNES: In Northumberland and Durham leases are granted for periods of 45 years. I hope we are not going to have action taken by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which is not going to have any connection with the present policy of the country. I do not think we ought to be granting long mining leases when the Government is contemplating the re-organisation of the mining districts under a considerable amount of control. Perhaps in Committee we shall get some further information on this point.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Baldwin.]

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION [GUARANTEE].
Considered, in Committee.
[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
Mr. KELLAWAY (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): I beg to move,
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums not exceeding £100,000 required for the fulfilment of any guarantee against loss resulting from the holding of a British Empire Exhibition given by the Board of Trade."
150
9.0 P.M.
In regard to this Resolution, I can assure my hon. Friends opposite that there is no attack in it upon Soviet Russia. At a time when every penny must be safeguarded, the Committee is entitled to an explanation of what is involved in this Resolution, and the reasons for proposing it. The idea of the British Empire Exhibition originated in 1913 with that great Empire builder, Lord Strathcona. The War prevented the original scheme being carried out, but in the year 1919 a Conference was held at which representatives of all the Colonics were present, and it was decided that it was desirable to hold an exhibition in order to celebrate the part which the Empire had played in the War.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Which war?
Mr. KELLAWAY: The Great War.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Not the new war.
Mr. KELLAWAY: Perhaps I may repeat that there is nothing in this Resolution which can be construed into an attack upon Russia. I will quote an extract from a letter written to the Lord Mayor of London by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales:
"It is unnecessary for me to emphasise the importance of such an exhibition as a means of developing the resources and trade of the British Empire For four years the resources of the Empire and the inventive and manufacturing energy of its peoples have been utilised almost exclusively in the terrible work of destruction. The effort in which they united has saved civilisation from the deadliest menace with which it has ever been threatened, and you will, I am sure, agree that there can be no more fitting way of commemorating the triumph of our cause than by uniting again to develop for constructive, work the vast potential resources and the manufacturing power of the Empire."
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, for the right hon. Gentleman to read a letter from His Royal Highness in support of a Government measure?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not had the time to look up precedents, but I am sure it is not desirable for the right hon. Gentleman to use the letter as part of his speech. If he continues reading it, other hon. Members might disagree with the terms of the letter, and a discussion of that kind should be avoided.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If we are told that His Royal Highness particularly wishes this course to be taken, it may put us in the position of having to go against him.
Mr. KELLAWAY: My hon. and gallant Friend cannot be aware of the fact that the letter I am quoting is one within common knowledge. It has already appeared in the public Press, and is in no sense a private communication. It must be obvious there can be no better way of celebrating the great part the Empire played in the War than by bringing together in its capital an exhibition of its natural resources and of the activities and energies of its people. That was the idea of Lord Strathcona and his colleagues, and it will, I hope, be assisted by the guarantee to be given by the Government of £100,000. The guarantee will only become operative if a guarantee of £500,000 be forthcoming from private sources. We have every reason to believe that that guarantee will be forthcoming. It cannot, in any case, become payable until 1923, but in order that the undertaking should be regularised, it is necessary that this Resolution should be passed through the House. We recently had in London a small working model of this exhibition in the Empire Timber Exhibition, which brought together in the Holland Park Skating Rink from all parts of the Empire, from India and the Colonies, examples of timber which the Empire produces, and which showed that we have in our own borders every form of timber necessary for a civilised State. The result of that exhibition, which threw no charge on public funds, was to do a great deal to bring home to the purchasers and users of timber in this country the immense possibilities we have in our own Empire. When the Empire was forced to action by one of those great impulses which move men and nations to the greatest heroism, we showed what the Empire was capable of doing in the hour of peril. I think it is just as necessary now, when we are looking forward to a time of prolonged peace, that we should know what the Empire is capable of doing during that time. There is every indication of a lull in trade activity at home, and it is necessary our manufacturers should find new markets if British trade is going to suffer from a falling off in
152
this country. It is a rather melancholy reflection that during the few years preceding the outbreak of war the share of Britain in Empire trade had relatively fallen off. There is a great sentiment in trade, just as powerful as the sentiment which brought the Colonies into the War. Men are not guided in trade entirely by material instincts, and idealism plays as large a part in trade as it did during the War. This proposal will give an opportunity for it to find practical expression. No Empire has ever been so bountifully blessed with the manifold gifts of Providence as is this Empire, and it is indeed necessary that the Empire itself should realise, and that the whole world should realise, that we have within our boundaries everything necessary for civilised mankind and that we, for our part, are less under the necessity of going outside our own flesh and blood for the things necessary to carry on the work of the State. I believe we have in this a form of Imperial preference to which no fiscal or political opposition can be offered, and under these circumstances I hope the House will see its way to agree to the Resolution and enable the Government to give the guarantee in order that the work of preparing the Exhibition may proceed.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite I really thought I was at a Coalition political meeting. It was just the sort of speech one expects to hear on a political platform from a man waving a little Union Jack costing about 1s. 2d., and daring anyone to enter a protest against this highly patriotic Cabinet—good old Kiplingese. We happen on this side of the House to value the Empire—we prefer to call it the British Commonwealth—perhaps even more deeply than hon. Members opposite, but we come down to this: We are asked to vote, after listening to a number of highfalutin, flowery phrases, £100,000 for this purpose, and I think it is our duty to get a little more information on the subject. Where is this exhibition going to be held? Is it to be anything like the Exhibition of 1851 at the Crystal Palace? That Exhibition was to celebrate a period of peace, prosperity, and goodwill among men. If I remember rightly, it was open to all nations. Is this exhibition going to be on the same lines, or is it to be limited to the British Empire? Are our allies to

153
be allowed to send exhibits? Is our great French ally, which might take dudgeon if it were excluded, to be allowed to share in it? Personally, I should say that all our allies should be invited to take part in it. If we are told that the object is to improve British trade, I cannot understand why the Government should not be prepared to invite every nation to help us, so as to assist in opening markets for us in all parts of the world. Where is this exhibition going to be held? Is it to be at the Crystal Palace? [An HON. MEMBER: "Hull."] Well, if it is to be held there, I should very much like to know, as it might influence my vote. We have had an explanation that this is going to be a memorial for the War. The right hon. Gentleman is a little late in the fair. We have at present an exhibition of War relics and memorials of the Great War, and we have had proposed a pylon, which was to be a mighty monument of the War, but that idea has been suddenly dropped.
Had we better not wait until we know whether we are going to have peace? I seem to remember entirely similar circumstances to these with which we are now faced over a hundred years ago. [A laugh.] Perhaps I am older than I look. I am not claiming personal recollection of the beginning of the wars of the French Revolution, or of the conditions which prevailed at the opening of the 27 years of almost continuous war which arose out of the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon. If, however, the present Government does not mend its ways, it is, as far as I can gather, going to start on a similar path. Therefore, I think we should be very ill-advised to vote this sum at present, until we see that we are out of the War. It is no good holloaing until we know that we are out of the War. The hon. Baronet the Member for Edge Hill (Sir W. Rutherford) asked a question about this Exhibition on the 27th July, and I gathered from the answer that the idea of holding this Exhibition germinated in the brain of certain commercial gentlemen. They proposed to hold it as a commercial concern, and, no doubt, would have made a great success of it. The Board of Trade thought fit to step in, I am sure with very good motives—the Government does everything with good motives, good intentions; but the way to a certain place is paved with good intentions. They came in with very good motives, but we
154
are to pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Yes; we all pay our taxes. The Board of Trade, apparently, thought that this was a splendid idea for getting rid of some of the taxpayers' money, and they stopped in, and we are now asked to pay £100,000. Why should not this be left to private enterprise? We have not so much money to-day that we can afford to spend it on an Exhibition like this. The hon. Gentleman has quoted the Timber Exhibition as an example. He very kindly sent me, and, I have no doubt, other hon. Members an invitation to it, and I availed myself of that invitation. But what did it cost? Was it a paying concern?
Mr. KELLAWAY: If my hon. and gallant Friend had paid me the compliment of listening to what I said, he would have heard me say that it cost the country nothing at all—that it was self-supporting.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was so overwhelmed by the eloquence of the hon. Gentleman that that passage escaped my memory. I suppose, therefore, that this Exhibition also is going to cost nothing. I hope it will, but we are asked to guarantee this sum of money. Did we guarantee any money for the Timber Exhibition? If not, why should we be asked to guarantee any in this case? I see that they were going to call it "The British Dominions Exhibition, Ltd.," and I presume that this £100,000 was the bribe or inducement which the Government offered them—I am not, of course, imputing any improper motive—to allow the Government to "jump their claim" and to take over this scheme. I think that the reason why the Government offered to do that was that they saw that they could make an excellent piece of propaganda out of it. They are welcome to all the propaganda they can get, and I think they will need it within the next few months. All the propaganda in Heaven and earth will not save them; but I think we ought to object to paying for it. I look upon this as an unmitigated piece of propaganda. I regard it as unnecessary. After what has happened during the last five years, we do not want any Exhibition of this sort, at the Government expense, to hold the Empire together. They can get all the trade they want in the East of Europe to-morrow. The British Empire is per-

155
fectly sound without their footling Exhibitions, and for that reason I shall vote against this Resolution.
Mr. CHARLES BARRIE: I hope that my few remarks will have the effect of a little soothing syrup to what has just preceded them. This is a proposal in connection with the trade and commerce of this country which should appeal to the House, and of which the passage ought to be easy. It goes without saying that the more facilities that can be provided for our manufacturers and merchants, our great importers and exporters, to show to the world what can be produced by the British Empire, the better it will be for our trade and commerce generally. Especially is that the case at the present time, when so many of the markets which have been held by others in the past are open to us, and can be secured. Now is the time to set about trying to get those markets before other people get hold of them. I think, therefore, that the Government, in the present circumstances, are acting wisely in stepping in to support this Exhibition. The proposal is that £100,000 should be guaranteed, but that by no means means that we shall have to pay it. It is only a guarantee that we are offering in case of loss. I should think it very unlikely indeed, in these times, that there will be any loss at all in the matter, and, surely, in any case, even though it did cause us a loss, it is well worth while to promote the trade and commerce of this country, which is so necessary at the present time in order to help to pay our taxes; and I should be surprised if there were many dissentients to helping to carry through this proposal. I should be one of the first in this House to tell the Government, if I thought they were spending money on anything useless, but anything that will help to forward our trade should be looked at with a very wide view, and promptly accepted. I do not think people realise what a very large proportion of raw products is found within our own Empire. I think the figure is something like 97 per cent. The sooner that can be brought home to the people of this country, and also to the people of every other country, the better it will be for our future trade and commerce.
Mr. CLYNES: I think that there is, at any rate, one point in the remarks of my
156
hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), and that is the point with regard to the Union Jack. I do not want to pursue that subject, but it is a fact that there is a section of our community which is inclined to claim a monopoly of patriotism and a special attachment to the interests of the Empire. Unlike my hon. and gallant Friend, however, I rise to support this Resolution. It is true that the State may lose nothing upon this venture, but, even if the State had to lose, I think it is a venture that they ought to undertake. The least that the State can offer to do is to encourage and stimulate these necessary Exhibitions. They are rooted, not in any Imperial spirit, but rather in what might be termed the soil of trade interest. We all, I hope, have a common interest in the encouragement and development of British trade. My hon. and gallant Friend may find some consolation in the fact that this Exhibition is being held under the auspices, not of the War Office, but of the Board of Trade. France is not included in that comprehensive term, "The British Empire," and, therefore, the question whether French exhibits are to be admitted to this Exhibition scarcely arises.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said as to the desirability of exhibiting the enterprise and the activities of the various parts of the Empire in different branches of trade. All that is to the good; it is to the good of every section of the community in the country, and therefore I think an expenditure of this kind, even if it has to be incurred, though I believe it will not—it is only a matter of the House giving a guarantee in certain contingencies—would on the whole be money well spent. We may have to face during this winter a rather serious position with respect to trade prospects, unemployment, and so on. Those conditions will arise from different causes. One cause, I fear, is to be the recurrent conflicts between the different interests as to wages and working conditions. I think a little public money might occasionally be well spent in bringing together the representatives of these different interests, not for an hour or two, or for an occasional afternoon when there is just a moment of crisis, but bringing them together in order that there might be some exhaustive conference of persons representing these

157
great interests and keeping them together long enough to see whether it is possible to compose differences which, if they reach a point of serious conflict in the course of the approaching autumn or winter, will be disastrous to the interests of the country, and I therefore put to my right hon. Friend the view that he might well represent to the Board of Trade the fact that, just as it is well spent money in the matter of exhibiting the trade achievements of the different parts of the Empire, it might well be that we may spend money to advantage by bringing together the representatives of our own United Kingdom trade interests, and in that way try to prevent differences which I am afraid otherwise will occur. I hope the Committee will be disposed to look favourably upon this proposal, because no one of us should be ashamed of showing what really is the extent and what really are the triumphs of British trade in the different parts of the British Empire.
Mr. KILEY: I do not propose to follow the example of the Minister of Overseas Trade nor that of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in their historical essays as to the advantages of closer connection with His Majesty's Dominions overseas. If the Dominions need any substantial token of our appreciation of the part they played in the Great War, I am perfectly prepared to consider in any way the Government decide, whether by cash or otherwise, some practical token of our goodwill. Having said that, I think we should leave that part of the exhibition at that point. But I should like to ask what section of traders in this country have asked for this exhibition. If the demand has come from this country, very well, let us consider it, and let us ask why it is that the traders who want this exhibition are not in a position to find the money themselves. That has been the experience hitherto with regard to these exhibitions, that those who desire them put up a certain amount of money as evidence of their desire for them to take place. If, on the other hand, the desire has come from any of His Majesty's Dominions, I think we have a right to ask from those authorities what part, financial or otherwise, they are prepared to take. They have no right, and I do not think they would expect, the Government of Great Britain to put up a certain amount of money while they themselves
158
did not put up any at all, that is to say, if the demand is coming from any of our Dominions. If it is not coming from our Dominions or from the traders of this country, from whom is it coming? Is it some private body of individuals who have got together with a view of running an exhibition, and if it is successful financially they take the money, and if it is a loss the British taxpayer is to be called upon? Is that the procedure we are asked to take part in in guaranteeing this sum of money? If that is not the procedure, perhaps the Minister will enlighten us and give some reliable information on this point.
Again, why is it necessary to have a totally different body of people? We have at present the Board of Trade, with a great Exhibitions Department, fully equipped and fully organised for holding exhibitions. They hold them every year in London and at various other times in the provinces. Why is it necessary to have a brand new equipment and a Department, and why should the Board of Trade approve of the appointment of a gentleman at a salary of £5,000 a year for this special exhibition? I suppose, as part of the guarantee which they are providing they have stipulated for the right to approve of the appointment. I do not see why the Board of Trade should have taken that responsibility on their shoulders at all. If this is a private concern, run by private people, then the private people ought to accept the responsibility. I am afraid the Government is embarking upon a very dangerous course in accepting responsibility for a procedure of this kind. They have already in another direction appointed directors to various trading concerns in which the Government has invested money, and in one case, at all events, they produced a serious state of affairs in the money market. Therefore, one looks with a great deal of anxiety to further experiments in that direction which the Government are taking, as, for instance, under this Bill. Therefore, if this is done by the traders, or on their behalf, the Associated Chambers of Commerce have sufficient money to find all that is required for this exhibition. Again, I would ask, if the Government is guaranteeing this money, what powers it proposes to take as to how this exhibition shall be run? Are they going to decide what class of exhibitors shall be

159
allowed to exhibit in this exhibition? Do they take any responsibility that A may exhibit and B may not? because, after all, if these two traders desire to exhibit, they are both taxpayers, and if one is accepted and one is refused and the money of both can be called upon to meet the deficiency, if there is to be one, I think the Government is taking a responsibility which it is not called upon to take, and yet I cannot see how it can avoid it if it is guaranteeing the money and approving the managers and letting the private organisations conduct the proceedings as they intend to do. Again, I think it is only right, if the Government is prepared to foot the Bill, if there is a deficiency, that the Government should have a right to take part in the plunder, if there is to be any. Therefore, I cannot understand the action of the Government at all in this matter. If the Dominions want to have an exhibition, the Board of Trade has all the organisation and all the officials, and if they want any financial assistance the right hon. Gentleman can accept my assurance that traders will not be backward in coming forward and giving whatever financial support is needed, and I should infinitely prefer that to the proposal that is outlined in the Bill. I hope the Committee will seriously consider the granting of this money, and, if there is a Division upon it, I am prepared to vote against the proposal.
Mr. JOHNSTONE: I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Kiley) has misunderstood the proposal of the Minister. He says the Government is going to guarantee all the money required for the exhibition.
Mr. KILEY: No, £100,000.
Mr. JOHNSTONE: I understand from what my right hon. Friend has said that the guarantee fund will amount to £500,000, and of that amount the Government is asked to guarantee £100,000. That indicates that there are some people in the country who are quite willing to run the risk, and the Government will not be called upon should there be any deficiency. But I quite agree that my hon. Friend is quite entitled to some fuller information in regard to who are the promoters of the exhibition. That is quite a proper question to put, and the Minister should satisfy the House and my
160
hon. Friend as to who is running it, and on what lines. I assume if it is run by capable business people they ought to make a great success of it, and while a guarantee has been given of £500,000, not one penny of loss should accrue from it. If run on proper business lines it should be a great success. I am sure that an exhibition of goods drawn from all parts of the British Empire will be of the highest educational value, and will contribute largely to the trade and industry of this country and of the Empire. There is something to be said for the idea in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which speech so disturbed my hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who has had quite a Jamboree this evening over it, namely, that after a great war, and now that we are entering upon the paths of peace, we should show what the Empire is capable of doing. I observe my hon. Friend the Member for Hull dragged King Charles' head into the argument, notwithstanding the warning of the right hon. Gentleman given from the front Bench not to introduce Russia into this matter. We are entering upon the paths of peace, and I am sure all in this House hope that the present cloud will vanish away, and that there will be for many years a period of peace and of abounding prosperity, both for this country and the British Empire.
In an essentially peace project such as this Exhibition is formed to show what the great British Empire is capable of, and which is confined to the produce of the British Empire, no question of France enters. The Exhibition will probably not be held in Hull but in London, and from all parts of the world people will come to see it. I should assume that, with regard to an Exhibition which is given a title such as this is given in this proposal, namely, "the British Empire Exhibition," it will not be necessary to bring in other parts of the world, but that the idea is for the British Empire to show to all the other nations of the world the greatness of the British Empire, what the British Empire is capable of, and what her resources are. That will tend, not only to the good of the British Empire, but will do no harm to the other nations. If the Government had proposed to organise the Exhibition, or if they had proposed to pay the whole cost of it, or if they

161
had undertaken to guarantee any loss that might be involved in the holding of it, we might have paused; but I assume, from what the right hon. Gentle man has told us, that this is a venture promoted by public-spirited men, that they are willing to guarantee £400,000 themselves or to obtain guarantees to that amount, that the Government is asked to share in it by guaranteeing £100,000, and that there is no likelihood of any loss if the Exhibition is run on strictly business lines. Under all the circumstances, the Committee should not hesitate to agree to the proposal, and that by granting what is required, and by becoming guarantors to the limited extent mentioned, we will not run any unnecessary risk and will be contributing towards the enlightenment of our own people as to the resources of the British Empire.
Mr. LORDEN: I should not have risen had it not been for the way in which the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) has dealt with the matter. I cannot conceive of anything on which we should be more justified in spending a sum of money at the present time than on an exhibition of goods produced within the British Empire. I feel this is a matter in which we can really back up the Government in every way, because this Exhibition will demonstrate what the Empire is capable of and how it is possible to develop within the Empire practically all the goods and all the raw material that we want. The Government are to be congratulated for bringing forward the matter. I am very glad to be able to be here to-night and vote, if it is necessary to vote, on this, although it does mean an expenditure of money, and although at the present time we are all alarmed at any expenditure. But all that is wanted in this case is the guarantee of the Government, which will show that they are in sympathy with it and that they are prepared to help those people who are putting up this large sum of money so that the Exhibition may become a huge success and so that our Colonies and all those overseas may know that it has the goodwill of the Government behind it. It will bring them in much more than if it were left entirely to the traders to do it without official recognition. In this case we are doing the right thing, and I am glad to be able to be here to vote for it.
Mr. SPENCER: If this matter goes to a Division I shall vote against it, for one or two reasons. It has been stated to-night that if this guarantee is given, and if this Exhibition is held, it is going to be an unqualified advantage to the whole of the British public and to the whole of the members of the British Empire. It is very questionable whether that is so or not. It does not follow that, if there is an expansion of trade, it means that the general community are necessarily going to derive any advantage from that expansion of trade. So far as this side of the Committee is concerned, we are only concerned in trade to the extent of providing the whole of the people in this country with a certain standard of living. Beyond that, unless it is to the advantage of some nation that is incapable of assisting herself owing to a calamity, we are not interested in it at all. We are not interested in the expansion of trade for trade's sake. We are not interested in work for work's sake. We do not make any secret about it. The only thing we are concerned about is to provide an excellent standard of living for every one of our citizens, without qualification, so long as he is willing to work if he is capable of working. Any trade beyond that extent, unless it is, as I say, for the purpose of exchanging goods with a nation for goods, or for, the purpose of assisting a nation that might be passing through some temporary calamity, we are not interested in at all. So far as I am concerned, this Exhibition is a piece of private advertising at public expense for the advantage of one section of the British public, and the other section of the British public is going to have to bear the burden of this amount, which is going to be guaranteed in the interests very largely, not of small traders, but of very large concerns and associations working primarily in their own interests and not in the interests of the general public of this country.
The second reason why I am opposing this Resolution is because it sets up very specifically that the objects of the exhibition are to foster inter-Imperial interests. So far as this side of the Committee is concerned, we have had quite sufficient of the fostering of Imperial interests. This means a piece of economic exclusiveness. A few great concerns in this country are seeking to

163
corner the raw materials, to capture the markets, and to derive personal advantages to the detriment of other people, and the natural sequence of events is going to be that we are going to create suspicion and jealousy amongst other countries which in the long run will lead to open hostility between countries again, because they have been shut out of the markets of the world. The object is definitely stated, and that is to foster a form of Imperialism which is not to the advantage of this country or any other country, and I shall vote against this money being granted. My third point is that this proposal is altogether contrary to what is known as the spirit of the League of Nations. The League of Nations was supposed to have been set up not for the purpose of national exclusiveness, not to give one nation an advantage over another, but with the object of coming to agreement on these economic questions, and so long as we have exhibitions which are for the purpose of developing merely the natural resources of our own Empire, which resources may be held exclusively by this Empire and for this Empire against the interests of the world, we are not going to get the best out of any League of Nations.
Mr. MYERS: One reason which was given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kellaway) why this exhibition was to be encouraged was that there was likely to be a lull in British trade, and the necessity for securing further markets was apparent. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us, however, how this expenditure is going to achieve that particular object. We on this side have always believed that no question of a lull in our own trade ought to be considered while the home requirements of our people remain to be satisfied. When the requirements of our people are not satisfied and there is anything in the nature of a lull in trade, that is evidence that something has got out of joint which needs to be rectified, and no exhibition of the kind proposed is a method whereby that evil can be cured. I agree with an expression made by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), that anything that moves in the direction of pointing out to the peoples of the world their mutual inter-dependence ought to be fostered,
164
but I fail to see how an exhibition of this character is going to achieve that end. This exhibition is nothing more or less than a huge business advertisement, from the view of private enterprise and private commercialism. The memorandum which has been issued says, "The exhibition will be privately organised, but it is receiving official recognition and support." If big business desires an exhibition for a large scale advertisement, big business ought to be prepared to pay for it. Having regard to the profit that world commercialism has made out of the War, if it desires anything for the purpose of extending its business, and in order to make large profits in the future, it ought to be prepared to pay for the advertisement. The big business of the world has imposed sufficient responsibility upon us already. Our responsibilities in Mesopotamia and Persia, which have involved this country in tremendous expense, are purely and solely in the business interests that happen to be in those countries, and the time has come when we are entitled to ask ourselves by what right have commercial adventures in this country or in any other to move in this direction and then come to this House and ask us to foot the Bill. If the House will find £100,000 for expenditure it could expend it in directions which would produce good results. I suggest that instead of offering our guarantee of £100,000 to prop up and support an advertisement for big business and commercial business in this country and the Empire, we ought to look round and see if there are any disabled soldiers or the widows and orphans of deceased men who require assistance.
Colonel GREIG: We have had a deplorable exhibition in the speeches which have just been delivered. Coming from that side, they seem to prove the allegation made against a considerable portion of the Labour party that they are "certainly not fit to govern"; but I am consoled by the fact that from the Front Bench opposite we had a speech from a member of the Labour party (Mr. Clynes) which displayed width of outlook and a sound appreciation of the great interests concerned in these matters, which shows that there is some sanity in that party. Take the final observation of the last speaker. £100,000 is to be guaranteed by the Government to assist

165
this exhibition, and the hon. Member suggests that we should apply that sum of money to a particular object. The object he named may be a very good one, but he would rather expend the money not in extending our trade but in giving one more dole to pauperise our population.
Mr. MILLS: Is the giving of a pension to Lord Balfour of Burleigh pauperising?
Colonel GREIG: I do not see that that has anything to do with the matter. It is said that this is an imperialistic design, because it is confined to the British Empire.
Mr. SPENCER: It says so in the memorandum.
Colonel GREIG: Why should not the British Empire have its own exhibition? Why should our Colonies not combine with us in showing what the British Empire can do? The British Empire may not be able to sustain itself entirely without imports from outside, but we may learn in the first instance how we can develop what we have within the Empire. Hon. Members opposite say that all we are interested in is in getting a good standard of wages at home.
Mr. SPENCER: Will the hon. Member quote us correctly. We did not say anything about wages, but the standard of living.
Colonel GREIG: The hon. Member can see in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow whether I am quoting correctly or not. If any people stand to gain by such an exhibition as this, if it does what it is intended to do, and what I believe it will do, namely, to extend our trade, it is the people who call themselves the working classes. By far the greater portion of the return on trade and commerce goes in wages to the working classes, and the more we extend our trade within the Empire and outside the Empire the better will it be for all those objects of internationalism to which hon. Members opposite pay so much lip service, but which when it comes to a test question like this they do not understand.
Mr. KELLAWAY: I do not rise to reply to the point of view put by hon. Members opposite, but to answer certain questions which were put to me. As regards the tone of the discussion, I am certain that when hon. Members opposite read their
166
speeches to-morrow they would far rather that the Labour cause stood by the speech of the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) than by the unfortunate and sterile policy which they represent. In reply to the hon. Member for White-chapel (Mr. Kiley) I may say that there are no private interests in the exhibition in the sense that private manufacturers are going to profit by the exhibition. Any profit made on the exhibition will go to some public purpose or charity. The management of the exhibition will be in the hands of a committee which must be approved by the Government, and the members of that committee are the High Commissioners and Agents General of the different dominions and colonies, with representatives of the Government. It is only if the £500,000 is provided by these public-spirited men that the Government guarantee of £100,000 will come into operation.
Mr. KILEY: Are any of the Dominion Governments contributing towards this sum? If so, that will influence me very considerably.
Mr. KELLAWAY: I regret that that should influence my hon. Friend. After all, this exhibition is being held in London, and a good part of this £500,000, I am confident, will be provided by Colonial interests. Is it not rather ungrateful to be unwilling, in regard to a great project of this character, to provide a small guarantee like this? The prime benefit of this is not going to big capital; it is going to the producers of this country, and from it none will benefit more than the constituents of the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Spencer), who has opposed it.
10.0 P.M.
Mr. LAWSON: I want to support what has been described as the unfortunate attitude of some members of the party with which I am proud to be associated. If this was an expenditure which was calculated to aid the interests of the Empire as we understood it until a few years ago, probably some of us would support the expenditure, but the unfortunate thing to-day is that we do not quite know what hon. Members mean by "Empire" when they speak of it. It has come to mean too often that interested persons shall exploit the labour of coloured people under conditions which are not at all to the liking of British workers. We have

167
that clearly exemplified in the attitude of certain hon. Gentlemen, who, when there is any expenditure proposed in this House, urge economy if the money is to be spent on social objects, but declare that the money would be well spent if the outlay proposed is for the expansion and development of the interests of what they call the Empire. If you talk of an Empire of people who are heartily cooperating as a series of commonwealths, as, for instance, during the various stages of the War, that is one thing, but the British Empire is coming to mean something altogether different, and I, for one, am not going to support expenditure for such ideals of Empire. One of the things I do not like about this is that the money is going into the hands of a certain number of private people. I know there are conditions attached to it. If you believe in private ownership and in the spirit of individualism, carry out your doctrine and do not come to the State for any aid. Have the Dominions asked for the exhibition? I think financial circles in the city of London are largely responsible for this request.
Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Where is the exhibition to be held—at the White City or at the Crystal Palace? Are the mandated territories to be invited to the exhibition? Is Mesopotamia, for example, to be asked to contribute to its sense of the greatness of the Empire? Are the Sheiks at Kut-el-Amara and else where going to send us specimens of the natural products of their districts?
Mr. KELLAWAY: On the last point the hon. and gallant Member has better sources of information than I. The exhibition will be held in London.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

SEEDS BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill seeks to make permanent an important change which took place during the War, under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations, and which really introduced what was of great advantage
168
from the agricultural point of view. Under those Regulations a Seed Testing Station was set up in this country, and Regulations were made compelling the powers of agricultural seeds to disclose the varieties of the seeds and their purity and percentage of germination. Very great beneficial results ensued. There can be no doubt that before this was done a great deal of impure seed, containing weeds, and so on, was sold in this country to the great disadvantage of farmers, allotment-holders, and others. Following up what was done, we propose to make this plan permanent. In doing so we have the support not only of the entire agricultural interest, but also of the members of the seed trade, who have played an exceedingly patriotic and public-spirited part in this matter. England in this particular question has lagged behind the rest of the world. Other countries have had seed testing stations for many years. Denmark was the first, and there they set up a seed testing station fifty years ago, and they have also been set up in Germany, Switzerland, France, and other countries. Ireland, in the United Kingdom, set up a seed testing station twenty years ago with compulsory regulations, and Scotland followed suit shortly before the War, though there were no compulsory regulations, as they trusted the good sense of the Scottish farmer. During the War we set up a seed testing station under the Regulations.
Let me give the House one example of the good of that station. During the acute crisis of the submarine campaign the Food Production Department imported cargoes of seed oats from Ireland. In one case, owing to the difficulty of shipping, time was not allowed for a test to be taken in Ireland. It was tested on arrival here, and it was found that only 30 per cent. of the whole consignment would germinate. The result was that that particular cargo was sold for forage, and the House will realise what damage would have been done if that seed had not been tested. This seed-testing station has been in operation for three years. Our present powers terminate with the conclusion of peace, and we think it wise to have permanent powers. We propose that every seller of seeds shall give a certificate containing particulars of purity and germination, and there are penalties if that is not done or if it is

169
improperly done. We also make it illegal for any seed to be sold which has more than a prescribed percentage of injurious weeds. We take powers for inspection and testing. Some hon. Members may say, "Here you are once again proposing a large staff of inspectors and bureaucrats." I may say this work has been done, and satisfactorily done, during the last three years by five inspectors, and I do not think it will be necessary to increase that number, or, at all events, only very slightly. We take powers to set up in England what they already have in Scotland and Ireland and most foreign countries—a seed-testing station. When we compel the issue of certificates of purity there must be an official place where the seeds can be tested. We have got a temporary seed testing station now, and we propose to make it permanent. We do not propose to interfere in any way with the existing seed-testing station in Scotland or Ireland. At the same time we take powers to enable the English and Welsh Department, and the Scottish Department, or the English and Irish Departments, or all three, if they are willing to do so, to set up one great seed-testing station for the whole of the United Kingdom.
I very much hope that may be carried out. At the present time we are in the ridiculous position that if English seeds-men wish to export their seed they send their samples to Zurich and get the Zurich test for their seed. If we can only have one central seed-testing station with the reputation that Zurich has in this country, I am sure it would be of great advantage to the trade of the United Kingdom. We hope that this may possibly happen at Cambridge. There has lately been set up at Cambridge a great institution called the National Institution of Agricultural Botany. It has been started largely by private funds, by the munificence of people who recognise the importance of the application of science to agriculture and wish to assist the elevation of the general standard of agriculture in this country. It has been started recently, and to that body we pro pose to delegate the seed testing under this Bill. If that is done and the institution flourishes, as we hope it will—it commands already some of the greatest scientists in this country, such as Prof. Biffen—we can establish here a seed-testing station which will be worthy of
170
the station at Zurich or other well-known stations on the Continent.
This is practically an agreed Bill. Its sole object is to improve the cultivation of this country to ensure that not only the farmer, but also the small man, the smallholder, and cultivator of an allotment garden gets really good seed when he purchases. At the present time they are liable, especially the smaller man who cultivates an allotment, to be fobbed off with exceedingly indifferent seed. The Bill is supported by the agricultural community. It is supported by the Seeds Advisory Committee of the Ministry on which the trade is largely represented. It is supported by the great seeds trade association, and, lastly, it is supported strongly by the Consumers' Council at the Ministry of Food, who are particularly interested in the work of allotment holders; and inasmuch as it is a Bill which will cost a very small sum of money, and that it is merely carrying out what has successfully been done in the last three years, and will make for better cultivation, especially in giving the smaller man a chance, I hope the House will give it a Second Reading as quickly as possible.
Captain Sir BEVILLE STANIER: I do not rise in any way to criticise the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House for the Second Reading this evening because I am one of those who for over 12 years have been asking for this very Bill. We ought to know a little more as to what the cost of this seed station will be and whether it will be limited to the Financial Resolution, because at the present moment I am very deeply interested in this Ministry of Agriculture in trying to find out if we can economise a little. I find that in the Ministry the number of typewriters and the number of second-class clerks and other people is increasing by leaps and bounds. The right hon. Gentleman has told us we shall want five inspectors, but he did not tell us of the innumerable clerks and other people who will be wanted to count the seeds and analyse them.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: My hon. Friend does not realise that this work is going on now, and that we are merely asking to make permanent what is now being done.
Sir B. STANIER: I am perfectly aware of what is going on now, but what I want

171
to know is what is going to be the increase in this Department. The right hon. Gentleman proposes that the present arrangement should go to Cambridge, and therefore there will be a new station created and a large staff to carry out that work. We want the work done, but we want to know how much it will cost. At Cambridge will it be a station isolated by itself under the control of the Ministry, or will it be under the control of the University? I know that the seed that is being used, not only by the allotment holder, but also by the farmer, has been very badly adulterated in many cases. I have had seed myself badly adulterated, and I know we want this station and am glad to see the Bill brought forward, but I think we ought to have full information about it.
Major W. MURRAY: Whilst quite agreeing with the last speaker that this Bill is very much wanted, there is one point arising on Sub-section 7 of Clause 4 which requires mentioning. Under that Sub-section very wide powers are given to the Minister in connection with the black list to be formed under this Bill. He can apparently put anyone on to it without the need of conviction. I was disappointed that my right hon. Friend did not refer to this question and explain the Clause, but I hope he will be able to consider favourably an Amendment when the Bill goes to Committee.
Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I cannot say I will consider favourably, but I will consider any Amendment that is put down by my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member. In regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Sir B. Stanier), I propose to-morrow to bring forward a financial resolution, when I hope to be able to give a complete answer to his question.
Mr. D. HERBERT: This Bill has been welcomed so much by people engaged in agriculture that I am not going to discuss that side of the question, but it seems to me that this is just exactly one of those apparently beneficent undertakings being started by the Government which ought to be paid for by those who are going to get the benefit of it. I see nothing in this Bill which provides for any fees being charged for the work that is going to be done by these testing stations, and it seems to me that this is
172
eminently a case where a charge should be made.
Colonel GRETTON: Hon. and right hon. Members are very apt to be misled as to the technical difficulties of testing seeds. As a matter of fact, it is a very simple operation, and is done every day by those who are used to it, and are not scientific or highly instructed persons. There is no mystification about it, and there need be no very great cost. I want to press upon the right hon. Gentleman who brought in the Bill to look more closely into the work, and see whether it is possible to keep down the cost to the public. There is no reason for a great expenditure in a matter of this kind. The Bill should be of great benefit.
Dr. MURRAY: How is it that they can do this sort of thing in Scotland without an Act of Parliament, whereas in England they require an Act of Parliament for it? That point has not been sufficiently explained.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

AIR NAVIGATION BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Churchill): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is not only a matter of national interest, but of international interest. It is the Parliamentary embodiment of the Air Navigation Convention, which was signed at Paris on the 13th October last year. This Convention was the result of long and laborious conferences, at which a great number of States were represented, and most of the States represented at the Convention have signed it to the number of over 30, including the self-governing Dominions, which rank for this purpose as separate States. It is probable—indeed, it is almost certain—that the volume and structure of air navigation laws, which are embodied in this Convention, will attract to themselves the remaining States, and will thereby become the governing air navigation laws for the whole world. The passage of the Bill in every country is necessary to enable the

173
ratification of the Convention to be made. The basic principles of the Convention are simple. In the first place, it is framed on the assumption that complete territorial sovereignty shall be asserted by each Power over the air space over its own territory. Subject to this, there shall be mutual undertakings for freedom of aerial passage in times of peace for the aircraft from other places. To carry this out, this, Convention provides International Rules, which have been elaborated in great detail. Amongst other things, there is the registration of aircraft, certificates as to air-worthiness, ruins for navigating the air, rules affecting the qualifications of pilots, customs rules, etc. It is quite clear that aviation is in such a rapid and continuous transition that it will be quite impossible to embody rules governing its development once and for all in any cast-iron code; therefore a special feature of this legislation is the setting up of a Permanent Commission, composed of representatives of the contracting States, and this Commission is empowered, subject to the basic principle of the legislation, and of the Convention, to alter from time to time the technical annexes of the Convention in step with the march of aviation.
There are certain other general provisions of the Bill, in addition to the obligations of the Convention, which consolidates the powers contained in pre-existing measured dealing with aviation. The present Bill deals with somewhat special points which draw attention to the general question of aviation. For instance, local authorities are not at present empowered to establish and maintain aerodromes. Many of them desire to do so. In some cases they have promoted Private Bills to secure this power. Civil aviation would benefit, and there would be a real partnership in peace time from the fact that in the neighbourhood of the great cities and centres of population there would be convenient landing grounds. This Bill proposes to give the local authorities power to acquire land for the purpose of aerodromes by voluntary agreement. The law of trespass and damage is investigated and dealt with in this Bill. Hitherto there has been no definite principles in regard to air trespass or damage done except by aircraft. The provisions of the Bill substantially follow the recommendations of
174
the Aerial Transport Committee of 1918, which aims at reconciling the rights of landowners in the superincumbent air following on organisation for civil aviation by abolishing actions for mere aerial trespass—that is to say, aeroplanes flying over the ground owned by the landowner—and to substitute instead absolute liability by the owners of aircraft to compensate injured persons on the ground without any question of proof of negligence. This question was closely examined during the passage of the Bill in another place. Indeed, I should have mentioned earlier to the House that this measure has been carefully and laboriously examined at the other end of the passage, and comes down to us with the imprimatur of the House of Lords.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No royalty in the air!
Mr. CHURCHILL: We are not only challenging, but even abolishing that. We preserve the right of the individual on the ground to some protection from objects which may descend from the superincumbent air. In its present form the Air Ministry consider that the balance is held reasonably between the interests of civil aviation on the one hand, and the rights and remedies of the ordinary civilian on the other. There is also a provision dealing with criminal jurisdiction, for crimes committed in the air, whether in your own country or by your own subjects over other countries, or over the sea between the countries. There is no provision at present for dealing with such occurrences. Such is a brief, and I hope a temporary survey of the main provisions of this important aerial Convention. I should like to say, that while I doubt very much whether there can be any just cause of controversy about the principle of this measure, there may reasonably be considerable ground for difference in regard to matters of detail. We do not propose to ask the House to dispose of this measure before the end of the year. There are lots of very intricate points connected with the liabilities of individuals and the principles of aerial navigation which would undoubtedly profit by the detailed consideration of a Committee of this House. I suggest that the House should approve the principle of the Convention by giving

175
this measure a Second Reading, and the matter will then be free for remission to a Committee upstairs as soon as we meet again in the Autumn, when it can then be made the subject of detailed examination. I hope the House will accept these few words of introduction as sufficient for hon. Members to give a decision on the broad principle upon which the Bill is based.
Sir D. MACLEAN: As the Secretary of State for War has truly said it would be unadvisable to hurry the stages of this most important Bill, and I join with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that the Committee stage of the investigation of the various Clauses of this measure will be undertaken with a due sense of responsibility, and the very important commencement we are now making in regard to the regulation of aerial navigation. Nobody can look back upon the history of the development of the railways of this country without realising how short-sighted Parliament and public authorities were as to the future of our railways. It is no exaggeration to say that many of the most acute of our inconveniences in regard to the termini and the junctions of our great railways are very largely due to lack of foresight on the part of Parliament and the various authorities concerned.
Therefore I think it is very wise to start by a Convention. Air navigation is an international affair as distinguished from our railway system. Some amusement was created by what the Secretary of State referred to as trespass. Technically everything that flies over any piece of ground without the permission of the owner has committed a trespass. Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum, et ad inferos. That has been swept on one side by the practical necessities of the case. There are very many important matters that arise on it. It is not a question affecting large landowners alone. Men holding very small bits of land have rights which have to be considered in connection with nuisances that undoubtedly will arise. The public interest must prevail, while the rights and privileges of individual owners, small or great, are safeguarded. That will be in the public interest as a whole and I am sure if the Committee, rightly chosen, settles down to its work—not in too great a hurry—
176
and consider it in a proper sense of perspective as to the future and what the plans of to-day may mean to the future—if it deals with it in a broad way with the expert knowledge which it can always have at its disposal it will produce a sound, sensible and fruitful piece of legislative work for this country.
Colonel GREIG: No doubt many hon. Members like myself have received communications in reference to this Bill. I am glad to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it that in Committee it will be open to us to go into many details, especially on the Clause dealing with trespass and the possibility of damage. It is a most important and complicated Clause, and I hope it may be possible to meet the objections which some people entertain to it at the present moment. Another Clause which we shall have to consider is the one enabling local authorities to set up aerodromes with their accessories. There is a very important Sub-section in that Clause which gives a local authority providing an aerodrome power to carry on in connection therewith any subsidiary business ancillary to the carrying on of the aerodrome. We shall have to consider that in Committee and safeguard it, because such a power may throw an additional burden on the ratepayers. With regard to the Bill as a whole, even although we may have objection to it in detail, its principle is such that I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is not often I have the pleasure of welcoming any measure brought in by the Secretary of State for War, but I most heartily welcome this one. My only regret is that it was not brought in months ago. I sent a copy of this Bill to a very distinguished airman, and he replied as follows:
"Very many thanks. Anything you can do to hurry on this Bill "—
I do not know what power he thought I had to hurry on Bills—
"will be appreciated by all the aerial world. It has been in abeyance for months, and this is the root of the slow progress of civil aviation."
I speak with great diffidence on aerial matters, but I gather, especially from those who are engaged in civil aviation—in the manufacture of aeroplanes and in commercial aviation—that there have

177
been complaints at the delay in bringing in this Bill. I dare say there is good reason for the delay, but the Committee which sat to deal with the whole question of civil aviation did so in the spring, and I must say that, if what I gather be true, the Air Ministry have been very remiss in regard to putting the findings of that Committee into effect. It is a great pity, and we may have lost ground which we shall find it difficult to regain. The only explanation I can suggest is that the right hon. Gentleman has been too much engaged in other matters which are not his real concern, and has not been able to pay attention to his legitimate duties in this matter.
I welcome this Bill for another reason, which is of some importance. The hold over aeroplanes in every country is very rigid. They have to be well registered, and so on, and if this form of legislation is going, as the right hon. Gentleman hopes, and as I hope, to be the model for the different nations of the world, the very fact that aeroplances have to come into a new set of regulations, whenever they cross a frontier, will do more to break down artificial frontiers than anything else. The very fact that there are these regulations—in most cases of necessity—and that, during a flight, say, from here to India, perhaps a dozen or fifteen countries will have to be crossed, will do more to bring about real, practical internationalism than anything else. Hon. Members who read this Bill will visualise similar Bills in a dozen different languages, and the unfortunate aviator taking long-distance flights, as he will shortly be able to do, will have to be acquainted with them all. That will lead to a great hope for the carrying into effect of the real, practical international idea.
Civil aviation in this country certainly needs all the assistance it can get. The right hon. Gentleman told us that it had to fly by itself, and so on, but it does need some help from the Government. I may be permitted to tell the House that one firm already is engaged in regular flights between London, Paris and Brussels; that in the first year it has carried 4,400 passengers and 68,000 lbs. weight of goods, and that it has flown 100,000 miles. That is on a purely commercial basis. It shows that something can be done, and that a start has
178
been made. Apart from that, however, it is hanging fire. It is not attracting capital. I do not want to go into the various reasons for that, but whatever they are it does really need Government encouragement. I am sorry to see that aeroplanes which might have been utilised—some of those war machines which are best suited for commercial purposes, such as the Handley-Page bombers—are being sent to Danzig at the present time, instead of being used for commercial aviation in this country. I mention that as showing what the using of our limited aeroplanes in ventures means to the country.
I want to touch on one or two of the hampering conditions for civil aviation at present. There is an aerodrome near my constituency which has been used to a limited extent, and a few flights have taken place from the neighbourhood of Hull to Holland, purely on commercial lines, and they brought back cargoes of clothing and dyes and so on, articles of great intrinsic value for small weight. These aeroplanes have got to fly, first of all, from Hull to Lympne. There is an aerodrome there at the same place where the Conference is sitting to decide whether we are to plunge into a fresh twenty years' war or not. The official reason given by the Air Ministry is that they cannot limit the aeroplanes to fly over the North Sea. I put it to them that there is not very much more risk, after all, in flying across the North coast of England to Holland than from skirting the coast and flying across the Channel. If the men like to take the risk and insurance companies care to insure them, that is their business, and they do not want to be dry-nursed in that way. The remedy would be to appoint local customs officers at these different stations, and when the municipal aerodromes are established I think that will be found to be a necessity. There will have to be in each municipal aerodrome one or two local officials who could avoid that great delay and that great detour. I am talking now of a very practical commercial proposition which has been put in operation and has been much hampered by the present rather archaic Regulations. That brings me to the great danger of the possibility of too much red tape strangling the industry. It wants Government encourage-

179
ment, and yet it does not want grandmotherly supervision or Government officials. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is not in favour of red tape, and I hope he will turn his energies from more dangerous courses into seeing that there is no hampering bureaucratic form of red tape and so on to check the development of air navigation.
I am one of the few who think the whole future of the country lies in the air, and I make no apology for spending a few moments on one or two points connected with it, though I feel myself ill-fitted to deal with so technical a question, but, nevertheless, I give my observations for what they are worth, and I hope they may be of value. One way of really encouraging civil aviation would be by the formation of a strong aerial reserve. If the mechanics at the municipal aerodromes and the pilots flying in commercial companies were enrolled as a matter of course, just as the officers and most of the seamen in our great shipping lines are as a matter of course members of the Royal Naval Reserve, that alone would do much to help on civil aviation. It would keep the men together, and it would be something in the way of a subsidy, and, furthermore, it would encourage young men to go into the Air Service. A year ago I might have said that I hoped we would be well on the way to general disarmament. I am afraid the actions of this Government have made that a dream for many years to come. They have let us in for an era of wars and strife. Hon. Members may treat the matter lightly, but I take it seriously. Perhaps I am pessimistic. But an efficient and flourishing aviation service in this country, and the development of civil aviation in every way, is of the very first importance, if for no other reason than the need of a great reserve of trained airmen and trained mechanics. For that reason I welcome this Bill.
I do not know whether I would be in order in saying one word about the rival claims of aeroplanes and lighter-than-air ships. I do not wish to pursue the matter in detail, but I do wish to say that I believe the people, especially in Germany, who are pinning their faith to the super-Zeppelin are entirely on the wrong tack. I was very sorry indeed to see the advertisement flight of one of the great dirigibles over London the other day. I have
180
no interest one way or the other, but I do feel that the rigid lighter-than-air ship was simply a passing phase, while the aeroplane engine was an uncertain factor. Just as the sailing vessel has given way to the steam vessel, so I think the lighter-than-air Zeppelin with its many disadvantages, will give way to the aeroplane. I think the money we are spending on rigids to-day might be much better spent—without subsidies, of course—in encouraging and helping civil aviation.
11.0 P.M.
If any Member of the Government is going to reply, I would like to ask him one question. I see in Clause 4 that not only the Dominions, which the right hon. Gentleman said were treated as separate nations, are left out of this Bill, therefore confining its provisions to the Crown Colonies and Protectorates, but also any territories mandated to those Dominions. The question I should like to put is, Do the mandated territories not belonging to the Dominions, mandated to this country, come into the provisions of this Bill? It is just an interesting point. I do not know whether it raises any particular point of international law. Personally I think the whole fabric of mandates is dissolved, but I should like to know whether a mandated territory, especially that of Mesopotamia, is included, and, if so, whether we are entirely in order under the law of the Covenant of the League of Nations in including it. I can see the advantages, but I would like to know if the opinion of the Law Officers has been sought on the point, or whether this provision will be in any way submitted to the Secretariat of the League. I raise it in no spirit of hostility, although the whole system of mandate is a reproach and a stain. This Bill is of first-rate importance, and I am extremely disappointed that we have to wait until the autumn. I hope it will get a quick passage then, and that it will be improved.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I am in no way opposed to the Bill, but I hope that in Committee the ordinary householder will be more completely protected than at the present time against people who for amusement or otherwise come dangerously near their houses in flying to and fro. There is also the question of municipal trading. I hope certain limits will be imposed.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Those are matters for the Committee stage.

DUPLICANDS OF FEU DUTIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. C. D. Murray): I beg to move "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

DUPLICANDS OF FEU DUTIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Interpretation of "duplication of feu-duty.")
  Where under any feu provision is made for payment of a duplication of the feu-duty on the entry of an heir or singular successor, or on any periodical occasion, such payment shall be deemed to be the amount of one year's feu-duty only over and above the feu-duty for the year.
  Lords Amendments:
  Leave out the word "is," and insert instead thereof "has been."
  After the word "shall," insert "unless in a feu right it is otherwise declared to the contrary."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Duplicands to include feu-duty of the year.)
  From and after the commencement of this Act, where under any feu it is provided that on the entry of an heir or singular successor, or on any periodical occasion, payment shall be made of a duplicand or double of the feu-duty, or that the feu-duty sholl be doubled, such payment, whether or not it is provided to be made at the same term or terms as the feu-duty, shall be deemed to be inclusive of the feu-duty for the year, and the amount of the casualty payable to the superior shall, for the purposes of the Feudal Casualties (Scotland) Act, 1914, and for all other purposes, be deemed to be the amount of one year's feu-duty only, unless such payment is expressed to be over and above such feu-duty or is otherwise unequivocally declared not to include the feu-duty of the year.
  Lords Amendment:
  After the word "any" ["any periodical occasion"] insert "specified."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Commencement of Act.)
  This Act shall be deemed to have commenced and come into operation on the fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, and all money paid since the fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and nineteen, in name of duplicand, duplication, or double which would not have been exigible in respect of this Act shall be recoverable at law.
  Lords Amendment:
  Leave out Clause 6.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. C. D. Murray.]
  Mr. JAMESON: As I introduced this Bill may I appeal to hon. Members who backed the Bill to support our agreement with the Lords Amendment? This is an important Amendment, which takes out the retrospective Clause and deals with a blemish which fell under censure in Committee. The Clause as originally framed was logical, but there was this argument against it, that it was a hardship that people should have to pay back money which they had received in good faith, and which they were entitled to receive and expect. Accordingly we accept this Amendment, and as it is of prime interest that this Bill should pass and that we should take advantage of the facilities which have been granted by the Government, I urge the backers of the Bill to assent to the Amendment.

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill in its original form was founded on the Report of the Town Holdings Committee, which, in 1899, recommended
"That it is most desirable on public grounds that all religious bodies should be enabled to obtain a secure tenure of places of worship and schools, and they consider that the freeholder who has granted land for such a purpose has no good reason to object to its being so held in perpetuity on his receiving the value of his interest. They therefore recommend that all religious

183
bodies to whom land has been granted on lease by the freeholder for the erection of their places of worship and schools should be empowered to purchase the fee subject to the payment of fair compensation."
Let me refer briefly to the history of this matter. A Bill having the same objects as this Bill was read a Second time in this House in 1891, by a majority of 108, with support from both sides of the House; and again in 1892, when the Second Reading was carried by a majority of 119. It was introduced once more in 1893, supported strongly by both sides of the House, and passed without a Division. It also passed through Standing Committee. In the year 1909 the Bill was introduced as a Government Measure. It was read a Second time, without a Division, in the House of Lords in 1910, and passed through all its stages in that House in 1911 and 1912. It was read a Second time, without a Division, in this House in 1914, and was carried through Standing Committee. It was then understood that the Bishoprics Bill and this Bill were to be passed pari passu, but in consequence of a misunderstanding the first Bill was passed, and the second was not.
The grievance which places of worship exhibit when they are built on land of leasehold tenure is one that is felt by the Free Churches in all parts of England and Wales. When the Bill was introduced in the year 1903, it was stated that within the preceding half-century, in London alone, at least fifty Congregational chapels had ceased to exist, the land, and sometimes the buildings, having been devoted to trading purposes. I am informed that every other denomination has suffered in the same way. There is now a larger number than ever of chapels built upon land of leasehold tenure which will fall sooner or later into the hands of the ground landlords, unless the sites be enfranchised. There was mentioned, as an example of the chapels threatened with extinction, a large chapel in a densely crowded working-class quarter, erected 50 years ago at a cost of £5,000 accommodating 1,000 people, with a 60 years' lease, at a £50 annual ground rent.
Some years ago the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association took Carnarvonshire as a typical Welsh county, and an exhaustive inquiry showed that half of the total number of chapels in that county were built upon land of leasehold tenure. Evidence was given before the Town
184
Holdings Committee to show that 17 chapels at Blaenau Festiniog had been built on leasehold land at a cost of £37,000, but in some cases the landlords had refused to sell the freeholds of these chapels; that in the Holyhead district, out of 21 chapels, 16 were held on leasehold tenure, and that many chapels on one estate were held on a 30 years' lease. In a single Welsh parish 20 chapels and one schoolroom were built, at a cost of more than £45,000, on leasehold land. At least eight chapels were built on a 30 years' lease. In one case the trustees of a chapel, at a cost of £3,000, had been compelled to build on a 30 years' lease, and when a further sum of £2,000 had been spent upon it, the lease was renewed for a period of another 30 years only. The report of the General Assembly of the Calvinistic Methodists of Wales for the year 1883 Showed that 347 of their chapels had been built on leasehold land, and their total value was then £366,946. By the year 1900, seven per cent. of these leases were bound to expire, and the value of the chapels built upon that land was £15,000. The leases expiring in 1925 represented, according to that report, 17 per cent. of the whole, and the value of the chapels built upon the land was £45,000. The leases expiring in 1950 represented 29 per cent of the whole, the value of the chapels being £94,000. The value of the chapels built on leasehold land of which the leases must expire within 57 years from the date of the report was £154,000. Since that time a largo number of chapels have been erected on property of leasehold tenure, because no freehold land could be obtained for the purpose. The result is now that in the case of this body, only one of four religious bodies in Wales holds property to the value of £730,000 in buildings which are built upon land on leasehold tenure.
These figures show, I think, that the grievance this Bill is intended to meet is not diminishing, but that it is, on the contrary, a rapidly growing grievance, making the passage of this Bill, which has so often been approved on former occasions, a matter of urgent necessity. Parliament has repeatedly recognised that it is not just that the landlord should have the power of forfeiting these buildings at the end of the term, and, apart from the financial injustice involved, it is not fitting that any individual

185
should have any hold or undue influence over a congregation or its members, owing to the fact that he owns the land on which the chapel was built.
In many cases, I ought to add, landlords have acted generously and considerately, but there are also cases in which they have not; so acted. For example, at Newport, Monmouthshire, the trustees of a Wesleyan chapel, with 23 years of the term unexpired, on asking for a renewal were told that they must surrender the old lease, and at once begin to pay £100 a year instead of £8 4s. In Liverpool a large chapel was built over 40 years a go on a lease of 75 years, at a ground rent of £48 per annum. When the congregation approached the owner of the site with the object of purchasing the freehold, they were told that no such proposal could be entertained. At Sheffield there is a Wesleyan chapel where the landowner offered to grant a renewal lease provided that the people surrendered the old one fourteen years before it expired, and at once began to pay £100 a year ground rent instead of £8 16s.
There are no doubt many cases of this kind, and perhaps wonder is that there are not more. Where the 60 or 75 or 99 years of the lease have expired whatever priority there may have been originally between the leasor and lessees, has ceased to exist, and the owner may, and frequently does, regard the ownership of the place of worship in the same light as that of any other building. On a former occasion there was exhibited a list prepared by the Wesleyan Methodist Church, showing their leasehold properties, and indicating the urgent need for the Bill. In a large number of cases the leases have not much longer to run, and on many of the pieces of land valuable buildings have been erected by voluntary subscriptions, such as churches, halls, schoolrooms, ministers' and caretakers' houses, for which property the only security is, the short remaining term of the lease, and, beyond that nothing but good will. I ought to add that the trustees of the chapels could not help themselves, as the only terms on which they were able to get land at all were the leasehold terms. No doubt, to some extent they relied on the generosity of landlords to see to it that the buildings would not be diverted to other uses at the end of the terms. In this connection it ought to be remembered that estates fre-
186
quently change hands, and it is of course impossible to guarantee that the landlord into whose hands the sites come will necessarily be sympathetic. From those facts, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Mr. RAWLINSON: It is an odd thing to introduce a Bill of this importance at a quarter past eleven at this time of the Session. It could have been introduced earlier. The Attorney-General has put the matter from a somewhat one-sided point of view, but he must be aware that the question has been discussed in this House, not once, but dozens and dozens of times, and he has put forward no reasons why the landlords in these particular cases should be treated differently from any others. A very strong case can be made out against ground landlords at all when you have building leases of 50 or 90 years, or in the cases he has referred to of 30 years, and at the end of the term the building on the land becomes the property of the landlord. It is a great injustice, as everyone who advises tenants knows. I cannot be accused of lack of sympathy for religious denominations, but why should a schoolhouse, or hall, or minister's house be put in a different position from other people who take these leases? Of course the landlord when he granted the building lease could have chosen to give a longer lease, or if he thought right need not have done so; but in those cases the Bill says the landlord should not receive any payment for the buildings at all, but he should sell the land on the terms indicated in the Bill. There may be a good deal to be said against the landlord system, but a Bill of this kind deals piecemeal in this way with a subject which has been controverted frequently before. I should be sorry to be a protagonist in this discussion, but it is rather a strong matter to bring this before the House at this time of the Session. I do not know if the Government intends to take any further steps in this Bill before the end of this part of the Session.
Sir G. HEWART: We shall not do more than take the Second Reading to-night.
Mr. RAWLINSON: What I want to know is whether it is proposed to take more than this stage of the Bill before the adjournment for the Recess.
Sir G. HEWART: I should hope that we might get it before the House rises.
Sir F. BANBURY: There is a great deal which the Attorney-General has left unsaid about this Bill. In the first place, it breaks contracts. Certain people having entered into a contract to take a piece of land on a 50 years' lease, on the understanding that at the end of the 50 years the land and buildings on it are to be returned to the owner, that contract is to be broken to the advantage of one person and to the disadvantage of the other. Nothing could be worse than that. Then it must not be forgotten that under this Bill it may be very easy for a person entering into a lease for 20 years on the ground that he is going to build a place of worship, and then, having built the place of worship, he obtains the freehold. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent him using it then for quite another purpose. True, the supporters of the Bill have said that in Committee they will agree to a Clause which shall prevent that. It will be a difficult Clause to arrange, but as it stands at present, there is nothing to prevent people, under the disguise of purchasing property for a religious purpose, as soon as they have got the freehold, having broken the contract, from using the building for another purpose. The Attorney-General talked about the Bill not having been passed owing to a certain bargain with regard to the Bishopric of Sheffield Bill. There was no misunderstanding; there was a nefarious bargain entered into between certain members of the Church of England and certain dissenters. The members of the Church of England wanted to get the Bishopric of Sheffield Bill passed, but the Dissenters said they would not allow them to pass it after 11 p.m. unless they would give them the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Bill. I was appealed to and said I would not enter into any such arrangement, that the Bishopric of Sheffield Bill was either a good or a bad Bill and ought to be passed or opposed on its merits. The result was that eventually the Bishopric of Sheffield Bill was passed, and the other Bill, as the arrangement had never been carried out, was not passed. That is the true history of the Bill. Now at the last moment the Government have taken the matter up and starred the Bill. Whenever the Committee stage comes on
188
it will want to be carefully watched and Clauses put in to prevent what I have indicated as possible. I am sorry the system of a contract being entered into, and then, because it turns out disadvantageously to one of the parties, being broken by legislation in Parliament, is growing. This seems to be a process which appeals to the Front Bench.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I gather from the remarks of the right hon. Baronet that he does not intend to press his opposition to the Second Reading, and I only hope that the Second Reading will be carried, because the proposals in this Bill, subject, of course, as they will be, to careful scrutiny in Committee, are just proposals. With regard to what my right hon. Friend has just said as to the breaking of contracts, well, contracts are broken every day.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry for it.
Sir D. MACLEAN: My right hon. Friend is not sorry that some contracts into which he himself has entered were broken. My right hon. Friend has treated this question exactly as if it were a commercial undertaking, and at the end of the time, having run its commercial career, it ought in all justice and fairness to revert to the original grantor of the lease. It is not at all the same thing. The lease was granted by the original lessor on the understanding that it was for religious purposes, and the lessor certainly never had in his mind that at the end of 50 or 90 years it should come into a commercial operation of that kind. I am certain in 999 cases out of 1,000 if the original lessor had the opportunity of dealing with that plot of land at the end of the lease he himself granted, he would renew it upon the old terms, and what he intended, and what public right and justice demand, is really what this Bill seeks to do. I quite agree the Bill is drafted in a form which quite obviously raises some points which certainly ought to be dealt with in Committee, but the question of compensation is clearly contemplated in the Clauses as they stand. I am quite sure that the sense of fairness in this House will not allow any provision to pass which, while giving what the Bill really asks for, ought not to do an injustice to the lessors or their representatives.
Sir R. NEWMAN: I agree it is very important that we should respect contracts, but I would point out to the right hon. Baronet that this is entirely different from an ordinary contract; it is really a question of the religious well-being of the people, and I really think we might all support the Second Reading without in any way compromising our position with respect to any secular agreement that might be arrived at between one party and another. I think the Attorney-General pointed out quite clearly and distinctly the only injustice which might arise would be the case of a landlord who really disregarded the spiritual well-being of the people. Personally, I do not think the average landlord would desire to divert a house or land from religious purposes to secure a commercial benefit out of it. I think landlords of that sort are very few and far between, and I think we might pass this Motion unanimously.
Major MOLSON: While being perfectly in agreement with this Bill, I think we should understand from the Attorney-General whether or not it is going to be rushed through in the last two or three days of the Session.
Sir G. HEWART: No, no; certainly not!
Major MOLSON: Then I am quite content.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 3) BILL.
Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.
Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 3) BILL.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Extension of Right to Vote by Proxy).
  (1) Section twenty-three of the principal Act shall have effect as though the following Sub-section were substituted for Sub-section (4) thereof:—
  "(4) Any person whose name is entered on the absent voters list, on satisfying the Registration Officer as to the
  190
  bona fides of the statement that there is a probability that such person will at the time of a parliamentary election be at sea or out of the United Kingdom, shall be entitled if he so desires to appoint a proxy, and having appointed a proxy to vote by proxy in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act.
  "No ballot paper shall be sent for the purpose of voting by post to a person who has appointed a proxy under this provision while the appointment is in force, or to any person unless the address of that person recorded by the registration officer is an address in the United Kingdom.
  "The provisions set out in the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to voting by proxy."
  (2) The Third Schedule to the principal Act shall have effect as though the following paragraph were substituted for paragraph 4:—
  "4. A proxy paper, unless cancelled, shall remain in force so long as the elector continues to be registered in respect of the same qualification, and to be on the absent voters list."
  Lords Amendment:
  In Sub-section (1, "4") leave out the words "on satisfying the Registration Officer as to the bona fides of the statement," and insert "and who makes a statement in the prescribed form."
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  All the Lords Amendments, in which I ask the House to agree, are, with the exception of the proposed new Sub-section (3), purely verbal and drafting Amendments.
  Lords Amendments:
  In Sub-section (1, "4") leave out the words "such person" and insert "he."
  After the word "Kingdom" ["United Kingdom"] insert "and satisfies the registration officer as to the bona fides of such statement."
  In Sub-section (1), at the end, insert a new Sub-section—
  ("(3) Any proxy paper in force at the date of the commencement of this Act shall continue in force as though it had been issued under the principal Act as amended by this Act.")
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Short title and commencement.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Representation of the People Act, 1920, and the Representation of the People Acts, 1918 and 1919, and this Act may be cited together as the Representation of the People Acts, 1918 to 1920.
  Lords Amendments:
  In Sub-section (1), after the word "People" ["People Act, 1920"], insert "(No. 2)."
  Leave out the words "the Representation of the People Acts, 1918 and 1919, and this Act may be cited together," and insert "shall be included among the Acts which may be cited."
  Agreed to.

MAYOR'S AND CITY OF LONDON COURT BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read.
Sir G. HEWART: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is one which, I am sure, will be received with approval by all quarters of the House, because of its tendency towards economy. It was introduced into the House of Lords some months ago, and has been passed through all its stages there. The object of the Measure is to allow the two separate courts which now exist, each of which has judges, officials, and courthouse of its own, to become one. Both courts are of great antiquity and defined jurisdiction. The object of the Bill is to amalgamate the two courts. It is anticipated that it may be possible to
192
close one of the two court houses, and this by the amalgamation of the staffs, will effect a very considerable saving financially. The only further facts I have to mention are that the Bill has been considered and approved by the council of the Law Society, and that it has the support of the City Corporation.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I desire to say that I most whole-heartedly support this Bill, and hope that it will have a speedy passage through another place. I wish the Measure every success.

SEEDS [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred under any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to the sale and use of seeds for sowing, and of seed potatoes, and to provide for the testing thereof—(King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the. House of 2nd August, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Twelve o'clock.