Sitting of 27 August 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Blyth Hall (Transfer) Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; read the third time, and passed.
Coatbridge Drainage and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; Amendments made; Bill read the third time, and passed.
Dumbarton Burgh (Water, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; read the third time, and passed.
North British Railway (Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Vesting) Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; an Amendment made; Bill read the third time, and passed.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented of Return of Proceedings of the Irish Land Commission during the month of February, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Abstracts showing the acreage under Crops and the numbers of Live Stock in each County and Province in Ireland for the year 1913–14 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS, 1911 TO 1913.
Copy presented of National Health Insurance (Transfer of Deposit Contributors) Order (Scotland) (No. 2), 1914,
122
dated 25th August, 1914, made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners under Sections 78 and 80 of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

WAR IN EUROPE.

  TREASURY ASSISTANCE TO BANKS AND DISCOUNT HOUSES.
  Return ordered "of Papers relating to the assistance rendered by the Treasury to Banks and Discount Houses since the outbreak of war on the 4th August, 1914, and to the questions of the advisability of continuing or ending the Moratorium and of the nature of the Banking Facilities now available."—[Mr. Montagu.]
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RUPTURE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH GERMANY.
  Copy presented of Dispatch from His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin respecting Rupture of Diplomatic Relations with the German Government [by Command]; to lie upon the Table. (Miscellaneous, No. 8, 1914.)

  VOTE OF CREDIT.
  Copy ordered of Treasury Minute, dated the 20th day of August, 1914.— [Mr. Montagu.]
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 27th August; Mr. Montagu]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 458.]

  SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Message from the Lords,
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the regulation and restriction of the slaughter of animals used for food." [Slaughter of Animals Bill [Lords.]
  Bill read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 393.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  GERMAN PUBLICATIONS.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the German Government has presented gratis to certain American citizens copies of a pamphlet, written in English, called "Germany's Reasons for War with Russia"; and whether, with a view of permitting an answer to this publication, he will obtain a copy and place it in the Library?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I have given instructions for a copy of the document in question to be placed in the Library at the disposal of Members.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he intends to lay upon the Table copies of the German memorandum and the official statements of other Foreign Governments showing the different explanations of the origin of the War which have been published by the various Governments concerned in the European War?
  Sir E. GREY: I have received no official explanations of the nature referred to except such as appear in our White Paper recently published.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of these official publications have been published in the public Press, and might it not be convenient to have them collected? They might be obtained from various sources which would guarantee their authenticity?
  Sir E. GREY: If they have been published already in the papers, no good purpose would be served by doing so.

  DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE.

    GERMAN PROPOSALS FOR NEUTRALITY.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the suggestions for a peace settlement made by the German Ambassador (White
    124
    Paper, p. 66, item No. 123), together with his invitation to the Foreign Secretary to put forward proposals of his own which would be acceptable as a basis for neutrality, were submitted to and considered by the Cabinet; and, if not, why proposals involving such far-reaching possibilities were thus rejected?
    Sir E. GREY: These were personal suggestions made by the Ambassador on 1st August, and without authority, to alter the conditions of neutrality proposed to us by the German Chancellor in No. 85 in the White Paper (Miscellaneous No. 6, 1914).
    The Cabinet did, however, consider most carefully the next morning—that is Sunday, 2nd August—the conditions on which we could remain neutral, and came to the conclusion that respect for the neutrality of Belgium must be one of these conditions. The German Chancellor had already been told on 30th July that we could not bargain that away.
    On Monday, 3rd August, I made a statement in the House accordingly. I had seen the German Ambassador again at his own request on Monday, and he urged me most strongly, though he said he did not know the plans of the German military authorities, not to make the neutrality of Belgium one of our conditions when I spoke in the House. It was a day of great pressure, for we had another Cabinet in the morning, and I had no time to record the conversation, and it does not therefore appear in the White Paper, but it, was impossible to withdraw that condition without becoming a consenting party to the violation of the Treaty, and subsequently to a German attack on Belgium.
    After I spoke in the House we made to the German Government the communication described in No. 153 in the White Paper about the neutrality of Belgium.
    Sir Edward Goschen's report of the reply to that communication had not been received when the White Paper was printed and laid. It will be laid before Parliament to complete the White Paper.
    I have been asked why I did not refer to No. 123 in the White Paper when I

    125
    spoke in the House on 3rd August. If I had referred to suggestions to us as to conditions of neutrality, I must have referred to No. 85, the proposals made not personally by the Ambassador but officially by the German Chancellor, which were so condemned by the Prime Minister subsequently, and this would have made the case against the German Government much stronger than I did make it in my speech. I deliberately refrained from doing that then.
    Let me add this about personal suggestions made by the German Ambassador, as distinct from communications made on behalf of his Government: He worked for peace; but real authority at Berlin did not rest with him and others like him, and that is one reason, why our efforts for peace failed.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether any attempt was made to open up negotiations with the German Government on the basis of the suggestions here set forth by the German Ambassador?
    Sir E. GREY: The German Ambassador did not make any basis of suggestions; it was the German Chancellor who made the basis of suggestions. The German Ambassador, speaking on his own personal initiative and without authority, asked whether we would formulate conditions on which we would be neutral. We did go into that question, and the conditions were stated to the House and made known to the German Ambassador.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the German authorities at Berlin repudiated these suggestions of their Ambassador in London, and whether any effort at all was made to find out how far the German Government would have agreed to the suggestions put forward by their own Ambassador?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question may I ask him if Socialists in the Reichstag are asking any questions like this?
    Sir E. GREY: The German Ambassador—[HON. MEMBERS: "Do not answer!"]—I should like not to have any misunderstanding did not make to us suggestions
    126
    different from those which his Government made. The suggestions that his Government made were those in No. 85 in the White Paper. The German Ambassador never suggested to us that Germany would be able to agree to the condition of the neutrality of Belgium. On the contrary, he did suggest to me that we should not put that condition forward because he was afraid his Government would not be able to accept it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member who has put this question is constantly representing in the country that these proposals were actually made by the German Government to England?
    Sir E. GREY: That is one of the reasons why I thought it very desirable to answer very specifically.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: As a matter of personal explanation I entirely repudiate the statement just made by the hon. Member behind me.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I have to say, in answer to that personal imputation, that my authority is a letter written by the hon. Member in the "Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald" on Saturday last. [Cheers.]
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Those who cheer have not seen the letter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Coward."]

  FOOD PRICES (IRISH CREAMERIES).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his letter of the 7th alleging that the Irish co-operative creameries had artificially increased prices was sent to Ireland, as alleged by Sir Horace Plunkett in a letter of the 8th, without inquiry from the Irish agents of the creameries; if he has received Sir Horace Plunkett's denial of artificial increase of prices and the assurance that, on the contrary, the resources of the co-operative movement in Ireland were being used to prevent artificial increase in prices of food during the War; and if he will now cause inquiry to be made as to the facts, and give the same publicity to the findings as was given by his direction to his original charge?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The telegram sent by the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and myself to the Secretary of that Department did not refer only to Irish co-operative creameries, but to all Irish creameries, and was based on information supplied to the Cabinet. I am not aware that any persons can be said to be the agents of the Irish creameries in general. I have received a communication from Sir Horace Plunkett to the effect mentioned, but the matter is now closed, and I think nothing would be gained by making an inquiry as to the particular creameries which were responsible for the large increase in prices which undoubtedly took place.

  RELIEF WORKS (IRELAND).
  Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary whether it is proposed to allocate any sum for relief works in Ireland during the present crisis; and, if so, whether he will undertake that a reasonable proportion of such sum be set aside for the relief of women Workers whose employment has been adversely affected by the crisis?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If it is found necessary to make any special Government Grant for the relief of distress occasioned by the war the claims of Ireland, including the ease of Irish women workers, will be fully considered. As regards the Prince of Wales' National Relief Fund and other sources from which funds are now available for the relief of distress, I am forwarding the hon. Member a copy of a circular addressed to lord mayors, mayors, and chairmen of county and urban district councils in Ireland which will give him detailed information as to measures taken to meet distress wherever it may occur.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, as a means of relieving any distress which may arise in rural districts in Ireland as a consequence of the War, it is the intention of the Government to make substantial Grants through his Department for reproductive purposes, such as re-afforestation and the reclamation and drainage of waste areas; whether his Department has considered at any time a scheme for the national re-afforestation of Ireland; and whether he
  128
  would consider the present a suitable time for inaugurating a plan of afforestation on an extensive scale?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): No arrangements have up to the present been made for Grants in aid of the special work referred to in the question. The Department is now engaged on a large afforestation scheme in different parts of Ireland; but, a part from the difficulty of securing the necessary land, it does not appear to be a relief measure suitable for any such emergency as the question refers to. In regard to the drainage works, I must refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury, who is responsible for the Board of Works, the Department in charge of all such work in Ireland.

  WOMEN SUFFRAGIST PRISONERS (AMNESTY).
  Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the general amnesty declared with regard to the women suffragist prisoners has been held not to apply in the case of certain suffragist defendants returned for trial at Lisburn to the next Ulster assizes; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, he will use his influence to insure that these prosecutions be withdrawn and the defendants concerned included in the general amnesty?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Four suffragette prisoners were returned for trial on 10th August, 1914, for causing on the 1st instant an explosion at the Down Cathedral Church in Lisburn, and were committed for trial to next Assizes in custody, having refused to give bail. They have since been released by order of the Lord Lieutenant under the provisions of the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act, 1913, but the proceedings against these women are still pending. It will be for the Attorney-General to consider what action he may be able to take when these cases come on for trial, having regard to all the circumstances and to the conduct of these prisoners meanwhile, and I quite hope that the Attorney-General will be able to enter a nolle prosequi in these cases.

  AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (IRELAND).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if any and, if so, what steps are being taken by his Department to bring to the notice of Irish farmers the possibilities for the development of the agricultural industry involved in present conditions, and above all the desirability for increasing the area under tillage all over the country?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: In reply to the hon. Member I have to inform him that on Thursday last the Council of Agriculture met in Dublin, and it was resolved to ask the Committee of Agriculture in each county to press the farmers throughout Ireland to increase the acreage under tillage. The Department's instructors are actively engaged in the same work all over the country, and everything possible is being done to increase the agricultural output next year.

  SUGAR PRICES.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to complaints by retail grocers of the hardship inflicted on them by the alleged practice of owners of multiple shops in selling sugar under cost; and whether, in fixing maximum prices for this article of food and framing regulations to prevent high costs to the public, steps have been taken, or are in contemplation, to protect the interests of the classes of the trading community which are being seriously prejudiced by the absence of uniformity in retail prices?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Such complaints as have reached me as to the sale of sugar at retail prices lower than the current wholesale prices have not been confined to the case of multiple shops. The practice of selling sugar at or below cost is not a novel one, and is not confined to any class of traders. The Advisory Committee, which has recommended to the Board of Trade certain prices as reasonable maximum prices, gives very careful consideration to the position of retail traders
  130
  as well as to the interests of the consuming public. The Federation of Grocers' Associations is represented on the Committee.
  Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board is prepared to make an order upon, or if the Government will otherwise deal with, refiners and brokers who, during the week succeeding the declaration of war, raised prices against the retail buyers of sugar abnormally so that many retailers throughout Scotland are saddled with sugar for which they require to pay from 51s. to 45s. per hundredweight for sugar which is now being retailed at 3½d and 3¾d. per pound to the consumer under the order of the Government which regulates retail prices?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will see that this matter is considered.

  INSURANCE RATES (CARGO SHIPS).
  Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the distress caused by the War in districts that are dependent on oversea trade, he will endeavour to arrange a reduction of war insurance charges on the easier trade routes and will also use his influence with shipowners to abate the increased freightage now being charged to cover the insurance of hulls?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The war insurance rates, both on cargoes and ships, have already been considerably reduced since the scheme was started. As regards freights, I think my hon. Friend will find that the position is now easier. Cases in which the increase of freights appears under the circumstances to be unreasonable are being inquired into, and I have already in some instances made representations to ship-owners.
  Mr. MORRELL: Does the Government insurance cover the export of manufactured goods as well as imports of food and raw material?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, it includes any vessels which are in cargoes insured under the national scheme.
  Mr. LOUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think a much lower flat rate might be allowed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that there are 122 questions, and towards the end there are a number of very considerable importance. It is very desirable, I think, not to press the right of putting supplementary questions.

  IRISH LIVE STOCK AND GOODS TRAFFIC.
  Mr. BRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in consequence of the withdrawal of the London and North-Western and City of Dublin Companies' cargo boats owing to military operations, the live stock and goods traffic from the city of Dublin to England is practically at a standstill; and whether, in view of this, he will take immediate steps to have these services restored?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have been in communication with the London and North-Western Railway Company in this matter, and am informed that some goods traffic is now passing between Dublin and Holyhead, but that it has not yet been found possible, for various reasons, to resume the live-stock traffic by this route, though this will be done as soon as practicable. I understand that cattle are being shipped by other steamship services from Dublin to various ports on the North-West Coast.

  RAILWAYS (GOVERNMENT CONTROL).
  Mr. LOUGHasked what are the conditions under which the Government have taken over control of the railways throughout Great Britain; whether the various companies remain as trading corporations; and, if so, whether the Government pay the companies the usual rates for any services rendered by them, or whether the Government have themselves become public carriers in place of the various companies and assuming their responsibilities?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: His Majesty's Government have assumed the control of the railways of Great Britain under the provisions of Section 16 of the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871. The individual companies retain the management of their lines subject to instructions issued by or through the Executive Committee which has been set up. No present payments are being made for services rendered to the Government.
  Mr. LOUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing to the Government having taken over the control of the railways, the companies are now issuing circulars and verbal notices repudiating their responsibilities in many respects connected with the carrying of both passengers and goods, and especially that they decline to recognise any responsibility for goods lost or stolen in transit; and whether there are any conditions in the arrangement with the Government which enable them to do this, or if they still retain their responsibilities as public carriers?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the railway companies issued a notice on the 5th August disclaiming responsibility for delay, damage or loss due to the curtailment or interruption of train services in consequence of the War. Any claims for delay, damage or loss attributable to other causes will be dealt with as usual. The fact that the Government have taken possession of the railways for certain purposes does not affect the question.

  MEAT PRICES.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in spite of his public assurances that there is no shortage of supply, he is aware that market prices of meat have in some cases more than doubled during August, making compliance with the published official retail prices ruinous to retailers; whether this has already led to the closing of many butchers' shops and caused distress, and also made it impossible to carry out contracts with Poor Law Unions; and what steps he proposes to take to put an end to the exactions of the meat ring?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: On the information at present available to me, I am unable to accept the statements in the question as in accordance with the facts. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars in support of his statement, I shall certainly have them examined.

  MANUFACTURE OF ANILINE DYES.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Government will now take steps to legalise and facilitate the use of alcohol as a solvent in manufacturing processes without the payment of duty in order that this country may no longer be handicapped in competition with Germany in the manufacture of aniline, but may freely compete in that trade in the home market?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The whole question of the manufacture of aniline dyes in this country for the use of national industries is now under the consideration of the Board of Trade, who have appointed a strong expert Committee, over which the Lord Chancellor is presiding, to advise them in the matter. The hon. Member may be assured that the particular aspect of this question to which he directs attention will be carefully borne in mind.

  GERMAN PATENTS IN UNITED KINGDOM.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Government propose to annul or invalidate German patents in this country, in order that British manufacturers may now manufacture patented articles, such as magnetos and others, hitherto only obtained from Germany?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Under the provisions of the Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Temporary Rules) Act, 1914, and the Rules made thereunder, the Board of Trade have taken power to avoid or suspend in whole or in part any patent granted to a subject of any State at war with His Majesty. I am sending to the hon. Member a copy of the Rules.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is it not the case that application has to be made to the Patent Office to get it suspended or cancelled? When that is given, does that cover the case after the re-establishment of peace?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot make a full statement in reply to a question. If the hon. Gentleman would write me on the subject I will let him know the procedure that is being followed.

  GERMAN MISSIONARIES.
  Colonel WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Under-Secretary of State for India if assurance can be given that German missionaries working in the Dominions and Protectorates will be left free to carry on during the war their religious work, on condition of their observance of strict neutrality, subject to such restrictions as it may be necessary from time to time to impose?
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked (1) the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the position of German missionaries now in British tropical Africa and other British Colonies and Protectorates; and whether any action can be taken to prevent their work from being discontinued; and (2) the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether his attention has been called to the position of German missionaries belonging to the Basel Missionary Society and other missionary associations working in India; and whether any action can be taken to assist them?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): At the request of the Secretary of State for the Colonies I will answer together the questions asked by the hon. Members for West Dorset and West Leeds about German missionaries in the Colonies and Dominions as well as in India. His Majesty's Government is confident that sympathetic consideration will be extended to German or Austrian missionaries engaged in purely religious work.
  Mr. E. HARVEY: Can facilities be given to British missionary societies to afford temporary financial aid to missionaries who are in great difficulty in many cases, having resided for years in out-of-the-way parts and now being left penniless?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I will consider if that is possible.

  RESERVISTS AND TERRITORIALS.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Major HOPEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether he is aware that misapprehension exists among many of the wives of Reservists called up and Territorials embodied as to the payment of their husbands' insurance contributions, and that some of them fear that they may lose maternity benefit unless they themselves pay the contributions; and whether he will consider the advisability of issuing a short simple pamphlet embodying the provisions of Circular A.S. 145 and Circular No. 585 so that the women concerned may easily understand their position and be relieved from any anxiety as to suffering from their husbands' contributions falling into arrears?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): A simple pamphlet explaining the position of Reservists and Territorials in regard to contributions, arrears, and benefits under the National Insurance Acts is being prepared for immediate distribution.

  COAL TRADE (FULL EMPLOYMENT).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the efforts which are being made to give full employment in the coal trade, and to the manner in which these efforts are jeopardised owing to the suspension by contractors of deliveries of mining timber under existing contracts; is he aware that advances in price have been asked for material in stock of from 40 per cent. to 150 per cent., which represent a heavy addition to colliery working costs; and is he able to make representations which may persuade timber contractors to moderate their caution and charges and bear their share in endeavouring to keep prices as nearly normal as possible, and so avoid an increase of unemployment?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has been drawn to the points raised in the hon. Member's question, and the Board of Trade are in communication with the parties affected.

  NATIONAL PENNY BANK.
  Mr. DAWESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the large number of persons affected by the suspension of the National Penny Bank, Limited, he will take immediate steps to have an official investigation made into the administration of the bank?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board of Trade have no power to investigate the administration of a company which is in voluntary liquidation, as in the case of the National Penny Bank, Limited. Any shareholder or creditor of the company, however, can present a petition to the Court for an Order for compulsory liquidation, and if such an Order is obtained, an investigation is made by the Official Receiver, who is an officer of the Board of Trade, but until such an Order has been made the Board have no jurisdiction to make any investigation.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (MILITARY SERVICE).
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked whether, under Part II. of the Insurance Act, the opportunity of joining the Colours will be regarded as an offer of suitable employment for unemployed persons between the required limits of age; if so, whether the money so saved can be used for the relief of distress occasioned by the War; and, if not, whether the Act can now be so amended as to admit of the money being so used?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The final determination of questions with regard to claims to unemployment benefit rests with the Umpire appointed under Section 89 of the Act, and the Board of Trade cannot either anticipate or control his decision. I am disposed to think, however, that there would be cases in which having regard to all the circumstances of the workman, including his age, his family ties, and his prospects of getting industrial employment again, an opportunity of service with the Colours would be held to be an offer of suitable employment, so that its refusal would lead to a loss of unemployment benefit. I do not think that the proposal contained in the last part of the

  137
  question would be feasible. Any money not paid out of the fund would remain in the fund for the payment of benefit to those entitled.

  BRITISH AND IRISH INDUSTRIES (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).
  Mr. HUNTasked whether, in view of the fact that the banks are unwilling or reluctant to finance British and Irish industries at the present time even on good securities, the Government, under the present conditions of a great war, will take such steps as will enable British and Irish manufacturers to engage in necessary industries for the employment of our people during the War, particularly in the trades which up to this year have been in the hands of our present enemies?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Steps are being taken by the Board of Trade to bring to the notice of British manufacturers and traders the opportunities that there may be for securing for themselves branches of trades which have hitherto been to any great extent in the hands of Austria-Hungary and Germany, and no effort will be spared to procure and disseminate such information as may contribute to this end. The question of the attitude of the banks towards financing manufacture and trade is one which is now engaging the earnest consideration of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that if action is taken at once in regard to certain industries, it will be the means in these industries of almost entirely preventing distress through want of employment?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have been in touch with the representatives of some industries on the subject, and they tell me that most of them are taking action now.

  GERMAN SHAREHOLDERS.

    COMPANIES REGISTERED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to take steps to prevent limited
    138
    companies registered in England whose capital is held by nominees of German houses to trade in this country during the War?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot usefully add anything to the answer which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (RISKS OF OFFICERS).
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the steps which the Government have taken to indemnify shipowners against loss owing to war risks and enable them to keep their ships at sea during the War, he can and will take steps to secure to the masters, officers, and engineers of the merchant service some increased remuneration commensurate with the personal risk involved in war time, and some provision for the wives and families of those officers who may lose their lives owing to casualties due to the state of war?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Government scheme with regard to war risks is one of insurance—not indemnity. A scheme is being prepared to secure the payment of a prescribed allowance to the dependants of officers and crews of captured British vessels. Particulars of this scheme will, I hope, be made known very shortly.

  COAL PRICES (POTTERIES).
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that manufacturers in the Potteries allege that local coal-owners in combination are endeavouring to compel them to pay a price for coal 10 per cent. in excess of the price at which they are offering to sell to Lancashire consumers; and will he have inquiries made in view of the difficulties with which the pottery industry is at present confronted
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received a communication on this subject, and am looking into the matter.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (PROCLAMATION).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish in the Votes a copy of the Proclamation published in the "London Gazette" on 14th August, 1914, under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act; and whether he will issue to the Press or the public a summary of the powers conferred by the Proclamation and instructions to be observed by those wishful to comply with it?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I presume my hon. Friend refers to the Regulations made by Order in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act. These Regulations have been published in a special supplement to the "London Gazette," which is on sale. They have been extensively quoted by the newspaper Press, and, in the form of a poster for exhibition, they have been widely distributed by the War Office to the military authorities, the police, and the railway companies. I do not think further action in this direction is necessary at this moment.

  GERMANS AND AUSTRIANS (REGISTRATION).
  Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Home Secretary the approximate number of German and Austrian subjects who have registered themselves in this country as a result of the recent Proclamation?
  Mr. McKENNA: The registration of aliens and the administration of the other provisions of the Aliens Restriction Order have cast upon the police throughout the country such enormous labour and absorb so much of their powers in practical work day by day that I have not thought it right at present to call for Returns of the total numbers registered, and I cannot yet give any trustworthy figures. The actual supervision of the aliens registered in every police district is receiving the closest attention.

  ASYLUMS OFFICERS CALLED TO COLOURS.
  Mr. JOWETTasked whether asylums officers who have been called to the Colours since the present War will have their years of service as asylums officers before they were called up aggregated and reckoned with their future period of service in the same capacity if they return to their duties after the War is over?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the affirmative.

  GERMANS IN UNITED KINGDOM (NATURALISATION).
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary how many Germans have applied for letters of naturalisation since the War began; whether the applicants consist of two classes, namely, those who have lived in this country for many years without taking the trouble to become British subjects and those who have not been here long but who chose the moment when our country is at war with theirs to make themselves British subjects, with the consequent privilege of remaining here exempted from the control now exercised over aliens; and whether he will take steps to provide that the applications of both classes should, in the national interest, be refused, and all these gentlemen returned to their own country at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. McKENNA: An immense number of applications for naturalisation has been submitted to me since the war began, and the applicants, no doubt, include considerable number of Germans, but I have not had these specially counted. I can assure the hon. Member that in dealing with any such applications I shall have careful regard to the terms of the Naturalisation Act, which empower me to grant or withhold a certificate as I think most conducive to the public good. I shall not grant certificates to any persons who should, in the interests of this nation, be returned to their own country, though I may point out that their compulsory return is not a practical possibility at the present moment.

  GERMANS AT BEECH ABBEY, HAMPSHIRE.
  Mr. NICHOLSONasked the Home Secretary how many Germans are now at Beech Abbey, near Alton, Hampshire; whether there is any guard, police or military, over them; whether, in view of the fact that Beech Abbey is within a few miles of Aldershot and close to the Alder-shot-Southampton railway, over which military trains are constantly passing, any precautions have been taken; if the Germans are in any way confined to the precincts of Beech Abbey; whether he has been approached by the local authorities on this matter; and if any precautions of any kind have been adopted by the Home Office?
  Mr. McKENNA: This is a matter which has been receiving the close attention of my Department since the War began. The establishment at Beech Abbey, which has been of the greatest assistance in dealing with foreign seamen thrown out of employment in the present emergency, accommodates at present somewhat less than 200 German seamen, most of whom had been serving in British ships. They are confined to the precincts, and, though there is no special police or military guard posted outside, the place is kept under careful supervision by the police. Various representations in regard to the establishment have been received and given due consideration in consultation with the military authorities, and no precautions which may be deemed necessary will be omitted.

  SPECIAL CONSTABLES.
  Captain CLIVEasked whether any and, if so, what payments and allowances are to be made to special constables for their time, wear and tear of clothing, and liability to sickness through being out in all weathers guarding the property of the country and of private persons?
  Mr. McKENNA: The special constables are being enrolled as a volunteer force, consisting of persons who, being unable to undertake military service, are desirous of rendering useful service to their country in the maintenance of public order. In
  142
  almost every case they have undertaken to serve without pay, but out-of-pocket expenses will in some cases, at any rate, be paid, and this House yesterday passed a Bill which will enable the police authority to grant them allowances in case of injury on duty.
  Captain CLIVE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how long he expects the special constables to serve without pay, and whether he will not take into consideration the possibility of making them constables who are paid for, so that they may take over gradually the work that is now being performed by—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should give notice of that question.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Home Secretary whether the power of making Regulations by Order in Council for the application to special constables of any of the provisions of the Police Acts relating to the Grant of allowances or gratuities to constables injured and to the dependants of constables killed in the execution of their duty will permit of the provision of benefits or allowances to all special constables injured on duty, if they desire such allowances, and also to special constables who, although not injured by violence, may suffer the expense of an illness arising from their fulfilment of public service; and, bearing in mind that the expense of injury or illness would form a burden which many men who are willing to enrol and give their services gratuitously could ill afford, will he indicate, as far as possible for their guidance, what is the nature and extent of the provisions which, in case of need, will be available in both classes of cases referred to, whether under the provisions of the Special Constables Act, 1914, or otherwise?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Order in Council will empower police authorities to give allowances in case of the death or injury of special constables in the same way as they are now empowered to give them in the case of ordinary constables. I do not think it would be possible to extend this to cases of illness which might or might not be due to voluntary service as a special constable.

  MANUFACTURE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Home Secretary whether anything has been done or is in contemplation to preserve the food supply of the nation by restricting the destruction of grain arising from the manufacture of alcohol?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the negative.

  PRIZE COURTS.

    MERCHANT VESSELS.
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement about the merchant vessels captured as prizes, either in British ports or on the high seas; what is being done with the crews of these vessels; and whether any attempt has been or will be made to exchange merchant shipping taken as prizes?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It is proposed to issue from time to time a list of vessels brought in as prize to the ports of the British Empire. The officers and crew, if of enemy nationality, become prisoners of war unless, in the case of those not belonging to or intended for the enemy's naval or military service, they sign an undertaking that, while hostilities last, they will not engage in any service connected with the operations of war. If they are of neutral nationality the officers are detained under the same conditions as those of enemy nationality; the men are released. It is not proposed to exchange merchant vessels detained as prizes.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what steps are taken in the ordinary course to dispose of the cargoes and hulls of ships taken as prizes and brought into British ports, and how the funds received on the sale of such cargoes are disposed of?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question concerns the procedure of the Prize Court, over which the Admiralty have no authority. I may observe, however, that Order XI. of the Prize Court Rules, 1914, directs that where a ship is ordered to be
    144
    sold such sale shall be by public auction, unless the judge shall for good cause otherwise order, and the gross proceeds thereof shall be paid into Court by the marshal. The same rule applies to goods. I may say, further, as regards the last part of the question, that the action to be taken as regards the funds derived from the sales is under consideration, and that a general notice on the subject will shortly be published.

    CLAIMS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
    Sir CLIFFORD CORYasked the Attorney-General whether His Majesty's Government will recognise the claims of British subjects who hold mortgages or bottomry bonds upon prizes of war or who have supplied necessaries or made advances to such vessels prior to capture or seizure; and whether, in the event of a British subject being a part owner of any prize of war, the Government will similarly recognise a claim on his behalf?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General has asked me to answer this question on his behalf. Prize Courts, when adjudicating as to a prize, are not required to take into account such interests in the prize as are referred to in the question; but cases may arise in which it would be proper for the Crown to make concessions as a matter of grace, and while it is impossible to lay down any general rule beforehand, the Crown will consider the claims of British subjects in individual cases if the facts are duly laid before the Procurator-General.
    Sir C. CORY: May I ask, will the Government take into consideration such claims in view of the great hardships on struggling butchers and stevedores who lawfully and properly advanced supplies and performed work before war began?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: As I have stated, the Crown will consider the claims in individual cases if they are laid before the Procurator-General.

    SCOTTISH ADVOCATES AND LAW AGENTS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Lord Advocate whether all matters of prize are vested in the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice in England; and whether, in all cases of prize taken to

    145
    Scottish ports, Scottish solicitors and advocates have any status in such Court sitting in Scotland?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): The jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty of Scotland was by a Statute of 1825 transferred to and vested in the High Court of Admiralty in England. This Court became, therefore, a Court possessing British jurisdiction, and I see no reason to doubt that, in accordance with existing practice in such cases, Scottish counsel and agents have a right to appear before the Court.

  SPIES.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister if any spies have been shot in the United Kingdom since the war began; and, if so, how many and under what authority?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to the first part is in the negative, and the second does not arise.

  COURTS MARTIAL.
  Mr. TREVELYANhad given notice of the following question: To ask the Prime Minister if he can say what action has yet been taken under the Proclamation of Martial Law issued on the 12th August; whether the provisions of Section 13 apply to expressions of opinion on public or military policy; whether there is any appeal from courts martial to the Civil Courts; and whether information will be given to this House of any sentences passed upon British subjects under the Proclamation?
  Owing to the complete assurance given by the Home Secretary yesterday that the provisions of Section 13 do not apply to expressions of opinion on public or military policy, I do not ask the first part of this question.
  Mr. McKENNA: With regard to the second part of the question, there is no appeal from courts martial to Civil Courts. No sentences have yet been passed for offences under the Order in Council; when any are passed they will, no doubt, be reported in the Press.

  SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT DURING HOSTILITIES.

    STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Prime Minister whether he can give the House an assurance that, so long as the War continues, the intervals between meetings of Parliament shall be of no longer duration than six weeks; and that should circumstances arise calling for any suspension of civil rights or curtailment of civil liberty Parliament will meet immediately?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Without specifying any period, I think it will be both necessary and desirable for Parliament to meet at short intervals during the continuance of the War. In answer to the second part of the question, I am not aware to what contingencies my hon. Friend refers.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether he can now indicate to the House when the Session is likely to end?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to make a statement to-morrow about the Business of the House.

    ALIENS IN UNITED KINGDOM.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether aliens caught in attempting to cause injury to persons or property in this country will in the future be tried by court martial, and, if found guilty, shot?
    Mr. McKENNA: Persons found committing damage to railways or guilty of other offences against Part II. of the Defence of the Realm Regulations will be tried by court martial. The maximum punishment is penal servitude for life. Alien enemies who commit acts of destruction could be tried by court martial and sentenced to death, but this course will not be taken except by special leave of the Army Council.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that there are still thousands of German and Austrian aliens employed in this country, also some

    147
    managing hotels and public-houses, and in view of the fact that there are many British and Irish people unable to find employment, he can see his way to prevent the employment of German and Austrian aliens during the continuance of the War?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think that I can take the action suggested. Indeed, one of the problems which is causing my Department the greatest anxiety is that of dealing with the large number of Germans and Austrians in this country who have lost their employment and are rapidly becoming destitute.
    Mr. HUNT: Surely—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—the most urgent business of the Government is to provide first of all for their own people!
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, certainly; but I am afraid that if the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman were carried into effect, there would be a great disruption of trade, which would be injurious to our own people.
    Mr. HUNT: Could not our own people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot enter into an argument.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether aliens are any longer to be allowed to register themselves as British subjects during the War, in view of the fact that alien enemies in this country, if allowed to register as British subjects, would have greater opportunities of creating damage and disturbing the public peace than if unregistered?
    Mr. McKENNA: Aliens cannot "register themselves as British subjects." If the hon. Member uses that phrase as equivalent to "obtain certificates of naturalisation as British subjects," I can assure him that no such certificates will be granted unless I am satisfied that the applicant is a person from whom no danger is to be feared.

    SAILORS AND SOLDIERS (LIFE INSURANCE).
    Mr. HOAREasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that sailors and soldiers are required to pay an
    148
    additional 5 per cent. on their life insurance policies to cover war risks; and whether he will consult the life offices and other experts with a view, either by State assistance or some other means, of removing this burden from the shoulders of men who at great risk to themselves are serving their country?
    Mr. HENRY TERRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many Territorial officers and men who have been asked and have expressed their willingness to serve abroad during the present war are the holders of policies of insurance upon their lives, issued by insurance companies, who have in some cases demanded an increased premium of five guineas per cent., and in other cases have threatened to cancel the policies in case the insured goes on active or foreign service; if so, whether the Government are prepared to take any and, if so, what steps to relieve such officers and men from any extra expenditure or loss which they will incur in respect to such policies in the event of their going on active or foreign service?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This question is under consideration, and I hope it may be satisfactorily settled without the intervention of the State.

    DISFRANCHISEMENT (WAR CRISIS).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that many thousands of workmen out of employment in consequence of the War crisis will be compelled to seek Poor Law relief; and if it is the intention of the Government to issue a special Order to prevent disfranchisement in cases where relief is given?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Relief received since 15th July last will not affect the Parliamentary registers of voters for 1915. The hon. Member's suggestion will be further considered before the registers for 1916 are prepared.

    ARMY RECRUITING.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of appointing an Advisory Committee to direct and assist Members of this House who are willing to help in the work of obtaining recruits for the Army?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will give the hon. Member's suggestion careful consideration.
    Major MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that a large number of men refuse to enlist because they cannot join their county regiment because they are told the regiment is already up to establishment'; and whether, in view of the pressing need of obtaining suitable recruits as quickly as possible, he will consider the advisability of increasing the number of battalions in such counties?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The Army Council have had no information as to men refusing to enlist for the reason stated. The objection to raising new units is that each requires a separate staff of officers and non-commissioned officers, and these are not easy to find. It must also be borne in mind that each new unit demands a draft-producing organisation to supply wastage.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINSasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in view of the fact that 100,000 men asked for by Lord Kitchener have been practically obtained and that further recruits are required, Territorial associations and others engaged in promoting recruiting may understand that further recruits are required on the terms and conditions which applied to the 100,000 men asked for by Lord Kitchener, and that such associations and persons are expected to promote recruiting on those terms and conditions until further notice.
    Mr. TENNANT: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated yesterday, the Secretary of State needs all the recruits he can obtain, and not merely the 100,000 mentioned in the first appeal. All necessary particulars will be made public at once.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Are we to understand that the arrangements made for recruitment are to be the same as those which have hitherto obtained?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, until further notice.
    Mr. SHERWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman secure that the recruits who are responding to the call shall at least have blankets to cover them at the depots to which they are transferred?
    Mr. TENNANT: If my hon. Friend will give me any instance of that kind I will certainly look into it.

    BRITISH PRESS BUREAU.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he will state the principles upon which information is given out by the official Press Bureau; and whether, in view of the fact that the nation is interested in the movements of our own troops, etc., he can see his way to establishing a censorship, assisted by trained journalists, who will communicate to the public what they are reasonably entitled to expect?
    Sir HENRY NORMANhad given private notice of the following question: To ask the Prime Minister if he will cause the methods of supplying news of the British Expeditionary Force to be reconsidered, in order that the British public may be no longer chiefly dependent upon foreign sources for information of their own Army?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government and the military authorities recognise to the full the strain which is placed upon the public, but more especially on the relations of those on active service, by the scarcity of information from the front. They will do all in their power to relieve the strain. The Official Press Bureau is the mouthpiece through which communications relative to the progress of naval and military operations are made public by the Admiralty, the War Office, and other public Departments concerned. The principle upon which information is given to the public is that all information which

    151
    can be given without prejudice to the public interest shall be given fully and given at once. This has been done, and will be done. The Director of the Bureau has access for consultative purposes to the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary of State for War, and, in matters of special doubt, to myself. The question whether trained journalists could usefully be employed with the staff of the Bureau was discussed between the Director of the Bureau, representatives of the Admiralty and the War Office, and an official Press Committee. It was unanimously agreed that it was not desirable to add such persons to the staff of the Bureau, but that it was desirable that they should be associated with the work carried on by the cable censors. Steps are being taken to carry this out, and also to co-ordinate and harmonise, as far as possible, the principles upon which the censorship of Press cables and of other Press information, respectively, is carried out. The difficulty of defining general standards is not believed to be insuperable, though it is evidently great, having regard to the size of the staff required to deal with the enormous number of Press cables which are daily dispatched and received. Every effort has been made, and will be made, to consult the legitimate expectations of the Press and public, and to harmonise them with naval and military considerations.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am not referring to anything which we should not know, but to such announcements as that which was issued by the Press Bureau as to the fall of Namur. We now have in the papers information to the effect that the Namur forts are still intact. What I want to ask is that when giving out news of this kind to the Press we should have something more that would enable us to understand really what has happened?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I could not answer a question like that. The Press Bureau does not issue any announcements without taking every care to insure that they are correct.
    Sir A. B. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that military operations have been published in French, German, and Belgian papers a week before they have been published in any newspaper in
    152
    this country, and does he not think that it is in the public interest that the public here should know of these things as soon as the readers of these Continental papers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know that that is the case.
    Sir A. B. MARKHAM: It is the case. I beg to give notice that I will call attention to this matter on the Adjournment.

    BRITISH CEREAL CROPS.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked (1) whether, in view of the impossibility, owing to the non-availability of male labour on account of universal military service, of re-sowing farm lands in several Continental countries of wheat and other cereal crops and the consequent certain prospect of a world shortage of such produce, the Government will provide some financial inducement to British farmers to increase the British area under such crops in 1915; (2) whether, in view of the probable widespread destruction of farm crops in Continental countries owing to trampling by troops, pillage, and fire, and the probability of deflection to such countries of a large proportion of the normal overseas' supply to the United Kingdom, the Government propose, by bonus or otherwise, to encourage farmers to retain in stack upon their own premises until the summer of next year a large proportion of the British wheat crop now being harvested; and (3) if the Government will assist British farmers in the patriotic duty of keeping upon their premises as large a proportion as possible of the wheat now being harvested in Great Britain, by issuing negotiable wheat warrants or certificates, as is done in Canada, representing farmers' stocks of wheat upon the security of which they will be able to obtain temporary advances which will enable them to carry on their business without the necessity of throwing such wheat upon the market?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): As the hon. Member is aware, these matters have been under the

    153
    consideration of the Agricultural Consultative Committee, who have forwarded to the Board valuable recommendations. The whole question is also receiving the fullest consideration of the Cabinet Committee on Food Supplies. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

    WHOLESALE FIRMS (CREDIT FACILITIES).
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that certain wholesale firms are, during the present crisis, demanding cash payments before the despatch of goods instead of the usual terms of monthly payments, and that such a course is inconveniencing and hampering firms who have large Government orders to execute, and who have to wait for payment until their goods are received, checked, and the accounts sent to headquarters for payment; and whether some steps can be taken to induce the wholesale firms to return to their customary methods of obtaining payment?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that the present War has in many instances led to considerable restrictions in ordinary credit facilities. I trust that normal credit conditions will gradually be restored, but I doubt whether, in present conditions, it is possible or desirable to bring any undue pressure to bear on wholesale dealers.

    INDIAN FORCES.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Government will, if and when public interests permit, make a statement regarding the composition and character of the two divisions expected from India?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am unable to make a statement on this matter at present, but will do so as soon as military considerations permit.
    Sir J. D. REES: If the House is not sitting at that time, will the hon. Gentleman make it known when it can be properly done?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes.

    FOOD CONTRACTS (ARMY).
    Mr. J. HOGGEasked what arrangements have been made to obviate any of the scandals connected with the supply of foodstuffs to the British Army during the present War as occurred in the war in South Africa?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): My hon. Friend can hardly expect me to explain the arrangements in detail, but he may rest assured that they have been made.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does not this House contain many Members who could assist the War Office in seeing that that is done?
    Mr. BAKER: No doubt their advice would be valuable, but I hope that it will be unnecessary.

    SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' DEPENDANTS.
    Mr. HUNTasked to whom wives of soldiers on service, not receiving the rightful allowance for themselves and their children from their husbands, are to apply to in order to get the right amount allowed?
    Mr. BAKER: Compulsory allotments are made by soldiers serving abroad or belonging to the Expeditionary Force. Application should be made to the Army Paymaster who pays the Reservists of the unit to which the men belong.
    Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in the case of men employed in the Pimlico Clothing Factory, Territorials or others, who have been called to the Colours, any, and, if so, what portion of their wages will be given to their families during their absence?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what arrangements have been made concerning payments to the wives and dependants of men called up for service from the Army Ordnance Department?
    Mr. BAKER: These men fall within the instructions issued by the Treasury on 20th August last, copies of which I will send to the hon. Members.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether he is aware that in several cases where Naval Reserve men have been called up but have not yet gone afloat their wives are not receiving any separation allowances; and will he cause inquiry to be made into the matter; and (2) whether he is aware that many wives of men serving in His Majesty's Navy have been in the habit of receiving remittances by post from their husbands when at sea; that in several cases of men now serving on ships engaged on active service their wives have not received the usual remittances; and will he take steps to inform all naval men on active service how money can be remitted and when the money will be paid?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Every Reservist on mobilisation is entitled to a month's pay in advance. Those who have not yet gone afloat should have experienced no difficulty in transmitting remittances to their wives, for which every facility is offered. In point of fact, as I stated yesterday, remittances are being sent out from the Admiralty—apart from those sent direct by the men to their wives by postal orders—at the rate of something like 500 a day, as compared with the usual rate of 200 a day. As regards allotments, I have already stated that since mobilisation about 40,000 new allotments have been declared, largely by Reservists; and on Saturday next we shall send out from our office something like 120,000 monthly allotments. I recognise that under war conditions those men who favour the remittance plan may, when afloat, not invariably find the plan so easy to follow as under peace conditions but we issued on the 21st August general orders to Commanders-in-Chief, etc., directing that the system of regular allotments should be encouraged in preference to the system of remittances.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Have those orders been issued to the men of the Fleet?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: They were issued on the 21st instant to the Commanders-in-Chief, who were asked to call the attention of the men to the desirability of allotments as against the remittance system.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements have been made concerning payments to the wives and dependants of men recently employed in the Royal dockyards but since called up for service; whether those payments will be on the scale of the men's former wages; and, if not, and it is intended to pay the equivalent, will he say how and when the money will be paid?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman yesterday, all regular dockyard employés will receive, when called up, the difference between their civil pay and their naval pay, if Naval Reservists, or the difference between their civil pay and their military pay, plus separation allowances, where payable, if Army Reservists. Departments are empowered to pay this civil pay, so reduced, to any person designated by the Reservist to receive the amount on his behalf. Further, so far as we are concerned, steps have been taken to enable the cashiers during the first month to make the payment in necessitous cases direct to the wife or other dependant relative of a Reservist who has failed to designate his nominee before leaving, subject to the production of the necessary evidence.

    DOCTORS AND VETERINARY SURGEONS (TERRITORIAL UNITS).
    Mr. SANDERSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the case of country doctors and veterinary surgeons who are called out with Territorial units and whose pay is 15s. 6d. a day, while they lose their private practice, whereas a civilian practitioner newly joined for war service gets 24s. a day and £60 bounty at the end of the war; and whether he will take steps to remedy this inequality of treatment?
    Mr. BAKER: All such officers commissioned in peace draw, under the terms of their contract, the pay and allowance of the Regular Army, varying according to the ranks which they hold. The rate quoted, 15s. 6d. a day, is that of a captain of the Royal Army Medical Corps, but-field allowance of 3s. 6d. a day is also allowable, so that the total drawn is 19s.

    157
    and not 15s. 6d. It is necessary to give higher rates to those commissioned on emergency, but there is no intention of making this universal.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is it not the case that the former class are getting less than the civilian practitioners newly joined?
    Mr. BAKER: The former are serving under a running contract under which they engaged. It is often necessary to take on specialists and to deal with them on special terms in time of war.

    COUNTY OF LONDON REGIMENT.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether consideration has been given to the hardship to men who, since the mobilisation of the Territorial Force, have enlisted in the 12th Battalion County of London Regiment, and are required to provide mobilisation kit at their own expense; and whether, in view of the service which these men are rendering to the nation, it can be provided that, as regards cost of equipment, the same provision should be made as in the case of His Majesty's Regular forces?
    Mr. BAKER: No cases of hardship in this or any other unit have been brought to notice, and I think that the hon. Member must be under a misapprehension. County associations complete at Government expense the kit of all men up to standard, whether enlisted before or after mobilisation. When the man himself brings a kit which is up to the standard prescribed, he draws 10s.

    MEN UNDERGOING SENTENCES.
    Major MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the Under-Secretary for War whether men now undergoing sentences for various minor offences will be offered the chance of redeeming their character and serving their country by volunteering for the new Army; and, if so, will these men be offered a remission of the whole or part of their sentences; and, in any case, can their military training be commenced immediately?
    Mr. TENNANT: General officers commanding-in-chief have already been
    158
    informed that they have power under the King's Regulations to release men undergoing sentences for minor offences. Men so released would have the remainder of their punishment remitted, and are, therefore, immediately available for military training.

    VETERAN YEOMANRY AND TERRITORIAL FORCES.
    Major MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in view of the fact that our Regular troops and a large number of Territorials are employed upon other duties, he will now sanction the formation of veteran squadrons of Yeomanry and battalions of Territorials, who would be available for guarding railways, bridges, etc., or any other purpose, if required?
    Mr. TENNANT: The measures necessary to guarantee the safety of railway bridges, etc., are a matter of constant consideration. Part of this work is already being performed by National Reservists, but the hon. Member's suggestion will not be overlooked.

    ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGES (CADETS).
    Colonel BURNasked the Under-Secretary for War whether the case of cadets of the Royal Military Academy and the Royal Military College, who have been spending their vacation in Germany to study the language, will be taken into consideration, and the period of their detention allowed to be reckoned as Army service?
    Mr. TENNANT: Their commissions will bear the same date as that of the remaining cadets of the batch with which they should have passed out.
    Colonel BURN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they would have got their commissions now, and that therefore they will lose possibly a year or more?
    Mr. TENNANT: My answer is designed to cover that case, and they will get their commission with the batch that they would otherwise have got.

    SERVICE REVOLVERS (PRICES).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that the firm of Webley and Scott, contractors to the War Office, have increased the price of service revolvers by 100 per cent.; and whether he proposes taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. BAKER: Action was taken by the War Office as soon as the overcharge was brought to notice. Messrs. Webley and Scott stated that the extra charge was unauthorised by their directors, and at once arranged to refund to officers or their representatives the amount of overcharge, and issued a circular to this effect to the dealers.
    Mr. PIRIE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Webley and Scott are not the only firm who supply military officers with their requirements, and that there are other firms and dealers in the West End who have taken advantage of the present circumstances?
    Mr. BAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of any particular case he has in mind?

    VOLUNTEER MOTOR CORPS.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he has received a definite offer from the hon. Member for Brentford to raise a corps (5,000 strong) of Volunteers, each with a motor for service, on the terms of a scheme submitted to the War Office, such corps to be increased to 10,000 or 20,000 as required; and whether such offer has been definitely declined and, if so, why?
    Mr. TENNANT: Such an offer was received and carefully considered by the Army Council, who decided that it was undesirable to form such a corps, as all military requirements could be satisfactorily met by other means. I would add the thanks of the Army Council to the hon. Member for Brentford, through whose instrumentality these requirements have partly been met.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this question on the Adjournment.

    RE-ENLISTMENT (PAY).
    Mr. ROBERT THOMPSONasked the UNDER-SECRETARY for War whether men who have formerly served in the forces who now re-enlist will receive only recruits' pay or be paid at the same rate as when they previously served; and is he aware that on this answer depends whether a large number of trained men rejoin the Service?
    Mr. BAKER: Men with previous service are paid the pay of the rank in which they are appointed to serve on re-enlistment. They enlist in the first place as privates but may be selected immediately for promotion to non-commissioned rank, and in that case they get the pay of that rank.

    CROSSHAVEN (IRELAND).
    Mr. CREANasked the Under-Secretary for War whether the military authorities in Cork Harbour have compulsorily closed the houses at Crosshaven and the surrounding watering-places usually occupied by visitors during the summer months; and whether, in view of the fact that the owners of these cottages are mostly poor people mainly depending on the rent received from these holdings for a living, compensation will be given to them for the losses sustained?
    Mr. BAKER: I am not aware of the facts stated in the question, but if and when they are reported to the War Office they will be given consideration.

    OBLIGATORY DRILL AND RIFLE PRACTICE.
    Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHERasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in view of the fact that the greater part of the Regular Army is now serving abroad, the Government will make it obligatory for every man in the country between the ages of eighteen years and thirty years to devote at least two hours daily to drill and rifle practice during the duration of the war?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a somewhat similar question yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. LOWTHER: Will the Government consider the advisability of providing rifles and instructors for forces raised for Home defence by private individuals?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid that it is not possible for the Army Council to supply rifles. We are keeping pace with the output at the factories for the supply of those going into the new Army.
    Mr. LOWTHER: May I ask whether facilities will be given for instructors? I quite understand that rifles cannot be supplied at the present moment.
    Mr. TENNANT: I would like notice of that question, in order that I may consult the Secretary of State about it.

    SEPARATION ALLOWANCE (WEEKLY PAYMENT).
    Mr. MOUNTasked the Under-Secretary for War whether any arrangements can be made to pay separation allowance fortnightly instead of monthly, either generally or in those cases where special request is made?
    Mr. BAKER: Arrangements for weekly payment have already been made in eases where the recipient consents. The question of making the rule universal is now being considered.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (ENGINEER APPRENTICES).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that several engineer apprentices in the Royal dockyards have been mobilised with the Territorial Force, it will be possible, with the consent of the apprentices, to allow them to join the Army Ordnance Corps of Artificers and so complete their term of apprenticeship?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Dockyard apprentices mobilised with the Territorial Force will be dealt with in the same manner as other dockyard employés. They will be regarded as on special leave whilst with the Army, and will be allowed to resume their employment in the dockyard on demobilisation. The time served with the
    162
    Army will be allowed to count in their apprenticeship in all cases in whatever branch of the Army they may be serving. The question of allowing engineer apprentices to join the Army Ordnance Corps appears to be one for the War Office.

    CABLE CODES.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the expense and inconvenience caused to traders and the consequent dislocation of trade by the total prohibition of the use of codes for cabling to distant countries; and whether he could now consider the framing of Regulations to permit the resumption of codes in approved cases by responsible trading firms?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): The question of allowing the use of code in telegrams to places abroad has received the attention of His Majesty's Government, but it is not considered advisable to relax the Regulations at present.

    WAR NEWS AT POST OFFICES.
    Mr. GRANTasked the Postmaster-General if he is taking steps to have the latest war news displayed at post offices in country districts; and, if so, what instructions he has actually given?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already arranged to forward on Sunday mornings to every telegraph office which is open, and to every telephone exchange, the latest news from the seat of war received from the Official Press Bureau. The message is exhibited in the post office window, and is telephoned from the local exchange to any subscriber or caller on demand.

    NATIONAL RELIEF FUND.
    Mr. MORRELLhad given notice of the following: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can say what proportion of the National Relief Fund will be devoted to the widows and orphans of men killed or dying on active

    163
    service, and what proportion to the relief o£ distress and unemployment arising out of the War; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of arranging separate committees to deal with these two classes of relief?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Question No. 87 is not one that ought to appear on the Paper, as it refers to private and not public funds.

    UNEMPLOYMENT (LANCASHIRE).
    Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the distress now existing in Lancashire in consequence of short time and unemployment; and whether the Government propose to appoint any person to represent Lancashire upon the Committee of the National Relief Fund?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I receive regular reports of the industrial condition of Lancashire, as of other districts. In reply to the last part of the question, it has not been found practicable for the Executive Committee of the National Relief Fund to be constituted on a geographical basis.

    HOUSING ACT, 1914.
    Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Local Government Board if the information regarding how many cottages are wanted in each rural district council of England and Wales has now been all collected; and, if so, could the information be published in the form of a White Paper?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A considerable part of the information has not yet been furnished.
    Mr. STANIER: Will the right hon. Gentleman press for further details?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will consider that.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, if local authorities borrow money under the Housing Act, the houses so built will be the property of the State, or whether they will be erected at the cost and risk of the local authority; and, if the
    164
    latter, whether the undertaking given by the late President of the Board, in a letter addressed to the present Postmaster-General in December last to the effect that houses then built by the local authority-would be taken over by the State, is now cancelled?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The letter which my predecessor addressed to Mr. Henry Hobhouse, to which no doubt my hon. Friend refers, related exclusively to rural district councils. Houses built by the local authority would, in ordinary circumstances, remain their property; but the Housing (No. 2) Act of this Session empowers the Government to give effect to the undertaking which was given in that letter should the local authority so desire. On the question whether that undertaking should extend to houses the building of which may be sanctioned after the new Act has been passed, no decision has yet been reached.
    Mr. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if the Board are now prepared to make Grants to suitable societies constituted in accordance with the new Housing Act, 1914, to enable them to build in their rural districts, and, if so, on what conditions?
    Sir H. VERNEY: The terms on which loans will be made to authorised societies under the Act are being considered, and will be announced at an early date.
    Mr. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, if a county committee for war relief make themselves into a committee to carry out the new Housing (No. 2) Act, 1914, they can apply for a Grant to build cottages in rural districts; whether this would be favourably received; and whether the Board carry out all formalities with the Development Commissioners and the Treasury for schemes in rural districts?
    Sir H. VERNEY: As the Act provides for advances by the Board only to a local authority or an authorised society within the meaning of the Act, the procedure suggested in the first part of the hon. Member's question is not feasible, but if the committee formed authorised societies under the Act they would be

    165
    eligible for advances. Any action required to be taken under the Act by a Government Department in regard to housing in agricultural districts will be carried out by the Board.
    Mr. STANIER: When shall we be able to get particulars to go into this matter?
    Sir H. VERNEY: Perhaps the hon. Member would address that question to the Treasury.

    PUBLIC WORKS (ACQUISITION OF LAND).
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the necessity of enabling the local authorities to start works immediately, he will take power to enable them to take land, leaving the question of price to be decided later by arbitration, particularly in view of the fact that difficulty often arises owing to the incapacity of the owner through infancy, lunacy, absence from home, etc., to consent to a sale or convey the land?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Legislation would be required for this purpose, and I doubt whether such a Bill could be expected to be non-contentious.

    SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' FAMILIES (RELIEF OF DISTRESS).
    Mr. GODFREY COLLINSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether in some cases the families of soldiers and sailors, being unable to obtain the allowances due to them, have been obliged to ask for Poor Law relief; and, if so, whether he can take any action in the matter?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is the case that, owing to the organisation for the payment of the allowances not being complete in all places at the time of mobilisation, and to the fact that in some cases there was no time for the men to make allotments, in a comparatively small number of instances the wives and children of men who had been called up were compelled by their immediate needs to ask for relief from the Poor Law. Steps were at
    166
    once taken by the Prince of Wales's Fund, in co-operation with the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, and by the local committees for the prevention and relief of distress, to make good the defects, and there is reason to believe that the arrangements have for some time been satisfactory. It is clearly undesirable that these families should be recorded as having received Poor Law relief, and the Committee of the Prince of Wales's Fund have therefore been asked for a grant, which will not need to be of large amount, to enable the sums so paid by the boards of guardians to be repaid to them. The Committee have authorised a grant to be made for this purpose. I am arranging that when the money has by this means been repaid, each of the women concerned shall be informed that this has been done and that the record of her having received Poor Law relief will be erased.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the wives and children of men lost in the War will have to be provided for by the country, he could say whether they could be put in the country cottages now about to be built, and the children regularly instructed in agriculture; and whether large gardens could be attached to the cottages?
    Sir H. VERNEY: I will bear in mind the suggestions put forward by the hon. Member.

    SUSPENSION OF QUARTER TO FOUR RULE.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would suggest, as we have waived one rule regarding the putting down of Questions, that the House will be prepared to waive the Quarter to Four Rule.
    Rule suspended by assent for this day's Sitting.

    MORATORIUM.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that there is considerable misconception as to the effect of the moratorium on rent; with a view to removing misunderstanding can he say whether the moratorium extends to

    167
    rent which accrued or became due prior to 4th August where the liability exceeds £5, subject to interest at 6 per cent. for the period covered by the moratorium during which it remains unpaid; whether the moratorium also applies to rent accruing and payable for periods subsequent to 4th August, when such rent is payable in respect of contracts, leases, or agreements made before 4th August; and can there be no distraint or successful action taken for rent above £5 which is affected by the moratorium during the moratorium period?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The effect of the moratorium proclaimed on 6th August last, so far as rent is concerned, may be expressed as follows:—

    1. The moratorium does not apply unless the contract, lease, or agreement under which the rent arises was made before 4th August last.

    2. If the contract, lease, or agreement was made before 4th August last, the moratorium applies only to a liability for unpaid rent, which, when incurred, exceeded £5, and which is due and payable before 4th September next.

    3. The effect of the moratorium, when it applies, is to make rent which was payable on or before 4th August payable on 4th September, and to make rent which would have been payable on some date between 4th August and 4th September to be payable one month later than the dale when it was originally due.

    4. Distress for rent is a way of recovering rent that is payable; consequently the moratorium, by postponing date of payment, thereby postpones the date of any right to distrain. The remedy of distress will be further affected by the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill introduced yesterday.

    Sir J. D. REESasked the Attorney-General who has to bear the costs of an action brought during the operation of the moratorium, when the defendant is entitled to the benefits thereof and tenders the amount claimed prior to the expiration of the moratorium or of any extension thereof?
    Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The case put by the hon. Gentleman appears to be governed by the ordinary rule that a
    168
    plaintiff who does not succeed in his action is liable to pay the costs.
    Mr. LEACHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the intention of the Government to extend the operation of moratorium beyond the 4th of September?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I can at present add nothing to my statement of yesterday.
    Mr. WINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the moratorium to mortgages on property, in view of the effect of threatened notice of withdrawals?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member will find that the matter is fully dealt with in the Bill I have introduced in connection with the enforcement of processes for the recovery of debts. The Bill deals with foreclosure and the realisation of securities.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government are negotiating with the bankers to extend the present moratorium, the object of which is mainly to protect them against responsibilities accruing out of business with foreign countries; whether he is aware that in many cases the banks, while themselves taking full advantage of this measure, are restricting the facilities to British merchants for carrying on their foreign business even with non-belligerent countries; and, if so, whether he will make it a condition of any fresh guarantees or arrangements that the bankers will continue all reasonable facilities as hitherto granted to traders?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have been in communication with the banks and others in connection with these matters, and I hope that the arrangements made will prove satisfactory. For the moment I can add nothing to what I stated yesterday on this matter.
    EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that rent is subject to moratorium, he will consider the desirability of extending the moratorium to rates in all cases where the owner of property who is receiving no rent is liable for rates?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that powers given to Courts by the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill, which I introduced yesterday, enabling processes for the recovery of debts (including, amongst other things, payments on account of rates) to be postponed at the absolute discretion of the Court, will prove a better method of dealing with the case put than an extension of the moratorium.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any and, if so, what steps will be taken to relieve the importers of foreign and colonial raw produce such as cotton, jute, seeds, hides, etc., who have at the expiry of the moratorium to pay the drafts of the shippers drawn against produce which has since been confiscated and for which they receive no payment, so that ruin confronts them and those firms and persons concerned with their solvency if the moratorium ends before normal conditions are reestablished; whether relief for those merchants who import goods for use not only in this country but also in Continental countries is necessary to the continued existence of many of our home industries; and whether such merchants will receive support in view of the fact that the outbreak of war caught them with goods already in the hands of enemies whose acceptances, though now worthless, nevertheless continue to mature, with goods in British vessels in enemy ports and in enemy ships in neutral ports, and with goods in British possessions sold for shipment to what are now enemy countries with which contracts are cancelled?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I feel that it would be premature at present to make any statement as to what action the Government may consider necessary at the expiry of the moratorium, but I can assure the hon. Member that this and all other questions then arising will be most carefully considered.

    SECONDARY AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (ACTIVE SERVICE).
    Mr. HILLSasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will take steps to see that teachers in
    170
    secondary and elementary schools who have volunteered for service, and consequently are unable to return to their duties next term, will not thereby forfeit their appointments, and will be liberally treated in the matter of salary, and in particular will he take steps to advise all education authorities to grant uniformity of treatment?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): The conditions of employment and payment of teachers in secondary and elementary schools are primarily a matter for the local education authorities, managers and governing bodies responsible for the school staffs. The Local Government Board have already issued a Memorandum to local authorities advising them of their powers to grant leave of absence to persons in their employment who have been called out or who volunteer with their permission for active service, to make allowances to them of persons authorised by them in respect of salary, and to pay temporary substitutes. I sincerely hope, and have no reason to doubt that local education authorities and other responsible bodies are treating their teachers liberally in this matter; and unless a general wish is expressed by them for guidance and advice I do not think there is any necessity for the steps suggested by the hon. Member. I will, however, circulate this question and answer to all local education authorities.

    WAR RISKS (STATE INSURANCE).
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under the State insurance war risks, premiums paid on contracts entered into prior to the outbreak of war are properly chargeable to the seller or to the buyer on the contract; and, if the point is open to question, whether he will, by legislative enactment or otherwise, establish the position for the convenience of traders?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The war insurance scheme does not profess to determine by whom the cost of the insurance is to be borne or how it is to be distributed. This

    171
    is left to be settled by the parties concerned, and I have no reason to doubt that it can be so settled on a fair and equitable basis. As at present advised I do not propose to introduce legislation to deal with the question.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the rates hitherto fixed by the Government brokers for marine insurance covering war risks have been considerably above what was necessary, having regard to the business already transacted and certain to arise as trade becomes more normal: whether the rates originally demanded have been substantially reduced owing to the competition of Lloyd's during the last week or two; and whether, having regard to the national interests that would be secured by the increased importation and export of commodities, he can see his way to fix a flat rate of 1 per cent. for all voyages?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The insurance rates fixed by the Advisory Committee under the Government scheme have not, I think, been higher than was necessary. Modifications have been and will be made as circumstances require; but I may point out to my right hon. Friend that the Government insurance scheme for cargoes is not intended to compete with the ordinary insurance market, but to put a limit above which insurance rates cannot rise. He will find the principles upon which the scheme is founded and worked fully stated in the Huth Jackson Report.

    COUNTY COURT CLERKS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the guaranteeing of payment of the salary of clerks in County Courts where the issue of plaints is under 6,000 per annum be paid at the rates obtaining on 1st August, 1914, where it is proved that a diminution of process has resulted from the War, such clerks being willing to serve the Government in other clerical service?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My attention has already been called to the position of the clerks referred to by my hon. Friend, arid the Civil Service Commission have been notified that the services of these
    172
    clerks might in certain circumstances be available for temporary Government-work during the War. I understand that in many of these cases clerks are employed by the registrar in his private practice as a solicitor, and, according to my present information, there appears to be no tendency on the part of the registrars to dismiss their clerks. In these circumstances I am not at present disposed to take any further action.

    LOANS (REPAYMENT OF INCOME TAX).
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue instructions to the Board of Inland Revenue to withdraw their rule requiring that a loan must be in continuous existence for a period of one whole year before repayment of Income Tax on the amount of bank interest is allowed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not prepared to authorise repayment where the loan has not been in continuous existence for a year. If the loan is for business purposes, the interest is allowed as an expense in arriving at the liability to assessment. If it is for private purposes, the interest is private expenditure, and to repay Income Tax upon it would be to differentiate without valid reason between it and other forms of such expenditure.

    INCOME TAX RETURNS.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of those who have joined the armed forces of the Crown without making the necessary return for Income Tax purposes, and who would, had they done so, have been entitled to assessment at a lower rate on earned income, he will extend the time beyond the 30th September for making the return until the conclusion of their active service?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue will be prepared to accept applications made as soon as possible after 30th September in cases where it is shown that the delay was caused by the exigencies of naval or military service.

    SUGAR BEET CULTIVATION.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the high price and prospective shortage of sugar, and of the fact that about seven-twelfths of the sugar consumed in the United Kingdom comes from Germany, the Government will consider the advisability of themselves erecting a beet sugar factory in the West of England, and possibly elsewhere, with a view to its being subsequently taken over by private manufacturers, and so enable large areas of sugar beet to be sown by British farmers next spring and cultivated accordingly in the meantime?
    Sir H. VERNEY: The suggestion made by the hon. Member will receive careful consideration by the Board of Agriculture.

    TRADERS (GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN DEBTS).
    Mr. ALLEN BAKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what arrangements, if any, have been made to assist traders having debts due to them by customers resident in Germany and Austria; and, if no arrangements have been made, whether he will take the matter into consiredation with a view to assisting traders, whose resources are temporarily locked up in this manner, to keep their works in operation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I stated yesterday, this question is receiving careful consideration, and the Government will make every endeavour to deal with the situation.

    LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES.
    Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that many of the insurers in industrial life insurance societies, owing to being called up for military or naval service, may be unable to continue payment of their life insurance premiums, he will take steps to prevent their loss of the equitable surrender value of their policies being sacrificed owing to such war service?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This question is under consideration.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS IN AUSTRIA.
    Mr. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether any list of British subjects in the Austrian Empire so far accounted for includes the name of Miss Mary Elizabeth Tier, with whose address he has been supplied; and, if not, will he have an inquiry instituted regarding her, and the result communicated at the earliest possible date?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): Notice of this question has only reached me since questions started; therefore I cannot read the hon. Member a written reply. But the answer is this: No lists of British subjects with whom the United States authorities have got in touch in Austria have yet been communicated to us by them. With regard to the second part of the question, in which the hon. Member asks me to have special inquiries, made about this lady, I must say regretfully but frankly, No, I cannot have special inquiries made about her, or about any other of the very large number of people who are at present in Austria or Germany. Her name, if, as the hon. Member states, it has already been communicated to the Foreign Office, has been placed on the lists which we have sent to the American authorities in Austria. That means that they will do all they can to help her and the other people whose names have been placed on those lists. I am sure that they will do so. But I must state to the hon. Member, as I have stated to every other Member who has applied to me, that I cannot undertake to have special inquiries made with regard to those special persons in whom they are interested. The moment we hear about this lady, or any other person, we will communicate with the relatives as to the exact information we have obtained.

    LIMITED COMPANIES (CALLS ON SHANES).
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether a call made

    175
    to-day on partly-paid shares in a limited company, of which the holder was registered prior to the moratorium, can be called up?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the question means can notice of a call be given during the moratorium period, the answer is in the affirmative. If, however, the call is made for payment on a date before the expiry of the moratorium, the date for payment would be extended under the moratorium.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Can any shareholder, in a call made by any limited company on unpaid shares, avail himself of the moratorium?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Does it mean that no company can raise additional capital to meet its liabilities? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

    ROYAL NAVY (SEPARATION ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. FALLE: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if, if he cannot grant separation allowance to the wives and families of all Royal Navy ratings and Reservists, he can grant that allowance to the wives and families of all Royal Navy and Reservist A.B.'s and stokers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I said yesterday, I fully appreciate and sympathise with the spirit which has inspired the hon. Gentleman's questions upon this point, but I am afraid I cannot add anything to the general answer I gave the hon. Gentleman yesterday as to the payment of separation allowances to the seamen's wives, except to say that his present suggestion to grant the payments to the wives of certain ratings only is one in which I cannot concur.

    DEATH DUTIES (ESTATES OF OFFICERS AND MEN KILLED).
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make the statement which he fore
    176
    told yesterday in regard to the allowances on Death Duties in the case of the estates of those who have fallen in the War?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am prepared to submit to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House what our proposals are in respect to this matter. The Government consider that it would be unjust and unseemly that the revenue should profit by the premature death of those who sacrifice their lives in the service of their country, and especially so if it were to the detriment of their widows and children. Therefore, our proposals will be these—and I hope to be able to submit the Bills tomorrow—and perhaps the House will be-good enough to let me have the measure in all its stages—we propose to remit, or, in the case of duty already paid, to repay the whole or any part of the Death Duties leviable in respect of property passing on the death of the deceased to his widow or lineal descendants of the total value, for the purposes of Estate Duty, if the property so passing does not exceed £5,000. In regard to property over £5,000, instead of charging Death Duties on the principal value of the estate actually passing on death, the charge as regards any part of the estate which passes to the widow or lineal descendant will be on that value, discounted under the 3 per cent. tables, for the number of years of the probability of life at the age that the deceased had attained.

  BRITISH MARINES LANDED IN OSTEND.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister if he has any information that he can give the House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Sir John French reports that he was engaged yesterday against a superior force. He says; that his troops fought splendidly, and that he considers the position and prospect of the Army in the now impending battle satisfactory. He speaks in high terms of the quality and efficiency of the French Regular troops and their officers. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has a statement to make.

  GERMAN AUXILIARY CRUISER SUNK BY H.M.S. "HIGHFLYER."
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): I ought to tell the House that for reasons which seem sufficient to the Government and to the military authorities a strong force of British Marines has been sent to Ostend, and has occupied the town and surrounding district without delay. Here is another matter: The Admiralty have just received intelligence that the German armoured merchant cruiser "Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse," of 14,000 tons and armed, according to our information, with ten guns of approximately 4 in, calibre, has been sunk by His Majesty's ship "Highflyer" off the Ouro River on the West African coast. This is the vessel which has been endeavouring to arrest traffic between this country and the Cape, and is one of the very few German armed auxiliary cruisers which have succeeded in getting to sea. The survivors were landed before the vessel sunk. The "Highflyer's" casualties were: One man killed and five slightly wounded, and the names have been given to the Press Bureau.
  GERMAN AUXILIARY CRUISER SUNK BY H.M.S. "HIGHFLYER."

    Waterways Board.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has taken into consideration the matter of setting up the Waterways Board recommended by the Royal Commission on Canals?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: This question is being carefully considered.

    Lunacy Patients.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any inquiry has been made by his Department into the circumstances under which sixty-nine persons, all chargeable to the Swansea Union, had been detained in different lunatic asylums without having been seen by any Justice of the Peace, as required by the Lunacy Act; whether these alleged lunatics were sent to the asylums by orders of Justices of the Peace, and, if so, what commission of the peace did these Justices belong to; and whether, since the
    178
    procedure as regards these sixty-nine paupers in the Swansea Union was reported as irregular in the Sixty-sixth Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy, any general inquiry into the procedure in other unions or by other Commissioners of the Peace has been made, with a view to protect personal liberty, and with what results?
    Mr. McKENNA: The matter was fully investigated by the Lunacy Commissioners at the time, and no further inquiry has been made. The orders in the cases referred to were made by Justices of Swansea. Special steps were taken at the time, as indicated in the report, to call the attention of Justices and Union officials to the requirements of the Act, and at every visit to an asylum or workhouse the Commissioners carefully investigate the regularity of all admission papers.
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the case brought to his notice of an alleged lunatic who had not been personally seen by a magistrate and was incarcerated in a private institution for lunatics and was not informed by the manager thereof that he had a right of appeal under Section 8 of the Lunacy Act, any investigation was made to ascertain the circumstances and the truth of the patient's statement?
    Mr. McKENNA: Inquiry was made by the Lunacy Commissioners, and they were satisfied that a notice, as required by section 8, Sub-section (2), was given to the patient by the manager within twenty-four hours of his receiving the reception order.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that, owing to the restrictions imposed as to animals landing from Ireland, live cattle are not coming to the Salford and other inland Lancashire markets; whether he is aware that the slaughter of cattle at the port of landing results in waste (owing to decomposition) and also in expense to the retail butcher, and consequent increase in the price of meat; and

    179
    whether he will consider the possibility of withdrawing or relaxing the restrictions so as to allow Irish cattle to come into the Salford and other inland Lancashire markets?
    Sir H. VERNEY: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. It is not necessary that animals should be slaughtered at the port of landing, and the Board have no reason to think that their restrictions have anything to do with any rise in price which may have taken place. The Board hope, however, shortly to be in a position to withdraw all the restrictions now affecting the Irish live stock trade.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the clean bill of health from animal diseases in Ireland and the demand for supplies in Great Britain, and in the interest of both countries, he will consider the advisability of relaxing the restrictions now in force regulating the importation and transit of Irish live stock; and whether he is aware that, with the exception of a sporadic isolated case in Tipperary over five weeks since, Ireland has been free from foot-and-mouth distemper for several months?
    Sir H. VERNEY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I have just given to the hon. Member for South Salford.
    Mr. FIELD: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the time will arrive when he can take off these restrictions?
    Sir H. VERNEY: Shortly.
    Mr. FIELD: What does "shortly" mean?
    Sir H. VERNEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that.
    Mr. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether he is aware that Ireland is now free from foot-and-mouth disease in every form; and whether, in view of the great inconvenience and loss caused to Irish farmers,
    180
    as also to the Irish cattle dealers, who have to accompany their cattle from Ireland to the British markets and remain with them for a period of fourteen days under the Detention Order, he can now make a statement removing the period of detention of fourteen days, as it is especially hard on the owners of store cattle which do not come to the markets of Great Britain for immediate slaughter?
    Sir H. VERNEY: I am afraid I have nothing to add to the answer I have already given.

    Cheltenham Post Office.
    Mr. AGG-GARDNERasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, in consequence of the reduction of three superior appointments in the Cheltenham post office, the additional duties thus imposed on certain of the overseers cannot be completed within the scheduled time; that, from the same cause, there is now frequently no officer on duty of higher rank than a sorting clerk or a telegraphist, thereby preventing the public, upon occasions, from obtaining certain quantities of stamps from the reserve stock in charge of the assistant superintendent: and whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the higher appointments to meet the requirements and responsibilities in that office?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The question of the number of supervising appointments at Cheltenham was fully considered as recently as June of this year. I am satisfied that the existing posts are sufficient to meet the requirements of the work and that the supervising duties are not too heavy to admit of their being properly performed within the scheduled attendances. I am having inquiry made as regards the suggested difficulty in obtaining stamps from the reserve stock.

    Importation of Arms (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that Customs officials have no instructions to tamper with goods going to Ireland, he will say by whose orders and on what authority cases of sporting cartridges ordered from Birmingham by Messrs. Nooney and Son, merchants, Mullingar, in the ordinary course of their business, have

    181
    been in the present month examined, disturbed, and delayed at Holyhead, and again at North Wall, and a charge made for each examination, amounting in all to 10s.; and whether he will have this money refunded and an apology tendered?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I stated on Tuesday last, my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury communicated with the hon. Member on this subject. I am now sending him a copy of the letter in case it did not reach him.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he maintains that this money was not charged and paid? I hold the receipt for it in my hand.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I can add nothing to the very full answer given by my hon. Friend on the subject.
    Mr. GINNELL: That answer was a denial. Is it still denied that the money was charged and paid?

SYMPATHY WITH BELGIUM.

  ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I beg to move, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying Him to convey to His Majesty the King of the Belgians the sympathy and admiration with which this House regards the heroic resistance offered by his army and people to the wanton invasion of his territory, and an assurance of the determination of this Country to support in every way the efforts of Belgium to vindicate her own independence and the public law of Europe."
  Sir, very few words are needed to commend to the House the Address, the terme of which will shortly be read from the Chair. The War which is now shaking to its foundations the whole European system originated in a quarrel in which this country had no direct concern. We strove with all our might, as everyone now knows, to prevent its outbreak, and when that was no longer possible, to limit its area. It is all important, and I think it is relevant to this Motion, that it should be clearly understood when it was, and why it was, that we intervened. It was only when we were confronted with the choice between keeping and breaking solemn obligations—between the discharge of a binding trust and of shameless subservience to naked force—that we threw away the scabbard. We do not repent our decision. The issue was one which no great and self-respecting nation—certainly none bred and nurtured like ourselves, in this ancient home of liberty—could, without undying shame, have declined. We were bound by our obligations, plain and paramount, to assert and maintain the threatened independence of a small and neutral State. Belgium had no interests of her own to serve, save and except the one supreme and ever-widening interest of every State, great or little, which is worthy of the name, the preservation of her integrity and of her national life.
  History tells us that the duty of asserting and maintaining that great principle
  192
  —which is, after all, the well-spring of civilisation and of progress—has fallen once and again at the most critical moment in the past to States relatively small in area and in population, but great in courage and in resolve—to Athens and Sparta, to the Swiss Cantons, and, not least gloriously, three centuries ago, to the Netherlands. Never, Sir, I venture to assert, has the duty been more clearly and bravely acknowledged, and never has it been more strenuously and heroically discharged, than during the last weeks by the Belgium King and the Belgium people. They have faced, without flinching and against almost incalculable odds, the horrors of irruption, of devastation, of spoliation, and of outrage. They have stubbornly withstood and successfully arrested the inrush, wave after wave, of a gigantic and an overwhelming force. The defence of Liège will always be the theme of one of the most inspiring chapters in the annals of liberty. The Belgians have won for themselves the immortal glory which belongs to a people who prefer freedom to ease, to security, even to life itself. We are proud of their alliance and their friendship. We salute them with respect and with honour. We are with them heart and soul, because, by their side and in their company, we are defending at the same time two great causes—the independence of small States and the sanctity of international covenants. We assure them—as I ask the House in this Address to do—we assure them to-day, in the name of this United Kingdom and of the whole Empire, that they may count to the end on our whole-hearted and unfailing support.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am glad to have the opportunity of seconding the Resolution which, in terms so eloquent and moving, has just been proposed by the Prime Minister, and which I know commands the warmest approval, not only of this House, but of this whole Nation and Empire. In a struggle which, as we have just been told, was not sought by them, which neither the wisdom nor the forbearance of their Government could have averted, the Belgian Army have displayed a resistance against overwhelming odds as stedfast as it has been heroic—a resistance which has excited surprise, and has

  193
  won the admiration of the whole world. Now, when that small Army is able no longer to stem the tide of its advancing enemy, it is still with undaunted courage and unbroken spirit playing a noble and an effective part in the War. Our admiration and our sympathy are not confined to the Belgian Army. They go out in fullest measure to the Belgian people who have endured, and are now enduring, all the horrors of war. After making every allowance for the sources upon which our information comes, we do not doubt that they are enduring them in a form which ought to be impossible amongst civilised nations. Whatever doubt may have been felt among us as to the justice or the necessity of our taking part in this war has, I think, been removed by what has happened and is happening in Belgium. What has happened there confirms the belief in which we entered upon this war, that it is in reality a struggle of the moral influences of civilisation against brute force—a force which is none the less brutal because it has at its disposal all the material resources of invention and of science.
  Belgium has deserved well of the world. She has added another to the long list, of which the Prime Minister has spoken, of great deeds which have been done by the heroic patriotism of small nations; but to us and our Allies she has done more than set an example. She has placed us under an obligation, which as a nation we shall not forget. It is fitting, Mr. Speaker, that we should acknowledge that debt in words, but it is a debt which cannot be paid by words, and, at this moment, in my belief, the best way in which we can attempt to pay that debt is that we should realise, as I think our country has not yet fully realised, that this is, for us as much as for Belgium, a struggle of life and death, and that we must without haste, but without rest, employ to the utmost all our resources to bring it to a successful end.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I can assure the House that I am not guilty of the silly presumption of thinking that I can add anything to the force or eloquence of the speeches that have just been made by the two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. But I think the House will agree
  194
  that it may not be altogether inappropriate that, in a definite way, I should be permitted to associate Ireland to the full with this Motion. Sir, in no quarter of the world, I feel convinced, has the heroism of the Belgium people been received with more genuine enthusiasm and admiration than within the shores of Ireland, and there is no compliment which it would be possible for the Irish people to pay to Belgium that they would not willingly pay, and there is no sacrifice I believe which Ireland would not be willing to make to come to their assistance. In this regard I am glad and proud to be able to think that at this moment there are many gallant Irishmen willing to take their share of the risks and to shed their blood and to face death in the assistance of the Belgian people in the defence of their liberty and their independence.
  The spectacle of this small nation making these heroic sacrifices in defence of their independence and honour against overwhelming odds appeals in a very special way to the sentiments and the feelings of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman who has last spoken rightly says that the allied nations are under the deepest debt of obligation to Belgium. I have read in the newspapers recently of a suggested loan to Belgium of large sums of money. It seems to me that it is not a loan that ought to be made, but that the Belgium people ought to be asked to accept a gift. However, I have risen for one purpose only—that is, to make it clear that with all their hearts the people of Ireland are in sympathy with Belgium in this matter, and that they are willing to do what rests with them to assist her in the maintenance of her independence.
  Resolved, nemine contradicente, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying Him to convey to His Majesty the King of the Belgians the sympathy and admiration with which this House regards the heroic resistance offered by his army and people to the wanton invasion of his territory, and an assurance of the determination of this Country to support in every way the efforts of Belgium to vindicate her own independence and the public law of Europe.—[The Prime Minister.]
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAR LOAN BILL.
  Resolved, That the subsequent stages of the War Loan Bill may be taken immediately after the Bill has been read a second time, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of such a Bill.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
  Order read for Second Reading.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I need not say I do not rise to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill, but simply to express in a sentence and no more the hope that while the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks for the necessarily wide powers which he seeks to obtain by this Bill he will not postpone longer than is absolutely necessary his appeal to the House to raise supplies for the War, not merely by borrowing, but by fresh taxation. It is quite certain that in a big struggle of this kind the sooner we increase our resources from taxation the better it will be, and I should deplore any delay in appealing to the patriotism of the House and the country to vote the taxes that will be required.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, pursuant to the Order of the House of this day, That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

CURRENCY AND BANK NOTES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CURRENCY AND BANK NOTES (AMENDMENT) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Call in Notes for the Purpose of Exchange for Other Notes).
  The power of the Treasury to call in currency notes under Sub-section (4) of Section one of the Currency and Bank
  196
  Notes Act, 1914, shall be extended so as to include a power to call in currency notes on exchanging the notes so called in for other notes of the same face value issued under that Act.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. DILLON: I wish to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer again to Sub-section (6) of Clause 1 of the Bill. That Sub-section has this provision which differentiated it from every other Sub-section, that it shall have effect only until His Majesty by Proclamation revokes the same.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): That is not in the Bill.
  Mr. DILLON: I am speaking of the original Act.
  The CHAIRMAN: That hardly arises on the question that Clause 1 of this Bill stand part.
  Mr. DILLON: Perhaps I may explain that I was going on to refer to Sub-section 1 of the original Act. I was in error in not stating that at once. But perhaps I may be allowed to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give us some undertaking that he will issue a Proclamation revoking Sub-section (6) of Clause 1 of the original Act, because otherwise I should be disposed to move an Amendment later on revoking that Sub-section. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer will he mention a date on which he would advise His Majesty to issue that Proclamation, because it is perfectly plain from the language of Sub-section (6) that the provision making postal orders currency and legal tender was only intended to meet an emergency and would be revoked. My contention in connection with the wording of that Sub-section is that every post office is forcing into currency these postal orders and refusing to give silver change, and that is a source of a very great deal of annoyance. Old age pensions are being paid throughout the country in postal orders instead of in silver. I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, and he said that he knew no reason why silver

  197
  should be scarce. If that is so, why should Government Departments deny silver? All I ask from the Chancellor is that if he cannot revoke this Sub-section he will give an undertaking that the Postmaster-General should not refuse to give silver change, and should not continue to pay old age pensions in postal orders instead of silver, and that the Post Office should give change in the ordinary currency, and not force these postal orders into circulation. I think that is a reasonable request, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us that undertaking.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: May I join in the appeal made by the hon. Gentleman opposite to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman will he tell us what profit there is on a sovereign's worth of silver? The payment of wages in this postal currency is a very great inconvenience. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to make some money, why does he not say so?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot at the present moment tell what profit there is, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press me to reveal that part of the business. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo, we have already instructed the Post Office that they are not to give any more of those orders, and the moment we are satisfied that we have got them back we shall issue a Proclamation putting an end to their position now as legal tender. We shall stop, first of all, further issues, and in a very short time we shall be in a position to recall the power they now have of being legal tender.
  Mr. DILLON: That is an entirely satisfactory answer, and I am sure that it will give great satisfaction.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In reply to a question put to me, I may say that we are coining silver as rapidly as we possibly can. I understand that the scarcity is partly due to the mobilising, and that has had a good deal to do with it. In order to deal with the scarcity of silver we are coining as fast as we can.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Certificates Covering Issue of Notes.)
  The Treasury may, if they thins fit, instead of issuing any notes to any person, give to that person a certificate entitling him to the issue on demand from the Treasury of the notes mentioned in the certificate; and the notes covered by the certificate shall, for the purposes of Section two of the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1914, be deemed to be notes issued to that person.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: In reference to this Clause, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us the terms which will have to be paid on obtaining this certificate? Whilst this certificate is going to be a power of credit to lend money, people can replenish it under the certificate, and that is only a partial aid to the finances of the country. Mention was made yesterday of the fact that some bankers were doing their duty, but as far as I know the bankers are treating this question very well. You cannot expect a banker to lend money to a customer of whose solvency he is not certain. Therefore, however much you may give him the right of this certificate, and the right in making a loan to replenish under the certificate, you cannot say to a banker. "You must do that which is more or less imprudent—that is, lend money to a man of whose solvency you are not certain." I know there are certain difficulties in regard to knowing who is solvent and who is not. There have been many transactions with the Germans in regard to which debts have been created. Take, for example, a manufacturer of woollen goods. He has sold them, and large sums are owing to him—
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I do not think that question arises on this Clause. The hon. Member's first question as to the terms on which the certificate should be granted was in order, but the general banking question cannot be discussed on this Clause.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I do not think this certificate goes far enough, and I wish to know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to do something to meet the case of lending money to people in doubtful circumstances.
  The CHAIRMAN: That question is much too large to come under this Clause, although it might be in order on the Third Reading.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I understand that the hon. Member who has just spoken asked for the terms upon which these certificates were issued to the bankers. I had a question on this point yesterday, and I should like to support the query of the hon. Member as to the conditions upon which these certificates have been issued to the banks. Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us what powers there are for redeeming these certificates? I want to know if they can be called in, and are there any powers for redeeming them? If an unlimited power is given to the Treasury to issue these certificates, I think before giving such vast powers we should qualify them by certain provisions to prevent those powers from being abused. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to inform the House whether there are any powers for dealing with these certificates when the emergency has passed.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I would like to ask if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to make any discrimination between the banks in the issuing of these certificates. If there are any banks who have not given these facilities, will the right hon. Gentleman use this as a lever to obtain fair terms? The right hon. Gentleman may not wish to answer my question, but I think this is a weapon which could be fairly used in case the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that certain banks have behaved without proper consideration for the public interest.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member for Everton (Sir J. Harmood-Banner) has raised a very wide question. All I wish to say now is that I do not agree with what he said about the bankers. It seems to me that the country has taken a very great risk in supporting the bankers, and I hope the hon. Member will bear that in mind, and but for this they would not have been in quite as good a position as they are to-day. If the country is prepared to take risks on their behalf it was done in order to enable them to take risks on behalf of the country. Therefore I decline to take the view expressed by the
  200
  hon. Member, and I hope the bankers are not likely to take that view. If they do, the Government will have to come to the House and ask for wider powers.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I was not taking that view. I only wanted information upon it, because I thought it was possible that that view might be taken.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope not, but I do not propose to pursue that point. In the course of two or three days I shall make a fuller statement upon the commercial position, when I hope hon. Members will be able to discuss the matter. At the present time I would rather not give an answer to one or two other questions of the same kind which have been put to me. One of those questions was as to the terms. I think it would be a mistake to reveal part of the terms without putting the whole question before the House. Therefore, for the moment, perhaps, the House will excuse me answering any question in regard to the terms upon which the certificates are issued. At present it is a question as to whether it is desirable or not that certificates should be issued. We shall come to the discussion of the terms later on, and I think it is better that those terms should be discussed as a whole rather than partially. There is a good deal to be said for the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Harry Lawson), but I do not think the time has yet come for putting it into operation. That is one of the reserves which we shall have to avail ourselves of if the bankers take the view that it is not their business to take risks in order to support the industries of the country at this particular juncture. I do not, however, think that they are likely to offer any objection. I think things are improving very considerably, especially during the last two or three days. I hope that before the discussion takes place I shall be able to put even a more satisfactory statement before the House than I did yesterday.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (TEMPORARY RESTRICTION) BILL.
Order read for Second Reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Captain JESSEL: I should like to ask if the Home Secretary is prepared to consider Amendments to this Bill?
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Yes, during the Committee stage.
Mr. MARSHALL HALL: The second Clause of this Bill gives power to close public-houses indefinitely. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should alter that provision so that public-houses could not be shut for a longer period than fourteen days, except with the approval of the Secretary of State.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I hope some little time will be given between the Second Reading and the Committee stage of this Bill, because there are some important questions raised in regard to which Amendments are needed.
Sir CHARLES HENRY: I wish to know if it is intended that clubs should come into line with public-houses on this question under this Bill. For instance, would clubs come under the Sunday Regulations?
Mr. McKENNA: Clubs would come under this Bill in the manner mentioned on the face of the measure. This Bill does not affect other laws relating to clubs and licensed premises.
Mr. PETO: According to my reading of Clause 1, there is no obligation on the authority to have the restrictions imposed upon clubs for the same period, or of the same drastic nature as are imposed in regard to public-houses. It seems to me that the parallel which has been taken for this Bill, namely a case of riot, has no direct bearing upon the present time when the country is in a state of war. I can understand restrictions in relation to the earlier closing of public-houses and clubs in certain districts. That may be absolutely necessary, but it seems quite unnecessary to give local authorities such wide powers as the
202
entire closing of the public-houses in a district for all hours of the day, for every day of the week, and for any period up to fourteen days—in fact, for any period whatever sanctioned by the Secretary of State. I do not think we ought to pass the Second Reading of this Bill without some definite statement as to why there is this extraordinary urgency, and why such sweeping powers are necessary. I have drafted some Amendments to Clause 1 which I shall propose during the Committee stage. It would read:—
"Provided that no such order shall suspend the sale, supply, or consumption of intoxicating liquor between the hours of 11.0 and 2.0 p.m., and 5.0 and 9.0 p.m."
There is a great distinction between the use of the public-house as a part of the everyday life of the whole mass of our population—I believe it to be an absolute necessity at meal-times in the middle of the day and in the evening—and the keeping of public-houses open till ten or eleven o'clock at night. I should deprecate power being given to the local authorities to prevent entirely the consumption of intoxicating liquors luring the ordinary meal-times of the working people. I therefore do not feel inclined to allow the Second Reading of the Bill to pass without some statement being made as to why these wide and sweeping powers are necessary at the present time.
Sir G. YOUNGER: So far as Scotland is concerned, I deprecate the proposal to give this power to the licensing authority. I do not know whether the Home Secretary is sufficiently aware of the fact that the sheriff of the county in Scotland is wholly and entirely responsible for the peace of the country. The whole responsibility is laid upon him for the control of the police and the general arrangements, and everything required to preserve and conserve the public peace in the counties and burghs of Scotland, and he is obviously the proper authority to deal with this restriction. I quite believe and agree it may be necessary and desirable in certain circumstances that these restrictions should be imposed, but they ought to be imposed by the proper person in

203
whom everyone has confidence, and who realises the circumstances of the case with which he is dealing, and not by licensing authorities, constituted as they are in Scotland, with really no proper claim to exercise any such power. They do not know the facts of the case, and they are elected for other purposes altogether than that which this places in their power. Really, the whole machinery for the management and control of the peace ought to be in the hands of one authority as it is now, and it ought not, as this Bill proposes, to be shared with some other authority which I do not myself believe either has the responsibility necessary or is the desirable authority. I should certainly move in Committee that the sheriff should take the place of the licensing authority.
Mr. JAMES HOGGE: I hope that this Bill will not be proceeded with without serious consideration. It gives an extension of powers to Scotland. There are specific words in one Clause making that possible. One of the Clauses provides that if the order suspends the sale, supply, and consumption of intoxicating liquor at an hour earlier than nine o'clock at night, it shall not remain in force for more than fourteen days except with the approval of the Secretary of State. I would like to point out that last year we passed a very drastic Temperance Bill for Scotland through this House. I supported the Government in passing that measure. We limited the hours of the public sale of intoxicating liquor from ten o'clock in the morning till ten o'clock at night. We are going to take the full Licence Duty from those publicans in Scotland. If you are going to apply this Bill to Scotland as well as to England, you are going to cut off another hour and still demand the same amount of Licence Duty. I do not think that is fair to the trade. I am a temperance reformer, as the House knows, and I am very willing to be up against the trade, but you ought to be fair to them, and not do them an injustice by an emergency Bill of this kind. The point, so far as I have been able to gather it from newspapers in Scotland, is that complaints have been made o£ a great many Territorials making more frequent use of the
204
public-house than necessary. That may or may not be the case, but the commanding officer of those troops can settle that question for himself. He can put every public-house everywhere out of bounds after six o'clock if he likes. That would not interfere with the ordinary community. I think the Government are doing excellently in a great number of these emergency measures, but we want to take care not to do an unnecessary injustice. I agree that the time has not come yet when public opinion in the country is such that it is essential that every public-house should shut down or that places of entertainment should be closed earlier than usual. I think it is a great mistake to shut a great many places of entertainment, and thus throw people on the street, and I hope that the Home Secretary will bear in mind that many of us who are strong temperance reformers are very anxious about this matter.
Sir J. D. REES: There really is a feeling that this Bill does not entirely arise out of the present situation. It is felt that temperance extremists may get their voice in to an undue extent upon an occasion like this, and I would beg that this Bill might be drawn a little milder. I have been living in a place through which a great many Territorials have been passing, and, so far as I could see, there really was nothing for them to do in the evening. I did not find that the public-houses being open led to any abuse, and I am quite sure that their being closed would deprive these men of any companionship during the evening. It is a very large order to close public-houses at nine o'clock, and the approval of the Secretary of State should be sought in every case. These licensing bodies are only too prone to be severe on the public-house. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I could give instances of it, and I beg that the Home Secretary will mitigate the rigours of this Bill.
Major MORRISON-BELL: I rise not entirely in sympathy with some of the remarks which have fallen from hon. Members on this side of the House. I take the other point of view. I am, in fact, authorised to speak from a military point of view as regards London, and I know-that the military authorities there hope

205
that a measure of this sort will not be unduly delayed. At the present moment London is in an entirely different position in one way from any other town. The enormous number of men who are called to the Colours make it much harder to deal with the problem in London than anywhere else. The hon. Member opposite suggested that commanding officers should place public-houses out of bounds and see that they are out of bounds, but I would point out to him that at the present moment they are full of work, and they have not enough men to do it. It would mean that you would have every man on patrol duty at night. This measure, or some similar measure, would be very welcome. The trouble comes not so much from the soldiers as from civilians, and I wish it were possible for some kind of authoritative warning to be given to civilians that every time they see soldiers in uniform in a public-house, and every time they see on the notice boards that there has been some large victory, is not the occasion to stand treat all round to every soldier they meet. Soldiers are under great temptation from well-meaning and patriotic civilians, but these civilians are not doing their country or the soldiers any good by treating them in this way. I hope that there will not be any undue delay in passing some measure of this sort. I know that it will meet with the entire approval of the military authorities.
Mr. McKENNA: I think the points that have been raised are perfectly reasonable, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the Government of forcing through the House a measure which would be contrary to public opinion. There is not the least desire to take advantage of the situation in order to pass measures for any ulterior reason. The sole object, which has been so admirably expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Major Morrison-Bell), is to deal with a particular situation which has arisen in the War. It must not be supposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. James Hogge) that, because in Clause 1 we put in a proviso with the intention of checking any capricious action by an over-enthusiastic bench of magistrates, we
206
mean thereby that should be taken as the rule. I have had the opportunity, through the courtesy of some hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite, of hearing their views as to points in which the Bill might be safeguarded, and I would like to take this opportunity of telling the House what are the Amendments which I have already agreed to accept in Committee. If other Amendments are moved with the general approval of the House, we shall, of course, be only too glad to accept them. I propose that Clause 1, Sub-section (1), should read as follows:—
"The licensing justices for any licensing district may, if they think fit upon the recommendation of the chief officer of police, that it is desirable for the maintenance of order or the suppression of drunkenness in any area, temporarily to restrict the sale, consumption, and supply of intoxicating liquor…"
Therefore, two conditions are necessary before there can be any alteration in the existing hours during which licensed premises are open. In the first place, the licensing authority must itself think fit that there should be a change; and in the second place, there must be a recommendation of the highest police authority in the district that it is necessary to cut down the hours of opening for the maintenance of order or the suppression of drunkenness. I think the inclusion of that Amendment in the Bill meets practically every point that has been raised. I am not dealing now with Scotland. It is on a separate footing, and I will leave my right hon. Friend to deal with it.
Sir F. BANBURY: We do not like the licensing authority.
Mr. McKENNA: Whether we like them or not, the fact remains that they are the licensing authority. It is a licensing matter, and they ought to be the authority to move in it, but they cannot act on their own discretion, they can only act on the recommendation of the police authority. Therefore, I do not think the objection to leaving the licensing authority in is really a strong one.
Mr. MARSHALL HALL: The licensing authority are only a delegated committee of the whole body of magistrates, and, if the right hon. Gentleman were to vest the

207
power in the whole body of magistrates, although I should not welcome the Bill, I should be less dissatisfied with it.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. McKENNA: I do not think on the whole that would commend itself to the House. The licensing authority are the authority, and, when we secure that they shall only act on the recommendation of the police authority, who are responsible for order and the suppression of drunkenness, I think we have done everything that can reasonably be asked. Then I propose in Sub-section (2) to strike out altogether the Forfeiture Clause, and to give the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions.
Sir F. BANBURY: Against conviction?
Mr. McKENNA: Against conviction, not against the order. Then as to the application to London, I propose that, in the county of London, the Compensation Committee appointed under Section 6 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, shall be the authority to be substituted for the licensing justices. But, again, this Committee can only act on the recommendation of the police authority.
Sir F. BANBURY: What about the City?
Mr. McKENNA: The licensing justices in the City will act on the recommendation of the chief of the City Police authority. I think these are all the Amendments, excepting certain ones affecting Scotland and Ireland, which, when we come to Committee, I will ask my right hon. Friends to explain.
Sir G. YOUNGER: I hope it is not proposed to take the Committee now?
Mr. McKENNA: I can only take it now by leave of the House.
Sir G. YOUNGER: If it is to be taken now, may I ask the Lord Advocate to tell us how it is proposed to deal with Scotland?
Sir F. BANBURY: May I suggest to the Home Secretary that if he agrees to take Committee to-morrow the Amendments can be on the Paper and we shall see what they are?
Mr. McKENNA: I will not press my suggestion to take the Committee now. We will take that stage to-morrow, and I hope the House will then agree to give us the remaining stages.
Sir G. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with a number of points but has said nothing about Scotland.
Mr. McKENNA: That is a Committee point.
Sir G. YOUNGER: It is an important point; it is whether the sheriff or the licensing justices shall be entrusted with these powers in Scotland. I say it should be the sheriff, because he is responsible for the peace of the county.
Mr. PETO: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point I made. In spite of the Amendments which he has indicated the Bill will still leave it possible for all houses of entertainment to be closed during the ordinary meal-times of the working classes.
Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman will put an Amendment on the Paper, I will deal with it to-morrow in Committee.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. But I have listened attentively to the discussion on the Bill and I state frankly I do not see that any specially strong case has been made out for the Bill. One might gather from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Honiton Division (Major Morrison-Bell) that some special reason exists for this. When I find the trade assenting to a Bill I am always rather suspicious of it. The hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs gave his assent to the Bill—
Sir G. YOUNGER: No!
Mr. RAWLINSON: Well, very nearly. I really should like to know rather more clearly what special case there is in the mind of the Home Secretary which makes it desirable to pass this very drastic and very extreme Bill. You are giving power to close clubs and public-houses during meal-times, causing the greatest possible inconvenience to the general public and to a very large number of persons who depend very considerably upon licensed

209
houses for their opportunity of getting food in the daytime, and, unless it is really necessary, I submit that such drastic powers as these ought not to be given. I think the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Honiton Division affords one of the best examples of the strength of the case against this Bill. He stated that he was anxious to have this Bill in force in London at the present moment. I venture to submit there is not now the slightest ground for supposing it is desirable. There is not the slightest ground at the present moment for shutting up all clubs and public-houses in London at nine o'clock in the evening.
Mr. McKENNA: It is not for one moment to be supposed that the Chief Commissioner of Police will recommend that all clubs and public-houses shall be closed at nine o'clock.
Mr. RAWLINSON: My hon. and gallant Friend's speech was to the effect that the Bill was urgent. He told us it was needed in London at once, and we may therefore assume that the Commissioner of Police would make such a recommendation. I do not think that Bills of this kind should be carried when there is no real demand for them, and I want to know what is the real reason for this Bill. As far as towns like Portsmouth are concerned, we know that the difficulty has already been dealt with by Proclamation. What is the need, then, for this very drastic legislation? This is not a question of detail, and I submit that the Bill in its present form constitutes panic legislation of the worst form. It may be better when amended. But before the House passes such legislation as this, which must cause much inconvenience to people going about their business in the ordinary way, we should have placed before us much stronger material than is at present in evidence, in order to show that it is really necessary to put these powers into the hands of the licensing authority or the police.
Mr. J. W. WILSON: I think that in a short Debate of this character the Government should be supported by voice by those who approve of their action. I consider the safeguards that these powers are only to be put into operation in the interest of public order or for the suppression of drunkenness should be sufficient,
210
and that the matter is within the option of the licensing authority are sufficient in this case. After all, what is it proposed to do? It is suggested we should take a course which has already been adopted in most of the European countries engaged in this great strife. Here are we in this country, by placards and by other means, appealing to the loyalty of our young men and asking them to come into the Army. We are trying to arouse their enthusiasm, and ought we not to be prepared to help the officers of the Army by adopting this small measure, even at the expense of inconvenience to the public, in restricting the hours of opening of public-houses? What more regrettable sight could there be than is witnessed by those going up and down the country—the sight of recruits suffering from the misplaced kindness with which the public are treating them? I hope the Government will be supported in this matter, and I am sure the public will submit to any slight inconvenience that may be caused in places where these powers are put in force. The example set by other European countries is one which surely we should be prepared to follow! It is acknowledged by the naval and military authorities that it would be in the interest of the country, as well as of the recruits and of the Territorials, to adopt this course, and we have a right to expect the public to do this, even if it involves slight inconvenience in certain quarters.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I should not have spoken but for the tone adopted by the last speaker. As I understand it, everybody is willing to give the Government these powers if they are required by either the naval or the military authorities. On that, I think, the House would be unanimous, and all that has been said by hon. Members who have spoken on this side of the House is that these powers should be enforced when the naval and military authorities require it, and not otherwise. The fear which exists in the minds of persons like myself is this, that the Government—I do not say the Home Secretary—but that the Government as a whole is being acted upon by a group of temperance people who are taking advantage of this war to carry out their own peculiar views. That is the suspicion

211
which is entertained on this side of the House; and while I am quite willing to consider measures for closing licensed houses should it become necessary in the general interest of the community, when the War is over, at a time when the discussion of the question can be taken on its merits, I do not feel that I can allow a little group of men who may have influence with the Government, and who have been disappointed because a part of their licensing scheme has not prevailed to use the momentum of this War to now obtain powers which might be used illegitimately. It is in no way unpatriotic for hon. Members in any quarter of the House to say, "We are willing to give you this Bill provided the powers are only put into operation at the instance of the naval or military authorities." That is taking a very fair stand in the matter, and I will ask the Home Secretary what is his objection to putting that into the Bill? The measure, as at present framed, is, to my mind, a little wide, and I think the Home Office, seeing how easily powers are being given to them in regard to general classes of legislation, is taking advantage of the patriotic temper of the House of Commons, which is passing Bills with lightning rapidity, to rush through the House something in the nature of drastic legislation; they are waving the flag and seeking to advance by a side wind the great cause of temperance. Hon Gentlemen opposite dissent, but we on these benches are entitled to our suspicions, and we are also entitled to give expression to them. I generally support temperance legislation in this House; I certainly have never opposed it. But I do object to the occasion of this War being turned into a vehicle to carry out a purpose which is not exactly that with which we are all in agreement. We sympathise with the Government in this emergency. We know how heavily they are weighted with care and how great is the anxiety they have to bear. But when we are giving the unanimous assent of this House to legislation it is our duty to see that the legislation is in accord with the unanimous feeling, and that it represents the common opinion of the House. There is a considerable minority of hon. Members who hold that these drastic powers should only be put in
212
force at the instance of the naval or military powers, and I strongly think that the right hon. Gentleman would do himself and the Government good service by accepting an Amendment of that kind.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I certainly hope that the House will read this Bill a second time on the understanding that it will be proceeded with in Committee tomorrow, when we may be able to see all these different proposals in writing and form our opinion upon them. My own experience, speaking from the point of view of the ordinary man in the street, leads me to suppose that some such Bill as this is needed. I can assure the hon. Member who spoke last that I am not one of these temperance fanatics to whom he referred. I have no sympathy at all with their point of view. I hope that the Government will take care that this Bill is not used for any indirect purpose. I am sure they do not intend it to be. I also hope that they will put in such complete safeguards as will entirely spike the guns of anybody who wishes to use it for any purpose of that kind.
Mr. PIRIE: I am afraid the hon. Member for North Worcestershire (Mr. J. W. Wilson) and the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) took an exaggerated view of the real purpose of this Bill. I do not think it is necessary to appeal to patriotism or to say there is excessive drunkenness, or on the other hand, to say that the Bill is due to the machinations of the temperance group in this House. I look upon the Bill as the first elementary step to be taken in a situation in which the country finds itself. It does not go beyond what is being done abroad by countries who are in the same position. It does not go so far as what is taking place in France at this moment. Some weeks ago, in France, an order was issued to close the public-houses at certain hours of the day, and if any case of drunkenness is traced to a public-house the owner of that house is placed under a very heavy fine and the house closed for the remainder of the campaign. We are by no means taking an exaggerated step in reading this Bill a second time. I agree with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) with regard to the naval and

213
military authorities. If an Amendment of that description were carried the Bill could be applied to every town in which there were places for recruits. I sympathise with the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Honiton Division (Major Morrison-Bell), who emphasised the need for the Bill in London.
Mr. GRETTON: I speak on this Bill from an entirely independent point of view, because I have not had the advantage of any conference with the Home Secretary, and, as a matter of fact, had not seen any of the Amendments until he introduced them to the House. Apparently some of my hon. Friends are more satisfied with those Amendments than I should be. In the first place, there has been no real case made out for this Bill, except with regard to London. One hon. Gentleman opposite tried to show it was necessary in places where Territorials were assembled. That hon. Gentleman came from Scotland. I do not criticise his experience across the Border, because I am not acquainted with what occurs across the Border in Territorial camps, but so far as this side of the Border is concerned, I would speak in strong terms against any imputation of that kind being made against men now serving in the Territorial Force. I spent many years in the force when it was known as the Volunteer Force, and afterwards when it was reconstituted, and I know that the inert who join are of a very high class, possessing great self-respect and self-restraint, who desire to behave well in the uniform they wear and do credit to the battalion which they join. My own experience, not only generally, but when going amongst the Territorials, leads me to protest against any idea being circulated among the public that the large number of Territorials now assembled makes this Bill necessary.
The case that was made for London was a good case. London hours are very much longer than those in any other part of the Kingdom. If the naval and military authorities in London think that in certain districts those hours should be shortened in the evening, it is very difficult to resist and I should not endeavour to resist acting upon that advice. My objection is the same objection as that raised by the hon. and learned Member for North-East fork (Mr. T. M. Healy). Why drag in the
214
licensing justices? They are not responsible for the maintenance of order. Their duty is, at the end of each year, to decide whether licences should be renewed, and to deal with applications for new licences and matters of that kind. When you are dealing with matters of order the police are the authority. They act under the Riot Act and under the emergency Acts which have been passed by this House. Why drag in the licensing justices? The fact that they are brought in is an obvious justification for the suspicion indicated by the hon. and learned Member. There is another provision in this Bill which shows that there has been a certain endeavour by somebody who has had something to do with it to satisfy a certain group on the other side of the House. The object of the Bill is to secure that the houses should be closed, but why impose the forfeiture of the licence? If you want a house to be closed, close it for a fixed period—for a fortnight, three weeks, or a month if you like—but why do you interfere with the question of the renewal of the licence? That is a police measure. I should not have the slightest objection to the Bill if it were to be enforced by the police authority.
Mr. McKENNA: It will be.
Mr. GRETTON: Then I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I did not know that that was what he intended. I understand that the police authorities may apply to the licensing justices, but cannot put the Bill into force. The justices cannot put it in force, because, unless the police apply, they cannot act. That is a very inconvenient way of dealing with a matter of this kind. You should trust the police authorities to act in this matter, according to the need of preserving public order. I understand that is the ground for proposing the Bill. Why then drag in these two authorities? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not anxious to make any mention of the naval and military authorities. Why should not the police authorities be empowered to act, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, as soon as they think it is desirable for the maintenance of public order or the suppression of drunkenness? I quite admit what has been said on all sides of the

215
House that so far as this Bill is required by the naval and military authorities, they should have it without hesitation; but so far as this Bill is being made, in the way it is drafted, a measure to carry out the fads and cranks of hon. Gentlemen who sit in different parts of the House, it should be swept away and the Bill should be left what it was intended to be—a Bill to help the naval and military authorities.
Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The hon. Member who has just spoken has suggested, as others have done, that this Bill should only be applicable to certain particular districts. I altogether fail to follow him in that argument. It is a Bill which is good for the whole country, and it ought to apply to the whole country. Sufficient discretion is given to the justices and the chief of the police in each district to see that the conditions prevail which make it necessary to carry its provisions into effect. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) to the distinction between the case of England and Scotland. Speaking as a Scottish Member, I believe that the desire for this Bill is very strong in Scotland. I believe there have been unfortunate scenes which have occurred in a number of large centres in Scotland within the last week or two which give good justification for supposing that there is a necessity for carrying a measure of this kind. I do not want in any way to attach any blame to the Territorial force themselves. It was very well put by an hon. and gallant Member opposite that in this matter it is the public who are very apt to mislead the soldiers and tempt them, and in a time of excitement which does, and is likely to prevail always at war time, it is extremely desirable that the military should be safeguarded in this particular way. With regard to the provisions of the Bill, the Government have gone very far indeed in trying to meet all the views expressed on both sides of the House in order to make it a Bill which will meet with the approval of the whole House. I deprecate very much the remark made by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), that the Government in this matter are being influenced by any section or by individuals in this House. I believe the Home Secretary must have receved requisitions from many
216
different authorities, military as well as civil, which led to his introducing this Bill, and that he has not in this matter been forced to take action by any one section, but that he has gathered up the opinion of the whole of the House. I sincerely hope that this Bill will be passed in a form which will make it extremely useful. I know the need for it exists in Scotland to-day, and I suppose it exists also in all other parts of the United Kingdom. Under the proposals now made by the Home Secretary, I feel that no injustice, direct or indirect, will arise.
Mr. MACKINDER: There is one important point raised by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) to which no reply has been given. I venture to hope that the Home Secretary will carefully consider the point before the Committee stage is reached. I refer to a ease which might quite well occur, namely, that this Bill will be put into force especially in certain districts, and if a case is made out for it, in that case it is probable that the public-house keeper will lose seriously. Is it fair that no allowance should be made with regard to the duty to be paid? It is wrong, when we have an emergency law which is to be enforced for the general good, that the cost of it should be paid by a few particular people. I hope that point will be considered.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: I speak from a different point of view than that of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Duncan Millar). In ordinary circumstances I have uniformly opposed Bills of this kind, because I have thought conscientiously that such restrictions were economically and socially wrong, but in this particular case I desire most emphatically to associate myself with the supporters of this Bill. I have seen by close experience the evils that are being worked at this moment, not amongst Territorials, but among those who are recruiting for the Army Lord Kitchener desires to raise. There may be details as to the authority, as to the means by which that authority may be exercised, and as to the restraints that it may be necessary to place upon those who have this particular object to serve, but I have no hesitation whatever, as one who has uniformly opposed by Motion and Vote Bills promoted in ordinary circumstances by the

217
temperance party, in supporting this Bill now, and I hope we shall unanimously pass the Second Reading.
Mr. HAMILTON: I find myself chiefly in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy). I feel that every Member of the House is anxious to assist the Government in any legislation that is necessary and wise for the betterment of the country and for military or naval purposes. Is this particular legislation demanded by the military and naval authorities? If so, it should be stated in the Bill, and the restrictions should be confined to such districts which are affected by having soldiers near by or where recruiting is going on. I can assure the House that last week in my own Division a magistrate who is the head of the band of hope—a gentleman who disagrees with me in politics, but with whom I have been working actively during the last week on distress committees and so forth—called together two or three of his co-conspirators and tried to close the public-houses in our district. He even, I believe, telegraphed to the Home Secretary to know whether he had the authority to close them, and the Home Secretary replied that he had not. Therefore that little scheme fell through. There is no camp, and there is no question of soldiers being anywhere near that district. This is a deliberate attempt—by the band of hope—to put forward teetotal legislation in this House in a time of crisis. I am very much in favour of temperance legislation, but I am not in favour of wide legislation preventing a working man from having his glass of beer in the ordinary hours if he wants it. I call that class legislation. Anyone of us can go and have our drink at any time of night that we want it, because we have it in our house, and no one can prevent us drinking it; but if a working man hears of a great victory and wants to discuss it with a pal, he has not drink in his house, and cannot get a glass of beer if the band of hope in the district has closed the houses. I do not think that sort of legislation is what we want to pass in a hurry as emergency legislation at present. I do not think it will help temperance, but will put it back. I am convinced that if it is necessary to assist the
218
military authorities, or the recruiting authorities, or the naval authorities in any district, such a Bill as this might be useful, but I feel very strongly that if it is passed it ought to rest with the police authorities, and if they wish to see it put into force it should be done on application, not to the licensing bench, but in the ordinary way to the bench of magistrates. If the Home Secretary will agree to that, that the police authority shall first move in the matter, and having moved, shall apply to the ordinary bench of magistrates for an order, I think a great deal of the opposition to this Bill would be taken away.
Mr. DENNIS: I quite sympathise with the objects of this Bill, and a Bill with this object must be passed, but from the moment I read this Bill I never could understand why the Home Secretary dragged in the licensing justices as the people to be appealed to. They have nothing whatever to do with it. This is purely a police measure, and either the military police, the naval police, or the municipal police should regulate this matter. It ought to be left to them alone without the intervention of any licensing justices. There is a very strong suspicion in the minds of most people with regard to temperance legislation where licensing justices are concerned. We who practise before them know their general tendency, and if the Home Secretary wants to remove the Suspicion from the minds of Members of the House, he will remove from his Bill the reference to licensing justices having their opinion asked at all, and leave it entirely as a matter for the police in each district who will act upon the suggestions of the military and naval authorities.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Friday).

PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS (TEMPORARY RULES) ACT (1914) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read a second time.
Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I wish to make one statement on which I have had many inquiries. I wish to give those who own patents in foreign countries the assurance which they require. They have asked whether we propose to completely confiscate the rights of aliens in the patents which they have exercised previously in this country. The object of the Act and the Amending Bill is to suspend, and not to destroy. I should like to state emphatically that throughout the period of the War it would be competent for the Government to take the royalties which are payable to the alien patent owners. They could hold these royalties, and if on the conclusion of the War we found that Germany and Austria were cancelling the patents held by our people in their countries, we should, of course, have to find it necessary to deal similarly with patents held by aliens in this country. If, however, Germany and Austria agree to keep alive, after the conclusion of the War, patents held by British subjects, we on our part would be prepared to keep alive patents in this country held by German and Austrian subjects. We have, however, taken power, when we are issuing a licence to a British subject to exercise a patent in this country, to issue that licence not only for the period of the War but also for the full period of the patent, so that those manufacturers who did take up these licences would have some justification for feeling that throughout the life of the patent their property would not be jeopardised.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ADJUSTMENT)—(SCOTLAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. RUTHERFORD: We have during the last few days seen a very large number of Bills passed in a few minutes, and which the majority of us private Members understood had been substantially agreed between the Leaders of both sides. In this national emergency I imagine that almost every private Member has felt it his duty not to interfere more than can possibly be helped consistently with doing what he considers to be his duty. But when I read this Bill I found it in many respects unreasonable, and calculated to do a great deal more harm than good. We only got prints of the Bill this morning, and there has been no time for full consideration. Speaking broadly, on reading the Bill carefully from one end to the other, it appears to me that if it became an Act of Parliament it would at one blow entirely destroy all commercial credit in the whole country, and it would immensely extend all kinds of difficulty and distress. It gives power, at the uncontrolled discretion of every registrar of a Court, to postpone any kind of payment and every legal remedy to recover any sum of money whatever. This is the broadest and most drastic suggestion which I have ever heard introduced into the House of Commons upon any subject whatever during the whole eleven or twelve years that I have been a Member of the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has undoubtedly been in touch with a number of leading banking and other authorities, and after reading a Bill like this through, knowing his great ability and the enormous grasp that he has shown of the exigencies of the situation, and knowing the kind of people with whom he certainly must have been in conference, one can scarcely believe that a Bill containing powers of this description, and which will have, I verily believe, consequences such as I have endeavoured to indicate, could have been brought forward by him, and I shall certainly wait with very great interest to hear from him some justification for asking

221
us to destroy at a blow the whole credit system of the country, and whether there are circumstances now obtaining in banking and commercial and financial circles which would warrant any Bill of this wide range being brought forward. I feel that although we have the duty in this time of great emergency to sit still and be silent and very largely trust those who have the control of affairs, yet we are asked as a House to take the responsibility for passing each of these Acts, and I think it is the duty of each individual Member to take the trouble to read the Bill for himself and to try and understand what would be its effect if it were put in force.
The Bill comprises all judgments, all orders, all distresses for rent, and foreclosure by mortgagees, but these are comparatively small matters. The real, overwhelming importance of the Bill to the whole commercial community rests in the relation of every individual to his debtors and to his creditors, and largely to his bank. Paragraph (a) of the first Clause says that no execution or enforcement of a judgment or order of the Court for payment or recovery of any sum of money is to be gone on with without leave. I ask the House to consider what that means. Supposing that two years ago I had to begin an action to recover some money which was lawfully due to me, and that after the debtor had put every obstacle in the way, and driven me into Court at great expense, I got my verdict, say, a couple of months ago. I find now that if that man chooses to set up, that either directly or indirectly, that in consequence of the War at the moment he cannot pay, I am going at all events to be placed in the position of being deprived of my remedy at the last minute, after going through such formalities as I have indicated. I am only giving this as an illustration of the kind of thing that might happen under this Bill if passed. Then, again, I find that the Bill is to apply to every sum of money that is due, arising out of any contract or transaction entered into, either before or after the Bill being passed. I could have understood how a good case might be made out for the general principle of the Bill if it was confined to moneys due on transactions entered into before the War. But supposing
222
two people enter into an ordinary commercial transaction to-day. They know, the War being in existence, of the financial difficulties of the present situation. They know that there is a moratorium, they enter into a contract, but when the money becomes payable they are, under this Bill, to be deprived of their remedy.
I could have understood that if this Bill had been confined to monetary obligations arising out of transactions entered into before the War, and that if thereby one of the parties was placed at a disadvantage, there might be something to be said for the adoption of some means of relief, but I cannot see any case whatever for giving relief from carrying out contracts to pay money due in respect of transactions entered into ex post facto by people with their eyes open, knowing what the state of affairs actually is. There are possible cases where some people could not be made to pay even after judgment were obtained against them unless the creditor first applied to some Court for leave to recover his own money. The onus would not even be thrown, under this Bill, upon the debtor of proving that he was unable to pay because of the War. The onus would be laid upon the creditor to make application to the Court and prove his case, whereas he might know nothing whatever of the debtor's circumstances. Not only in principle but in detail from one end of this Bill to the other, I find matters which I have considered it my duty to bring to the attention of the House and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I very much regret having at this stage of the proceedings, in regard to our national finance, to intervene as to the provisions of this Bill.
I come to paragraph (b), which provides that nobody is to levy distress without leave of the Court. Take the position of the landlord. His rent is owing to him, and it is not paid. After the passing of this Bill he could not distrain without the leave of the Court, and he must make application for leave. I hope I am not unduly detaining the House on this important question. I feel strongly about it, and I ask the House to believe that I do not wish to occupy their time unduly. I ask the House to look at the chain of difficulties that would arise if a man owning

223
say half a dozen houses cannot get his rents. A whole chain of loss and difficulty immediately follows. A landlord does not get his rent—suppose that that arises from the fact that some works in the particular district are on short time owing to the War. There the tenants could successfully say that owing to the War they are not getting their full wages and that they cannot pay their rent. Under this Bill when the owner makes his application the registrar would say, "You cannot distrain." I would point out that in the meantime the sum due for rent does not remain the same, because from week to week it is continually growing and being debited against the tenants. In cases like these it would be directly owing to the War, and the Court would indefinitely put off the right of the landlord to distrain. The owner of the property cannot get his rents, and the result is that he cannot pay the interest on the mortgage which interest is due to the widow and orphans of some man whose estate has lent, say, £1,000 on the property. That interest is say their only livelihood. I know plenty of cases where these facts actually obtain. In these cases the widows and orphans would starve. They could not pay their rent to the landlord, and they could not pay for their food.
Then you have the difficulty with the shopkeeper. If he cannot get paid for the food and goods he supplies he will have to discharge some of his staff, and in each of these cases where you are setting out to alleviate some particular form of suffering at one point it will be like throwing a stone into a pool, the area immediately widens until you have a long chain of persons to whom you pass along all the distress and difficulty which arises in one particular spot. What I venture very respectfully to submit is this: I am only using distraint as an illustration. It is the one mentioned in paragraph (b). Supposing the tenants are away to the War doing their duty to the country, fighting for you and me—and for the landlord and everyone interested—is not that exactly a case where, instead of passing a Bill like this, creating a series of miseries, and passing on the difficulty from one class to another, the proper thing would be for the State to pay the rent, or to help to pay a sufficient part of it, so
224
as to put an end to that difficulty at the source, and not pass it on through other sections and other people?
I see also that under this Bill nobody is to enter into possession of property without leave of the Court, and so on. Without this Bill becoming law no mortgagee can enter into possession of property or exercise any of his remedies unless he has given notice of the calling up of his mortgage, and that notice had been disregarded for months. He cannot exercise any of his remedies unless his interest is two months in arrear. I am one of those who take the view that if interest is in arrear for two months it ceases to be interest, and it becomes a capital sum out of the use of which you are being done. I cannot imagine a case in which any decent-minded mortgagee would take advantage of circumstances arising out of the War by being oppressive in order to put money in his pocket. I was criticising this Bill outside the House with one of the leading Members, and what do you think he said? He said the mortgagee might take advantage of the position to sell the property to himself, knowing that a proper price could not be got for it. It is a well-known principle of English law that a mortgagee cannot deprive a mortgagor of his property by making a mock sale to himself. A mortgagee can sell the property for a fair price in a proper manner, otherwise he is always liable to be called to account.
The real intrinsic gravamen of the Clause is contained in the provision that nobody is to be allowed to take any other measures for the purpose of enforcing payment of any sum of money. Language fails me in trying to characterise that provision. I wish I had the facility of speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to characterise a Clause like that in appropriate language. This measure would put a stop to all proceedings in all Courts in all parts of the country except in respect of libels and cases dealing with society matters, race horses, and things of that sort. The whole commercial community would be deprived at a blow of the basis on which all business is carried on, namely, the right of every person, arising out of every contract in every business transaction, to be paid the money owing

225
to him at the time it is due, and under proper conditions. It would put a stop to the issuing of a writ for money owing under a Bill of Exchange. Every kind of action to recover money would be a breach of this Bill. The Courts would be paralysed.
6.0 P.M.
It is impossible to imagine the situation which would arise if the words of the Bill were literally acted upon. I am not dealing at the moment with what people would do, or with what the Courts would be likely to do. All I am entitled to deal with at the moment is the power which could be exercised if the words of the Bill were read according to the ordinary interpretation of the English language. Supposing this Bill became an Act, how would it affect the case of an ordinary citizen who is perfectly solvent and who has a substantial balance at his bank? I think I see two or three hon. Members opposite who entirely and absolutely fulfil that definition. They are ordinary citizens. Some of us are very ordinary, some of us are perfectly solvent, and have a substantial balance at the bank. The Prime Minister has said, "Go on as usual, as if the War did not exist, so far as you possibly can, in regard to your business and other matters." How would such a man as I have referred to be affected? He is perfectly solvent and has a substantial balance at his bank. Early this month every bank put into every person's bankbook a moratorium slip. I understand that in the majority of cases this simply meant that unnecessarily large cheques would not be allowed to be withdrawn. But if we open a series of bank books we find in them those moratorium slips, and a line drawn right across the book to say that although you might have to your credit—I am referring to some hon. Members opposite—five or six thousand pounds, as the case might be, you could not draw a penny of it as a matter of right, but the bank would be glad enough to lend you £5 or £ 10, and it is kind enough to say at the bottom of the slip that it would not charge you any interest for this sum. Suppose that the citizen to whom I refer has £2,500 to his credit, and that he wants £2,000 of this money for the purposes of his own business, then under the powers of this Bill the bank conceivably might say—in other countries where a Bill like this has been
226
passed they have said—"we are solvent, but we have a large sum lent out on security and on the Stock Exchange, and we cannot get in our money. We are allowing our customers to draw 10 per cent. of the moneys to their credit and no more." That is exactly the kind of thing which is being done under Acts that have been passed with Clauses substantially the same as those which the Chancellor has put into this Bill. This man then could only get £250, or 10 per cent. of his money, which would be no use to him. He wants £2,000 for his business or it must stop. It may be said that he could go to the bank and explain the position, and they will let him have this £2,000. Will they?
I can give a very short instance within my own knowledge upon this particular point. I am speaking of a company that has got £1,000,000 worth of property. It has got £40,000 worth of valuable stock. Its property is not in a country which is at War. This company has no debentures and does not owe sixpence in the world. But it had occasion ten days ago to try to get £3,000 or £4,000 for the purpose of paying for certain machinery ordered in this country, which was ready for delivery, and which it wanted to take up. The directors went to the bank, and after five days of being put off and referred to committees and told to call again, and then only because of an ultimatum, this company with its £1,000,000 worth of property, its £40,000 worth of stock, its £250,000 worth of machinery, and its 8,000 shareholders, all in the United Kingdom, and not owing a penny in the world and without a debenture on it, was actually able to borrow £1,500. That is the amount which the bank in their goodness were willing out of the £6,000 asked for to lend. They may have had very good reasons. At all events, that is what they did. When I say that if you pass this Bill the banks will do so-and-so, if anybody says to me they will not do it, then I give this instance of what they actually have done, and from one thing you must judge of another. This is the way in which banks assist business and give facilities for trade. It happens that these very goods, which the company wanted to pay for in the United Kingdom, represented the first attempt on the part of that company to place orders for such goods in England, instead of in Germany, where

227
they had previously been obtained. I have referred to the case of the man who wants £2,000 out of the £2,500 to his credit. Suppose he sued the bank. Even suppose he got judgment against the bank he cannot, if this Bill passes, get his money, and he has no remedy. That arises directly or indirectly from the War. His business is gone and his staff is dismissed. It may be said, "True, he cannot get his money from the bank, but has he not got some other property?" Yes, he has money out on mortgage, but under the first Clause of this Bill he is not to be paid his capital or his interest. If it is said that he has got houses, then the next Section provides that he is not to get his rent. There is absolute paralysis.
Mr. DAVID MASON: His own debts.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: The hon. Member has forgotten that I started with the assumption that he did not owe any money. The broad principle is that by passing this Bill you at a blow put an end to all credit. You make every transaction absolutely a cash transaction. You prevent the wife of the Reservist from getting a house, because nobody will accept her if he can find another tenant. You are meeting in a sentimental and insufficient manner what may in itself be a very good case for relief, such as the case of the poor man who cannot pay his rent on account of the War, but you are widening the difficulty, spreading distress and misery in every direction, and you are making dozens of miseries instead of one. I am open to conviction. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can satisfy me that there really is to-day such a case made out for such drastic interference with all contracts with all moneys owing, and all remedies, legal and otherwise, such as is shown in this Bill, then I shall be deeply grieved. I shall be more grieved than I can express, but, of course, I shall at once give way.
At the present moment I see nothing in the commercial position of affairs in this country which calls for an Act involving the entire suspension of credit, and interference with every contractual debt, and stopping all legal remedies puts people all over the country at the mercy of every country registrar, without power of appeal—a registrar who is allowed to continue his
228
private practice. I do not like to say anything against these gentlemen, but there is a sort of idea that their own clients never would pay anything. This is the kind of Bill which should only be resorted to in the very last extremity. There is a further point, which is very important, because it shows the spirit in which the whole of it is drafted. The onus of proof in reference to the ability of the man to pay and the consequences of the War is by this Bill thrown upon the creditor, if he wants his money, instead of being thrown upon the person who is trying to get relief. I only had an opportunity of seeing this Bill an hour before coming to the House. I have endeavoured to understand its contents. They have shocked me immeasurably. All the other Bills which we have passed, or could pass, pale into insignificance compared with this drastic and most comprehensive document, and if I have erred in detaining the House at such length, I hope that the House will excuse me on account of the strong feeling that I have that a remedy of this kind is not required, at all events for the present.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, one part of his speech is irrelevant to this Bill, another part of it is grossly exaggerated, and a third part contains a very shrewd suggestion, which I hope may be embodied in some sort of proposal. With regard to the former part of his speech, in which he dwelt on the troubles of the man having a very large balance in bank who could not get money out of the bank to pay his debts—
Mr. RUTHERFORD: I did not say that, but that he could not get money to go on with his business.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Take a case of that kind. All those cases of moratorium were protected equally. This is a Bill which is a preparation for getting rid of the moratorium, and as long as the moratorium lasts it is a most effective bar against the prosecution of any legal remedy.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: This is to last during the whole War.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I listened to him

229
delivering a diatribe against this Bill which had nothing whatever to do with it. In a case of that kind there is a most effective bar. None of them can be sued; they could not go to Court at all in respect of a debt of that kind now because there is a moratorium. That is not what I propose. I propose that the position should be improved from the point of view of the creditor in those cases under this Bill the moment that the moratorium has been taken away. The hon. Member is dealing with the case which has nothing whatever to do with this Bill at all. I come to the case which he has put, and I should like to ask him what is his idea as to what should be done in the case of a man who has got half a dozen houses. He said that men are out of work. Presumably they are men who have always paid their rents promptly and punctually, but they are out of work and cannot pay their rent. There is not a decent, self-respecting landlord in the Kingdom who would sell up an honest working man who had paid his rent regularly because, owing to the troubles of the time, he had been unable to earn any wages. All that I say is that this Bill gives a power to compel the man who will not behave like the majority of his fellow citizens to behave in that way. That is all.
Sir T. WHITTAKERindicated dissent.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: Suppose he cannot?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend seems to think that that is most contemptible.
Sir T. WHITTAKER: I did not say that What I said is that it goes a great deal further and does a great deal more.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then I suggest in a case of that kind that it is a thing which the Court ought not to be prevented from dealing with.
Sir T. WHITTAKER: I agree.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman interrupt?
Sir T. WHITTAKER: I said that the Bill goes a good deal further.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must deal with one thing at a time, and I say that in
230
a case of this kind there ought to be protection against the possible abuse of a power which in Scotland is not possessed at the present moment, and I have expressed the view that it ought not to be possessed in this country. If a man is in the position, in consequence of the War, that he cannot pay his rent, then I think he ought to have the protection of the Courts. The hon. and learned Gentleman sneered at the powers of the registrar in the County Court, but at the present moment, where the ordinary trader sues a man for a debt, the County Court can intervene now and make an order for payment by instalments. All I propose is that the power of the ordinary grocer or draper or butcher in regard to the recovery of small debts shall be extended to cases where the person is unable to pay his rent in consequence of the War. That is all I propose. The hon. Gentleman says that the landlord cannot get his rent. Does he really mean to tell the House that that is what the Bill is? On the contrary, what the Bill says is that he cannot turn a man out for his rent except by process and sanction of the Court. That is exactly the position in which the trader is at the present moment, and that is all I propose. If the Bill were anything like the description which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave, I agree that it would be open to all the adjectives which he used, but he did not describe it fairly. So much for the question of rent. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself admits that no decent landlord would turn the tenant out if his inability to pay was consequent upon the War. If that be so, where is the harm of the Bill? Is not this a Bill to prevent a person who has not a sufficient sense of propriety under those conditions, from exercising his power, save with the sanction of the Court?
Mr. RUTHERFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman asking me?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am putting my reply to his case. Take the question of mortgagees. A man before the War may have borrowed money upon the security of property. In consequence of the War the property might be unsaleable for the moment, or if it were saleable, it might be at a figure which represented utter ruin to the mortgagor. I say again, that no

231
decent mortgagee would take advantage of his power unless he was convinced that the mortgagor was abusing the protection given him in order either not to pay his interest or discharge his liability. Of course that is a case of which cognisance should be taken. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the case of hire-purchase agreements.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: I only gave one or two illustrations, but I object to the whole matter.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then the hon. Gentleman in the case of a hire-purchase agreement, if a man failed to pay his instalments, having, in consequence of the War, been thrown out of employment, would, without any access to the Court, enable the holder of that agreement to break up the man's home.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: No.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very glad of that. The man may have paid four-fifths of his instalment, there may have been a very little sum left to be paid, and I do not think that any fair-minded or self-respecting person in a case of this kind would put a warrant into execution. What is to prevent the man from going to the Registrar in order to put this power into operation?
Mr. RUTHERFORD: Because everybody who did not want to pay would say that it was the War.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that in a case of that kind the imposition of costs would be a sufficient penalty for the refusal to pay. The Court would say at once, "You ought to have paid, you are in a position to pay, and the whole of the costs must be paid by you." That would soon teach gentlemen of that kind, at any rate, not to abuse the protection which the law extends to them under those conditions. I am not proposing anything which is to be a permanent part of the machinery for the collection of debts in this country. I am proposing something to deal with an emergency. The great banking and financial interests of this country have been dealt with very generously by the State. The State has
232
come to their rescue, involving some hundreds of millions, and what position would they have been in if we had harshly and rigidly said, "No, the conditions which existed before the War must be the conditions after the War. If you say that political economy cannot help them, then let political economy take its course." The State, I say, has come to their rescue, and let us, at any rate, treat the rest of the community with the same consideration. That is all we suggest. I do not say the Bill does not need amendment. Certain suggestions which the hon. Gentleman made, and others have made, we are considering. There may be certain cases in which we may compel the person himself to seek relief. I do not think that is the case with regard to hire-purchase agreement, nor do I think it is the case with regard, at any rate, to small rents, though there might be eases of big rents to be dealt with. I say now, as I said on the Second Reading, that the principle of the Bill is to give protection against harsh, unconscionable and brutal exercise of legal powers, and that is why I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must say that I regret any warmth that may have been introduced into this discussion, and I hope that we will get back to that calmness in which most of our discussions have been conducted. After all, we are dealing with a Bill which, whatever view we may take about it in principle or detail, we all agree to be one of great consequence, dealing with questions of great complexity, to which the House as a whole may well bring all the assistance it can give, and, if it is to do that, it should keep cool and have a clear head in dealing with these very complicated problems. I welcomed the announcement of this Bill yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am bound to say that when I saw it this morning I found it was a great deal wider than I was led to anticipate. I think it will be found in Committee desirable to limit its operation in certain respects. I am very glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he does not propose to take the Committee stage to-day, so that Members of the House will have an opportunity of considering the Bill further and putting down Amendments. I was

233
equally glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he had an open mind to receive suggestions from Members in all quarters of the House. I am myself convinced, though not so convinced as I was yesterday, that something of this kind is necessary. I am quite certain, to take one instance, that of the building trade, that you cannot leave it to the unrestricted mercy of the ordinary operations of the law. Everybody knows the extent to which small-house property is subject to mortgage, and any man can picture to himself what would be the consequence of any general attempt to call in such mortgages at the present time.
You have got not only to deal with exceptional cases of men who wish to take an unfair advantage of their neighbours in time of emergency, but you have, also underlying all these measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to deal with persons who have taken fright, and whose action is as fatal to them as it is to its immediate victims. I have had representations, as I dare say other Members have, from those interested in mortgages of that kind. I had a conversation with a gentleman in the profession to which my hon. Friend belongs—and to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer used to belong—and who is very largely concerned in business as between mortgagors and mortgagees. Speaking in the interests of both of them, he said he believed that it would be to the real interest of both to press for some measure of this kind. In connection with the question of hire-purchase agreements, I am quite sure that it is not too severe an operation for the great mass of the community to protect particular people against the enforcement in any unconscionable way of powers which would become abusive owing to the exceptional circumstances of the present moment. I believe it is the desire of all of us, as I am quite sure it is the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to reduce exceptional legislation of this kind within as narrow limits as possible, without undue prolongation of the moratorium. It is not very easy, I think, to bring a moratorium which has once been declared at an end. I am with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his desire, and I am
234
speaking now on broad principle, to provide for special cases which would stand in the way of bringing the moratorium to an end so that we may hasten the time when it can be brought to an end.
I do not want to say any more to-day. The questions which are to be raised, and which will, I have no doubt, be raised today, are largely questions for Committee, but it may be well to ventilate them now in order to bring them to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that he may have time to consider them before the Committee stage. I myself have grave doubts whether the Bill ought to apply to new bargains, specifically new bargains. I do not call it a new bargain if a house is let by the week and the man is in continuous occupation. That is substantially the one bargain. But take the case which the Chancellor himself mentioned of a new mortgage created. I should very much doubt whether you would, in fact, be doing any good by applying the provisions of this Bill to a mortgage created after the state of war had arisen. I think that might naturally prevent anybody lending on mortgage during the time of the War. Bargains created after the War stand on a different footing to bargains created before the War, and may well be dealt with separately in Committee. Those and other points may well be ventilated now and considered in Committee. I do hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and that the discussion will be carried on in the same businesslike way as we have been carrying on all our discussions, and without any passion being raised on one side or the other. All of us have the same objects in view, and none of us need raise our voices in denunciation, because nobody is taking up the defence of indefensible acts. The whole problem before us is to find the best machinery to give the protection which is necessary with the least disturbance of the ordinary obligation and ordinary duty of citizens.
Sir T. WHITTAKER: If this Bill was what the Chancellor of the Exchequer represented it to be, and if it were only to do what he described it as doing, then personally I, for one, would gladly support it and should not have a word of criticism

235
to say about it, but the Chancellor's description of this Bill was a ludicrous travesty of the Bill. It was not the Bill. If it dealt with rents and mortgages and hire agreements, and if it was to prevent a man's home being sold up, I would be the first to welcome it. That is not the object of the Bill. It is a very infinitesimal part of the Bill which goes much further than that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not attempt a word of justification for the wide extension in the other parts of the Bill. As for mortgages, yesterday in a few remarks I made, I suggested that mortgagees should be included in any extension to the moratorium. I have the fullest sympathy with any provision for protecting men out of work owing to the War, and more especially those homes of men who have gone to the War being protected in every way. It has been well said every decent landlord will protect them, and we shall all agree that legislation to deal with any who do not protect them will be welcomed. But that is not this Bill, and that is the point the House needs to consider.
We are in danger of losing our head a little in these matters and legislating somewhat in a panic. The Bill is far too sweeping, far too far-reaching, and is too shortsighted. In this kind of legislation we do need to recognise that any interference with the ordinary working of trade is a serious evil which can only be justified by great necessity, but it is an evil of itself. It is an evil to cut a leg off, and although it may be necessary, it is a serious business, and when you cut one leg off and the operation does not achieve its object consent will not be willingly given to a suggestion that the other leg should be amputated. This is not a limitation of the moratorium. Pass this Bill and you will not get rid of the moratorium until this Bill has ceased to have effect, because you cannot deprive people in certain directions of the means of getting their payment without relieving them on the other hand from the obligations of meeting their debts. This is that kind of limited obligation which will involve the perpetuation of the moratorium which, in my judgment, is the great evil we have to contend with to-day. What we need to do is to get back as
236
rapidly as possible to ordinary conditions. Anything that interferes with that, the moratorium or a Bill like this, except in the special cases to which I have referred, is like thrusting a crowbar into some delicate machinery which does damage, which strikes far. A man may be in difficulties through inability to pay, and that may affect twenty or thirty or forty other people and prevent every one of them from paying. If he cannot make payment the trouble has got to be borne, but every time you pass legislation rendering it possible for people to avoid payment, you will have a number of people who otherwise would have paid taking advantage of that, and therefore widening the extent of the evil and spreading inconvenience and loss.
What we want to do is to restore credit in every way we can and to maintain it in every way we can, but anything that checks and interferes with the security on which credit is given and loans are made will at once check that credit and those loans, and will do the very damage you wish to avoid. It is often no kindness to induce people to defer payments. Anyone who has a pretty wide experience of humanity in these matters knows the temptation there is to defer payment if there is the opportunity to do so. When those payments are recurring and accumulating ones, the people concerned are only laying up for themselves an amount of debt and trouble, impossible for them to meet. Therefore it is extremely undesirable to give any facilities in that direction that can be avoided. I am with the Chancellor entirely, as I have already said, as to rents of people out of work, as to mortgages, and as to hire agreements, which, in my judgment, are an abomination in one form or another, but this Bill goes much further than that. It refers to any security of any kind or for the purpose of enforcing the payment or recovery of any sum of money. It is not a question of rents and mortgages, it is anything, any debt that is owing to any man for any purpose whatever. It is very wide reaching, it includes the others mentioned, but is not limited to them. You cannot take measures under this Bill, if it is passed, for the enforcement of any debt if the man can plead before the Court that he cannot pay.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I desire to ask my right hon. Friend a question to see whether we cannot have some basis of agreement. I understand he does not object to the particular cases which I gave.
Sir T. WHITTAKERassented.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to know rather for my information, and with a view to considering what Amendment would be desirable, what sort of case he thinks ought not to be included?
Sir T. WHITTAKER: My main point is this, debts occurring since the War. Who is prepared to give credit and lend money on security now when you have a Bill like this, which, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, will stop all loans on securities because you can take no action for recovery?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a case which I did say to the House just now I certainly was prepared to consider in an Amendment dealing with mortgages, loans, etc.
Sir T. WHITTAKER: Reference was only made to mortgages, but the question refers to all kinds of loans and securities. They are being made in every direction, and it is extremely desirable that they should. Take the case of which I have more knowledge, namely, that of insurance offices. They are lending money on policies, and have to lend it very widely. Their applications are very excessively numerous now, naturally. That is a security that would come within the purview of this Act. Will the insurance companies lend on that security if they are to be debarred from enforcing it? A security that cannot be enforced is of no value whatever, and they will not do it. It is desirable to encourage lending, but you will not do so and will stop it unless you make the security valuable on which the lending is made. I do think that this Bill is too far-reaching and too exceptional, and does need very considerable reconsideration. It is all very well to sympathise, and we need to sympathise, with everybody who is in trouble and distress, but do not attempt to put the responsibility on one class of people only. Let the State take its share, and if you feel that anybody ought to have certain burdens borne for them, then I have no doubt the spirit of this House, and of
238
the country, would be to deal with them liberally, but do not attempt to put it on one particular class of persons. That is not fair or just. My main objection to this Bill is its wide scope. If it is passed in anything like its present form, it is going to strike a fatal blow at credit at a very critical time in commercial history.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I venture to submit that the difference between us is really one of form and not one of substance. The Bill in its present form is, I contend, absolutely indefensible, and I do not believe carries out for one moment what the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to carry out, and certainly what he expressed in the strong speech which he has just made on the matter. As I understood him yesterday, and as I understand him now, what we want to do is this: If any man can show that either directly or indirectly in consequence of this war he is unable to pay some particular debt, then he shall be afforded by the Court certain leniency and certain time given to him to pay off the debt gradually. This Bill goes infinitely further than that. Let me take one example. What is the effect of Clause 1 (a)? It applies to every Court—every Police Court, as well as every High Court. Take the case of a woman who has a bastardy order against a man in a Police Court. See what trouble she is put to. The Bill applies to her order, and before she can get her money in the ordinary way she has to get the man somehow or other to that Court again. That is a pretty troublesome and costly matter. The order may have been made a year or two back. She has to go to the Court and get a fresh order, and she has to get the man himself back to the Court. I feel sure the Bill applies to that case, but if it does not I can give many other illustrations equally good for my purpose to which the Bill will apply.
All that is needed can be secured perfectly well by altering the form of the Bill. All that is necessary is to say that the execution shall go on in the ordinary way unless the debtor can satisfy the Court that owing directly or indirectly to the War he cannot pay. That is all the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants, and that is all he is entitled to have. Take a distress for rent. If the landlord distrains the tenant can go to the Court, and if he

239
can show that he is unable to pay because of the War he can obtain relief. That is the form which this Bill has introduced as far as bankruptcy is concerned. Clause 1 (3) puts it perfectly properly that, in the case of a bankruptcy, the debtor has to show that he cannot comply with the order of the Court owing directly or indirectly to the War. The Bill consists of two parts. The first provides that no person shall enforce any judgment of any Court unless he makes an application for that purpose. I can give a number of illustrations on this point. A judgment has been obtained, and execution would be levied in the ordinary course. Under this Bill it cannot be, unless you go to the Master of the High Court or to the registrar of the County Court as the case may be. The second part provides that people who have certain powers of levying distress and so forth can only exercise them on application to the registrar. That applies, as I gather, equally to distress for rates. Therefore you have this position. At the present time if a local authority wishes to distrain for rent it has to go before a magistrate and get a distress warrant. That would be an order of the Court under this Bill. Having got the order the authority could not levy a distress without going to the County Court or High Court as the case might be—a process which in either case would involve considerable time and cost. Then, when they had got the debtor to the Court, he might not set up any such defence as that he was withholding payment in any way in consequence of the War, and all that extra expense and trouble would have been put upon the creditor for no reason at all connected with the War.
I press this point strongly because I am convinced that it is not merely such a matter as ought to be raised in Committee. We ought to redraft the Bill so as to turn it from a prohibition of the enforcement of debts, whether the non-payment is due to the War or not, into a measure enabling the debtor to take advantage of it if he can make out his case. This is a vital point. We have heard a great deal about landlords, debtors, and so forth, But all creditors are not rich bankers or rich insurance companies. I
240
have known creditors who are honest but not rich. In carrying out this well-intentioned shot for the benefit of people who deserve our sympathy because they are being oppressed by wicked people, the right hon. Gentleman is likely to hit many people who do not deserve to be hit. It is not always the man who declines to pay his debts who is the honest man. It is not every creditor who can afford to give time. I want a provision of this kind put in the Bill—that the master or registrar who has to deal with the matter must take all the circumstances of the case into consideration. He must think of the position of the creditor as well as that of the debtor. I submit that it is the debtor who ought to go to the Court and get relief. You ought not to make it a general provision that every creditor is denied ordinary relief unless he first hales the debtor to the Court. I hope it will not be thought that in making these criticisms I am disloyal or anxious to do anything to hinder the Government. I am anxious to support the Government, but I cannot support the Bill in its present form. I hope, therefore, that this well-intentioned Bill will be amended so as to do what it is intended to do, and not what it does at present.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I cannot but think that this Bill has been somewhat hurriedly drafted, and requires careful consideration before it is passed into law. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not consider that in criticising the Bill I am in any way finding fault with the Government. I am simply trying to make some contribution to the discussion of a most difficult question, and certainly it is the last thing in my mind that I should make any unreasonable criticism, because, in the circumstances of distress and difficulty in which the Government have found themselves, they have not been able to consider every conceivable point. This Bill is not the moratorium, but it arises out of the moratorium. The first point is that it is not at all limited in the way that the moratorium 1s. The moratorium simply dealt with debts which fell due when the War broke out. If this Bill was so limited a great deal of what I have to say would not be necessary. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that in the

241
case of mortgages he was disposed to consider the limitation of the Bill to mortgages made before the Bill was passed into law. I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to consider whether he ought not to limit the operation of the Bill to debts which were in existence when the War broke out or when the Bill passed into law.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What about rent?
7.0 P.M.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I will come to rents in a few minutes. It is inevitable that the War will inflict great hardship upon many sections of the community, and the House is greatly mistaken if it thinks that all those hardships can be dealt with in this way. If the right hon. Gentleman attempts to do that he will be in danger of creating evils worse than those which he is trying to avoid. Only the other day I was consulted by a builder who, a fortnight before the War broke out, had made a tender to construct certain buildings. His tender was accepted the day that War broke out. He came to me and asked, "Am I bound by that tender? Since I put in the tender the prices of all materials have doubled or, at any rate, largely increased." I know that that is not a case that could be dealt with by this Bill. I merely cite it to show that, whatever legislation this House passes, it is hopeless to attempt to put an end to all cases of hardship to which the War may give rise. Let me then go back to the question: Is it wise to apply this measure to debts which have been incurred since the Act has passed? I quite agree that if you do not do so there will be cases of great hardship, cases of difficulty in paying rent to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and in hundreds, and it may be thousands, of other cases. But is there no evil which will result from this Act which will not be ten times worse than any of the evils which will follow if the Act is not passed? In the first place, What will be the effect of this Bill upon credit? The War has greatly restricted credit, and shopkeepers and banks have largely limited their transactions to cash transactions—so far, that is, as it has been possible for them to do so. They have carried that policy to an extent which has
242
created hardships in individual cases. But why should the shopkeeper give credit after this Bill has passed? The hon. Gentleman who spoke from the opposite benches, and the hon. Member who spoke from this side of the House, has referred to the case of mortgages, insurance companies, and other matters of what I may call high finance. They are important questions affecting not only the working men, not only the labourer, but the ordinary inhabitant of these countries who has to go to his shopkeeper, to his merchant, to his banker to get credit.
At present a person of this description goes to his shopkeeper and asks for credit. The shopkeeper knows that if he fails to pay the law is there to protect the creditor. But suppose a merchant comes to me to-morrow and asks, "What position will I be in when my customers come to me and ask for goods on credit?" And if a banker comes to me and asks what position he will be in if a customer of his comes and asks for credit? What am I to answer in regard to the question of legal liability? I should be obliged to tell these persons that in eon-sequence of the passing of this Bill into law any credit that either of them may give they will give at their peril; that if either of them chooses to give credit he must give it with the full knowledge that he runs the risk—until the War comes to an end—that he will never be able to make his debtor pay. I therefore say with great respect that one of the first and inevitable consequences of passing this Bill into law will be that the contraction of credit transactions, which has already taken place to a large extent, will grow and extend until practically every shopkeeper and every banker in the community will do no business except on the basis of cash down. That is the first criticism which I am disposed to make upon this Bill.
I have given a point in which I believe the Bill has gone too far. I want to give the right hon. Gentleman a point in which I think the Bill does not go far enough. Take the case of mortgagees, about which we have already heard. At present, in the case of sums advanced on mortgage, the debtor is liable to have the mortgage called in. This Bill only protects the

243
debtor if his inability to pay arises in consequence of the War. But in nine cases out of ten the man's grievance will not be that his inability to pay arises from the War. The mortgage may have existed for years. The man's inability to pay may have existed for years. What the man really fears, and what he has reason to fear, is that in consequence of the War his property may be sacrificed at a War price. He is liable to that disadvantage and that loss, though his inability to pay has not arisen at all in consequence of the War. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider these propositions, the latter to extend the scope of the Bill, and the former to limit it. No doubt there are cases in which Parliament ought to give relief, but there are other cases in which Parliament by interfering will do more harm than good. Take the case of rent. You have, it is said, a labourer or an artisan, or other person in a humble walk of life who is unable to pay his rent, who has got, it may be, five or six weeks in arrears with it. The landlord, whose own inability to pay has arisen from the War, is seeking to enforce his legal rights. If in cases of this kind you could protect the tenant, I should be the first to join in any attempt to do so. But it is impossible to do so. This Bill does not do it. This Bill only gives relief to the tenant where proceedings, whatever they are, are taken in consequence of the rent being due, and it is the right of the ordinary landlord to serve a notice to quit on his tenant, whether that tenant owes rent or does not owe rent. A weekly or monthly tenant can at any time, even if he had paid his rent up to date, get a notice to quit. Docs the right hon. Gentleman take up the position that if the tenant owes money he ought not to be served with a notice to quit, that if he does not pay any rent at all that his ordinary rights are to continue? This Bill does not intend to interfere with the landlord's right to give notice. What then is the good of passing it?
Even in the particular cases for which the right hon. Gentleman is trying to provide, this Bill will not provide any real remedy. The remedy for hard conduct of the kind is the good feeling of the average member of the community. I
244
agree with the non. Member above the gangway that there are persons who are quite ready to take advantage of hard conditions in order to enforce rights, and secure advantages for themselves, but there always will be in a community persons of that kind. I think they will be in a small minority, but I think that Parliament, in endeavouring to hold the hands of that small unjust minority, will do untold mischief and hardship to other classes of the community. May I make another point? What is the position of banks under the Bill? Take the ordinary case where the bank has lent money on stocks or shares or securities of that kind which are transferred. In such a case there is no mortgage in the legal form, though there is a mortgage in effect. What is intended in the case of loans of that kind? Is this Bill designed to hold the hands of the bankers in that case? The debtor has secured a loan on the security of stocks and shares. Suppose there is a rapid fall, must the bank wait for a fortnight or a month while the points are dropping upon the Stock Exchange, to realise its securities, or until the somewhat slow processes of the Courts have enabled it to get the remedy which this Bill gives? If that is the case, obvious mischief might be done to the banks, or the creditors who have accepted securities of that kind. The case of distress has already been referred to by the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway. The Bill in form is to suspend distress until the leave of the Court has been given. In effect it is a Bill to abolish distress. The owner of the goods in a case of distress has to be given notice that he is to be brought before the Court. During this time his hands are free. By the time the Court has granted an order enabling distress to be made there will not be many goods to levy distress upon.
Take again the case of hire purchase, which I think is a most proper subject for the interference of Parliament. But I think it would be an act of injustice that because of distress arising from the War a man should lose his right of purchase. I do not think this Bill preserves the man's rights which prevent the property being seized. I am not at all sure it preserves

245
the right of purchase. I would also like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question as to the form of the first Clause. Is it an embargo on the sheriff or an embargo on the Court? What it says is that no person shall proceed to execution. I think the language might be made clearer. Otherwise it will entirely take away the protection of the Act from all executions which are at present in the hands of the sheriff, or that at any future time get into the hands of the sheriff. I suppose it has the narrower meaning and that it is intended to operate on the Court and not on the executive officer. But as the Bill is drawn, it is not at all plain that the sheriff acting upon the order of the Court is indemnified by the order of the Court from the consequences that would follow if he seized the goods of a third party, and therefore I do suggest that that also is a matter that might be considered. There is one other point, and that is with regard to the application of this Act in Ireland. I do not believe that the Irish Law Officers have been consulted about this Bill. The law of judgments in Ireland is as different from the law of judgments in England as chalk is from cheese. When I was reading law I learned a long time ago that there was a writ called a writ of execution. I am ignorant whether that form of process exists in England, but there is no such thing in Ireland. A judgment is made operative against lands or buildings, not by a writ of execution but by registering the judgment in the registry of deeds. It is the only way an Irish judgment creditor has for enforcing his judgment against land or building.
It is different from execution. It may be sometimes a writ of execution, as a mortgage may be a writ of execution by proceeding in Chancery. But it is not itself execution. It is a means of securing priority of your debt on the lands of the tenant. This matter is so drawn that no Irish lawyer could tell whether when it passes he will be entitled to register a judgment against lands or buildings once this Bill passes into law, because although it might be execution to register your judgment as a mortgage, I think it might well lead to the enforcement of the judgment, or the order by the Court, and accordingly I think it is a great misfortune that we have no Irish Law Officer in this House to look after Irish
246
interests when a matter of capital importance such as this is under consideration. If a mistake is made with regard to England or Scotland there is a Law Officer sitting upon the Government Bench to look after the interests of England or Scotland, but when it comes to poor Ireland the Bill is drawn by a Government draftsman who does not know the first thing about Irish law, and when criticism is passed upon the Bill there is no Irish Law Officer upon the Government Bench to tell the House whether the criticism is well founded or otherwise. I think this Bill before it passes into law should be submitted to the criticism of the Irish Law Officers, because it is a matter of first-class importance, and I hope that before it is passed some more consideration will be given to it than has been given to the other emergency Bills.
Mr. RADFORD: I would be very sorry to interpose at this moment in matters of national emergency, but I feel bound to say a few words in criticism of this Bill, which I believe if passed will do more harm than good. I earnestly appeal to my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General to give close attention to the criticisms passed upon the Bill by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. The Bill proposes to provide in special cases where men are rendered unable, by reason of the War, to meet their debts to give them such time as a Court may declare them entitled to. To that general principle I have no objection, and, indeed, I heartily support it. But when we come to the method by which the Bill proposes to carry out that result, I think the form is deplorably faulty, and that it will lead to trouble and litigation. Sub-section (a) of Clause 1 deals with the subject called execution debts. There the creditor has already been to the Courts and has obtained judgment of some kind, and it is provided, and I think quite properly, that before he is allowed to proceed to levy his debt by execution the Court should be satisfied that if the debtor is unable to pay, and that his inability to pay is by reason of the War, he should be excused from paying. Therefore, I think there is no great objection to that Clause except this, that the onus of showing that the debt should not be paid by reason of the War should be cast upon the debtor and

247
not the creditor, because otherwise you will find that a very large number of quite unnecessary applications will have to be made to the Courts, to the advantage of the legal profession and not to the advantage of the community. But when we come to Sub-section (d), we come to a class of case in which the Court was not already seized with the matter at all. I take the case of rent first, not because I have any more regard for landlords than for any other creditor, but because it is a case very easily set forth. How many tenants will have to pay their rents up to the 29th September? Throughout the United Kingdom they number hundreds of thousands. Between this date and that, how many men will have to pay rent as weekly tenants?
This Bill actually provides that in all these cases no distress shall be levied for rent without previous application to the Courts. You will have hundreds and thousands of applications to the Courts, either to the High Courts or to the County Courts, and they are unnecessary, because the distress caused by this War I think is extremely streaky—that is to say, it affects some districts and not others; it affects some classes and not others; but in the majority of cases we have reason to hope and believe that the course of business will go on as usual, and that men will pay their rents as they have been accustomed to do. Why should it be necessary for every landlord before he issues a distress to apply to the Courts in order to justify it? I should think that in any proper case of inability to pay rent attributable directly or indirectly to the War the tenant should have time and should be given relief; but let the tenant apply, and the result of that will be that instead of having hundreds of thousands of applications you will have hundreds or perhaps scores. In the majority of cases business will go on as usual, and it will be quite unnecessary before the ordinary remedies can be applied in case rent is not paid to compel a man to have to go to a Court of Justice. Therefore, in the case of rent, I say that delay should only be made on the application of the tenant, and not on the application of the landlord. If the Bill is altered so as to carry out the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman opposite, I think this point should be taken into consideration, and
248
we could then pass a measure necessary and useful, and not a measure which is much more far-reaching than there is any necessity for, and likely to do a great deal more harm than good.
Mr. DUKE: The House, I believe, is of one mind as to the necessity for a measure of this kind. When one considers how completely the ordinary course of business is in many cases subverted by the intervention of the War and the dislocation of credit, it is obvious that common justice requires that where its occurrences have-prevented the performance of contracts and the meeting of liabilities in the manner in which honest people like to perform their contracts or meet their liabilities there ought to be power in the hands of His Majesty's Courts of Justice to see that injustice and hardship are not put in action in place of justice and right. To that extent I agree absolutely with this Bill, and was not at all surprised when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced yesterday the course it was proposed to take in this matter. But everyone who is acquainted with business will see two dangers. One of them is that the slippery fellow, who exists at all times, and has not been destroyed by the War, will see in this optional moratorium a chance of evading the payment of his debts, or at any rate putting himself out of the way of his creditors, and putting trouble in the way of his creditors. And all of us should be particularly careful that none of our fellow subjects are exposed to unnecessary cost or trouble. I am quite satisfied there are people sufficiently unscrupulous, even in times of War, not to resist the temptation of treating their creditors in this way. To hinder the enforcement of just rights is not the object of His Majesty's Government. There is another very serious danger to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley has called attention, and that is that in all classes of transaction, if you are going to destroy the creditor, the man holding the security, whether it is in an insurance company or the owner of a weekly house, you are going to destroy credit. Now, credit, of course, is necessarily diminished by War, but I have come to the conclusion myself, if I may respectfully say so, that this Bill does the thing we desire in a form in which we cannot safely do it.

249
I do not say that the Law Officers, with the burdens east upon them, should be expected to present every Bill in perfect form, and I would venture to suggest this to the Attorney-General, the object here being to give control over proceedings with a view to preventing abuse of legal rights, you might declare that "from and after the passing of this Act no person shall," and then you would set out the cases in Sub-section (a) and (b) of Sub-section 1, and say "that no person shall proceed to execution or take other steps for enforcing the right, with this condition, if it shall be shown to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction that by reason of the effects of the present War the enforcement of the legal right for remedy in question has become oppressive and unconscionable." That shifts the trouble of getting a decision of the Court upon the man who wants the indulgence. I think it is impossible to contemplate that a man who, under existing circumstances, has a legal right is to go to a Court and ask whether he has a legal right which the Court thinks fit to enforce. That would strike a serious blow at credit, and so I would transfer the burden of application upon the man who makes it and needs relief, and I would make the occasion in which he may get that most just and necessary relief this occasion, that by reason of the events of the present War the enforcement of the legal right or remedy has become oppressive or unconscionable. That means that such a change of circumstances has arisen, whether his debt existed before or after the War, that the Court ought to intervene by reasons and causes analogous to those which constantly operate at the present time. My own belief is that if a form of words of that kind is used the jurisdiction of the Court will be limited, the burden will be put upon the right shoulders, and there will not be the dislocation of credit and hardship which otherwise might be apprehended. I would further suggest that either in the Bill or by the rules which would be brought into use under the Bill, it should be required that the application for the advantage of this exceptional and extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court should be in the first instance an ex parte application supported by a primâ facie case made out. I do not apprehend any serious dislocation, because the persons administering justice in this country are
250
well able to take care of the rights of our fellow citizens, but unless we do take some step of that kind I cannot help feeling that there is a risk to the credit upon which so much depends in this country.
Mr. JOWETT: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will fully and sympathetically consider the very great difficulty under which poor people will suffer if they have to take the initiative in this matter. To begin with, it is extremely unlikely that a large number of those who are entitled to consideration will be familiar with the law which is being passed, and the powers they will have. All those who know much about workpeople are aware that they always hesitate to take any legal action, and if such action is necessary on their part, the House may take it for granted that a large number of those who ought to have the advantage of this Bill will never get it, and it will be a dead letter. Therefore those who want this measure to be a dead letter cannot do better than put the initiative on the poor people, which is only a back-door way of destroying this Bill.
Mr. SANDERSON: I endorse what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) when he referred to the difficulties of the law on this question. I am sure what my hon. and learned Friend stated was not merely said in a spirit of criticism, but more with a desire to make this Bill work smoothly. I also desire to make one or two suggestions. As this is a very difficult question, I think it would be worth while to take more time for its consideration. I would like to say that, inasmuch as this is an emergency measure and intended only to be temporary, I would like to ask, is it advisable to make it operative until the end of the War? What the end of the War may mean one hardly knows. I remember during the South African War a very distinguished person said that the war was over, but, as a matter of fact, it continued for six or seven months afterwards. Having regard to the difficulties which have already been outlined and anticipated, and inasmuch as this measure is really only an experiment, and one does not know whether it is going to do more harm than good, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer not be upon sounder ground if he made these provisions apply for a limited time only, in order that we might see how the thing worked? Then, if it was found necessary, we could extend, amend, or modify the Bill as we

251
may think right. I think that is a suggestion worthy of consideration. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will change his mind on this point after he has heard our criticisms.
I think the way in which this Bill is drafted is going to have an effect which has never been anticipated. The hon. Member for Cambridge gave one instance and I will give another to show what is the effect of the Bill. Everybody connected with the law knows that you can go to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction and get orders for compensation and small debts, and you can get a special statutory order to levy distress upon goods. Just think what would happen under this Bill. There are hundreds of such cases taken every day before stipendiary magistrates. Under this Bill the claimant goes before a stipendiary magistrate and gets such an order as I have referred to which gives him leave to levy the distress, but under this Bill he would have to go before the High Court or the County Court. Surely that can never have been intended. It is quite obvious that Sub-section (b) of Clause 10 was only intended to refer to cases where a man might levy a distress without going to the Court at all. Nobody can say that it was intended to put the creditor to the inconvenience and expense of such a proceeding as that which I have mentioned. Why limit the Bill to the High Court and the County Court? I should have thought that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in cases like this would have been just as good. Take the stipendiary magistrates in London. They are far more accessible than the registrar of the County Court, and so are the county justices who sit every day practically.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. and learned Member means cases which come within their jurisdiction, I quite agree.
Mr. SANDERSON: I understood that this Bill would deal with the cases which came within the jurisdiction of the High Court and the County Court. With regard to contracts which have been made after the beginning of the War I have the strongest opinion that they ought not to be included in this Bill, and I will give my reason. Take, for example, mortgages. They would be drawn with reference to
252
conditions existing. I am sure if the hon. Member opposite, with his great experience, was called upon to draw up a mortgage he would take care that the mortgagee was not called upon without sufficient notice, and he would put in a clause that it should not be paid until after the War was closed. But take the small debts which the working classes are in the habit of contracting. I am convinced that those who have stated that the poor people would be hit by this Bill are quite right. It would destroy their credit and do them more harm than good. With regard to the person by whom the application ought to be made, I agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter said. I think that in most cases it ought to be the person who wants to get relief who ought to apply to the Court, although I do not think this should apply in all cases.
Take the case of the hire purchaser. There the lender can put into operation his remedy without going to any Court at all, because he can come down to the house, and often does, and take away the furniture. Many of the people who make these purchases are very poor, and they might never know of this legislation, and if they did, probably they would not bother to go to the Court in order to make the application. I am not quite certain that in all cases it ought to be the person who is behind them who ought to make the application. This is a matter which requires very careful consideration, and it cannot be settled in a few minutes. I think there should be the greatest consultation amongst hon. Members with regard to these proposals. There are many cases in which, if this power is left in, the application would not be made at all, and the very hardship we are trying to guard against would occur. After hearing the many points of difficulty there are in this Bill, I have concluded that it would not be desirable to take this measure tomorrow, and I think we ought to postpone it until after the short interval for which the House is going to adjourn. In the meantime the Law Officers will have more opportunity of considering all the points involved.
Mr. D. MASON: If I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken rightly, he supports the principle of the Bill for a brief period. The last

253
Section of the Bill says that His Majesty may by Order in Council at any time determine its operation. Surely that meets the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman!
Mr. SANDERSON: I am not willing to leave it to an Order in Council
Mr. D. MASON: That is another matter. The hon. Gentleman then does not agree with the method of bringing the Bill to an end, but still the principle is there in the last Section. I hope that the House will support the Second Reading of the Bill, the principle of which I think in nearly every case has been admitted. A study of the Bill shows that the powers given, although very wide, do not enable a debtor to get rid of his debts. The discretion is left to the Courts, and surely the profession which many hon. Members who have spoken adorn must have very little faith in the discretion of the Courts if they cannot in a case of this sort give them wide powers with regard to the enforcing or the non-enforcing of debts! It seems to me that the cases will not be so numerous as they seem to imagine. One of the principal arguments of this Bill is that it is a step towards a resumption of our normal conditions. The main argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the Bill was to enable us to get rid of the moratorium. We are all agreed that however necessary a moratorium may be it is a most undesirable condition of affairs. It is a terrible state of affairs. It enters into every condition in every possible corner of the Kingdom, and to a certain extent it paralyses business. It was shown by the figures given the other day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that opinion is still divided as to whether the moratorium should be brought to an end or extended. There were some 4,000 odd in favour of bringing it to an end and some 3,000 odd in favour of extending it. That indicates, of course, that there are a great number of people who must have this moratorium extended in some form or other. You will be faced with a great deal of distress and bankruptcy unless you provide against it in some shape.
This Bill does enable us to get a step forward towards a resumption of our normal conditions. It, in a sense, specifies
254
certain people who are seeking relief. It is not like a general moratorium applying to all, and therefore likely to be used by unscrupulous persons. It is quite true that a certain number of unscrupulous persons may abuse this Bill, but there are certain qualifying conditions in this measure, and in a moratorium there are no qualifications: it applies to all. This Bill is really a partial moratorium. Under it a person has to make good his case, to incur costs, and show good cause to enable him to levy distress and obtain payment of his debt. While there are many faults in the Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has clearly stated that he is prepared to consider suggestions in Committee, to amend the Bill, and, if necessary, to make it safer so that it may not be abused, and I hope therefore the House will give it a Second Beading. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett), that to reverse Clause 1, paragraph (b) and require the tenant to apply for powers rather than to leave it to the landlord, would be likely to create a great deal of injustice. One cannot imagine a working man, in comparatively poor circumstances, taking legal steps to obtain the necessary powers. The probability is that the Bill would be a dead letter. I do hope, therefore, the Government will seriously consider that principle should not be interfered with. I have great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading.
Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I came down to the House with the full intention of supporting this Bill, thinking it a very clever, well-meant effort to get rid as soon as possible of the moratorium and the injurious effect of it, but sitting here listening to the very legal discussion which has taken place during the last half-hour, almost entirely among the legal element of the House of Commons, I feel rather convinced that it is difficult to create any simple device to get rid of the moratorium. It is quite clear that if we pass this Bill we shall have nothing but a vast mass of litigation and trouble, and the Bill probably will not assist, except by putting into the pockets of lawyers a vast sum in fees for these numerous applications that will be necessary. I would, therefore, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would not revert to the more simple process of the moratorium. The moratorium

255
may be good or bad. I, like him, do not like it at all, but when you depart from the simplicity of it and try to create devices such as this to get rid of it, you make things worse. We do not want the moratorium for long, but, whilst we have it, let us keep out of measures like this, which will add enormously to litigation. Whilst I am in favour of the Bill as to certain portions, looking at the difficulties which have been pointed out, and the enormous litigation which would ensue, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at any rate, to postpone it to the end of any time to which the moratorium may run, and to endeavour to bring out something more simple. The moratorium is simple, and simplicity in these difficulties is the essence of the question. We do not want to have litigation, and we do not want the enormous difficulties which we should have to encounter. The lawyers have clearly shown us that this Bill would be nothing but a happy hunting ground for their profession.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question, which I think it would be for the convenience of the House to have answered, namely, whether he proposes to take the Committee stage of this Bill to-morrow, or whether he can give the House further time for its consideration?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like, in as much as it is an emergency measure, to get it through as rapidly as possible, because I take the view that it is an essential preliminary to getting rid of the moratorium, and I think it is desirable, in the interests of trade, that you should bring the moratorium to an end at the earliest safe moment, and I am sure you cannot do it unless there is some measure of this sort. At the same time I am also anxious to meet the general views of those who have criticised the Bill in detail. I can assure them that we have taken full note of their criticisms, and my right hon. and learned Friend and I are doing our best to meet them. I should like to get the assistance of those who evidently have given a good deal of study to this question in the drafting of the Amendments which they indicate are necessary in order to meet their views. I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that there have
256
been some difficulties which I certainly had not foreseen, and which have been pointed out in the course of the discussion, but I think that they can all be met. Suggestions have been put forward with a view to meeting them, and I hope it will be possible for those who have spoken on the subject and who have got views to meet my right hon. and learned Friend and myself between this and Monday with a view of arriving at some basis which would enable us to get an agreed Bill. I do not like the idea of pressing a Bill which is regarded as controversial. At the same time, for the reasons I have indicated, I cannot see my way to bring the moratorium to an end unless there are some provisions of this kind. If those who have taken part in the discussion on both sides of the House, who have got views about the matter, and who have evidently studied it, will be good enough to meet my right hon. and learned Friend and myself I am sure that we shall be glad to do so. Unless there is an agreement to-morrow on the subject the Bill shall not be taken, but, if we are able to agree before five o'clock, then I do not see any reason why it should not be done. I am afraid that is more than I can expect. Therefore, perhaps hon. and learned Gentlemen will allow me to get the Second Beading now, on that understanding.
8.0 P.M.
Mr. NIELD: I am loath to prolong the discussion after the very amicable and conciliatory speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I would like to invite his persual of the criticisms which have been made from his own side when he comes to read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow—the criticisms which came from the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bad-ford), a member of the profession of solicitors, which would be unquestionably benefited by this Bill, who took exception to it on the ground of cost and difficulty of application. I mean the question as to who should be the person to apply. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to realise that in Clause 1, Sub-section (3), he does provide for the case of bankruptcy. When we come to the case of bankruptcy on a petition, which, after ail is said and done, is one of the last steps a creditor takes to enforce his rights, then it is for the debtor to show that his

257
pecuniary position is due to the difficulties of the War. That, curiously enough, is the very case, if I am not wrong, in which the Bankruptcy Court now in exercising jurisdiction has power to prevent oppressive petitions. I ask him to remember this: What will be the position of affairs on the 29th September, or immediately after? The hon. Member instanced the very large number—he spoke of a million, but possibly that "was too large a number—of landlords who may want to enforce their rent, all of them crowding into Court for the purpose of getting leave. Surely the tenant who feels he cannot meet the claim ought to be the person to apply immediately he has a demand which he has reason to know is a hostile demand for rent which may be followed soon by process of distraint? I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Think of a case like this also: A sum of money, representing interest on a mortgage, is due. Under the existing rule, if the mortgage is for £500, relief can be obtained in the High Court. But before that, and without any knowledge as to whether the debtor does really want time and whether his position is due to the War, the creditor is obliged to go into Court and incur costs. It must be remembered that this is a case in which there are no proceedings pending. You have to originate them. The amount demanded may be very small, but still sufficient to bring it in excess of County Court jurisdiction.
You are therefore faced with this difficulty: The creditor must originate proceedings in the High Court in order to get leave to issue execution or to get his remedy by distraint or otherwise. In so doing he may incur costs not only equal to the amount due, but sometimes 50 per cent. in excess of the actual sum sought to be recovered, and then the debtor may turn round and say, "I never asked for time, I never told you by correspondence I could not pay because of the War, and it is wholly inequitable that I should be called upon to pay, not only the arrears but the sum of money for costs which may be twice as much." Surely the proper course is for the debtor to be the person to apply for relief, and if a good cause were shown it would be granted, without the burden of costs being thrown upon anyone, who may not have expressed a desire
258
for any accommodation at all. There is one other point I should like to call attention to. Take the case of a man who moves his furniture in order to avoid distress—a case of fraudulent removal of furniture at night. I think such cases should be exempted from the operation of this provision. There ought not to be any necessity to apply for leave in case of a man who has indicated a fraudulent intention of that nature. He, at any rate, ought not to have the privilege of making the landlord apply to the Court for leave. These are all matters which require to be carefully thought out, and at any rate, to start fair, I think it should be the debtor and not the creditor who should make application to the Court.
Mr. DENNISS: Is there not another way of doing this which will meet everybody's wish? I think the whole object of the Bill can be obtained, without any danger to the community, by simply giving to the judge in each Court power to grant time to any debtor who applies and shows proper cause, and power also to postpone execution or enforcement of mortgage and other rights. In that way no hardship Would occur to the ordinary creditor, and only those cases be brought into Court where there is some reason to suppose the debtor ought to have time given him for payment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take these suggestions into consideration between this and Monday.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Webb.]

BRITISH PRESS BUREAU.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th July, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Sir A. MARKHAM: At Question Time I gave notice that on the Adjournment I should call attention to the management of the Press Bureau, but my right hon.

259
Friend the Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith), who has been waiting in the House during the last four hours, has, owing to the pressing work he has to do at the Press Bureau, been compelled to leave the House. I told him I did not wish to detain him, and I therefore
260
now give notice that I shall call attention to this question on Monday on the Adjournment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly, at Seven minutes after Eight o'clock till to-morrow (Friday) at Twelve noon.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  Lough Swilly Railway Company (Charges to Fisher Girls).
  Lough Swilly Railway Company (Charges to Fisher Girls).
  Faughanvale National School.
  Faughanvale National School.
  Naval Court Martial (Durban).
  Naval Court Martial (Durban).
  Illegal Trawling (Fife Coast).
  Illegal Trawling (Fife Coast).
WAR IN EUROPE.
  MANUFACTURE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  MANUFACTURE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  DAWLISH CASE.
  DAWLISH CASE.
  PRIZE COURTS (SCOTTISH ADVOCATES AND LAW AGENTS).
  PRIZE COURTS (SCOTTISH ADVOCATES AND LAW AGENTS).
  FOOD PRICES (IRISH OREAMERIES).
  FOOD PRICES (IRISH OREAMERIES).
  STEAMSHIP "STARTFORTH" (FIRING BY TERRITORIAL DETACHMENT).
  STEAMSHIP "STARTFORTH" (FIRING BY TERRITORIAL DETACHMENT).
  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES (WEEKLY PAYMENTS).
  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES (WEEKLY PAYMENTS).
  ROYAL ARMY FLYING CORPS.
  ROYAL ARMY FLYING CORPS.
  NAVAL RESERVISTS' ADVANCES.
  NAVAL RESERVISTS' ADVANCES.
  LOCAL LOANS AND RATES.
  LOCAL LOANS AND RATES.
  COST OF BUILDING MATERIALS.
  COST OF BUILDING MATERIALS.
  WORKMEN'S TRAIN TICKETS.
  WORKMEN'S TRAIN TICKETS.
  DISTRAINT FOR SMALL DEBTS.
  DISTRAINT FOR SMALL DEBTS.
  STATE INSURANCE FUNDS.
  STATE INSURANCE FUNDS.
  FEES FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
  FEES FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  DISABLEMENT BENEFIT (RESERVISTS AND TERRITORIALS).
  DISABLEMENT BENEFIT (RESERVISTS AND TERRITORIALS).
THE WAR.

  NEWS FROM THE FRONT
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, before I move the Motion that stands in my name I desire to repeat a quite short statement which was made by the Prime Minister in another place earlier in the afternoon. He stated that—
  "Sir John French reports that he was engaged yesterday against a superior force. He says that his troops fought splendidly. He speaks in high terms of the quality and efficiency of the French Regular troops and their officers, and considers the position and the prospect of the Army in the now impending battle satisfactory."

SYMPATHY WITH BELGIUM.
*THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I desire now to move—
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to convey to the King of the Belgians the sympathy and admiration with which this House regards the heroic resistance offered by his Army and people to the wanton invasion of his territory, and an assurance of the determination of this country to support in every way the efforts of Belgium to vindicate her own independence and the public law of Europe."
We must all feel that it is the least that we can do in all the circumstances to pay our tribute to the constancy and the honour shown by Belgium and her people. By her action Belgium has ranged herself by the side of the small nations famous in history who have received a crown of glory and credit from their resistance to overwhelming forces. Belgium has ranged herself by the side of Athens and Sparta against Persia, with Switzerland against the whole force of the Roman Empire, and with her forbears of Flanders and the Netherlands against the might of Spain.
It is hard for any of us—I am sure I feel that it is hard for me—to force into our minds full realisation of the events with which this last month has been crammed. It is hard indeed to realise that it is not a calendar month ago since the declaration of war by Austria on Servia made all of us wonder whether the time had come at last when the great calamity of a European conflict could no longer be deferred. That was on
510
July 28. And on July 29 the German Government, through our Ambassador at Berlin, made the notorious proposal to us so familiar now to every one in this country, and which has been so correctly characterised by all who have alluded to it. It was on the following day—July 30—that Sir Edward Grey sent the reply not less familiar, which has been like the sound of a trumpet in the ears of all Englishmen ever since. The next day France and Germany were asked whether they would respect that neutrality of Belgium which they had solemnly agreed to protect; and on the same day Germany intimated that it was impossible for her to send a reply, because a reply might give some indication of the military movements which she might feel compelled to take. On the same day France, with no word of demur, announced her intention of respecting the neutrality of Belgium; and, still on the same day, Belgium declared that she would defend her neutrality to the last.
Two days later Germany violated the neutrality of Luxemburg, of less direct concern to us than the violation of the neutrality of Belgium, but in itself an outrage against the public law of Europe. On August 4 the King of the Belgians issued an appeal to those who had guaranteed the neutrality of his kingdom for their diplomatic support; and on the same day the German Government sent to Belgium a bid for their acquiescence in the violation of their neutrality—once more indignantly refused by Belgium. It was on the same day that report reached us that the Germans had entered Belgian territory, and accordingly that same day we sent our Ultimatum to Germany. The House will remember that what I have spoken of as the bid by Germany for Belgian acquiescence in the violation of her neutrality was an offer at the end of the war to respect the independence and integrity of Belgium. That might be taken to mean that Belgium, acquiescing now, at the end of the war would become a German protectorate. We cannot, therefore, be surprised that the offer received no attention.
We pass now to the military operations that took place. On that same day the attack began upon Liége, and it continued with the greatest possible violence and was met by the stoutest possible resistance

511
until August 11, when the Germans entered the town of Liége. But the forts of Liége, all honour to them, still held out, and the town has thereby made herself a great historic name. It is important to note, in telling this brief story of the heroic Belgian resistance, what the effect has been upon the war as a whole. There was published by our Press Bureau here on August 15 a statement which makes it clear what that effect was. They said that the resistance of the Liége forts and the intervention of the French Cavalry had had the result of detaining the Germans for eight days on the line of the Meuse, with the result that the French had been able to carry out their mobilisation and concentration without hindrance. That, my Lords, is the great, the almost incalculable, service which the heroic resistance of Belgium has rendered to the operations of the Allies with whom we are ranged. It has always been notorious that the value of time, owing to circumstances with which we are all acquainted, was immense to France and her Allies, and that time, in a measure which even the most sanguine could hardly have ventured to think possible, has been given by the noble resistance of Belgium. Since then, as the House knows, the Belgian Government withdrew to Antwerp on August 17, and on August 20 the German troops occupied Brussels.
But, my Lords, this is not the whole story. It is not only a story of a military invasion encountered with courageous resistance by an inferior military force. It is impossible not to notice what has been authoritatively stated of the conduct of the invaders when we are considering what Belgium has gone through and paying her our respectful tribute. On the highest authority—that of the Belgian Foreign Office—a statement has been published giving details, carefully authenticated as far as possible in the circumstances, of conduct by the invading army contrary to all the laws and usages of war. These statements have been carefully examined by judicial and other high authority, and they must therefore be distinguished from the reports, some of them I dare say unauthenticated or exaggerated, of which so many have appeared in the Press. These reports, which have been published in this country and in Belgium, are supported by evidence which would be held to be conclusive in a Court of Law.
512
I need not say that I do not propose to examine into any of the details of those statements. Nor is this any time for us who, as a nation, are engaged in this struggle to give utterance to any sort of threats, or to engage in any kind of prophecies as to what may be the outcome of this tremendous war. But this I do say, that history plainly tells us that no nation has ever outraged public law, or has systematically conducted war by inhuman and brutal methods, without sooner or later paying for it. The time, or the form of punishment or of reparation that may be exacted, it is, of course, impossible to predict; but we do venture to declare that any nation that so conducts itself pays for it soon or late, and pays to the uttermost farthing. It is our part to see that the sword is not sheathed until the fullest assurance is obtained that these great wrongs will be redressed to the full. I am certain that in saying this, and also in expressing in the terms of the Motion our cordial sympathy with the Belgian nation and our determination to do everything that we can, as a nation, to vindicate the independence of that country and the public law of Europe, I shall have the full concurrence of your Lordships' House.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to convey to the King of the Belgians the sympathy and admiration with which this House regards the heroic resistance offered by his Army and people to the wanton invasion of his territory, and an assurance of the determination of this country to support in every way the efforts of Belgium to vindicate her own independence and the public law of Europe.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I ask leave to second the Motion which has just been made by the noble Marquess opposite. Those who sit on this side of the House will agree with me when I say that we are glad that the noble Marquess made this Motion this evening, whilst the events to which he has referred are still fresh in our minds, and did not postpone it till a later time. The noble Marquess gave us an interesting outline of the history of the war during the last two or three weeks. It could only be a sketch, but it was a sketch amply sufficient to establish the fact that the conduct of the Belgian Government, of the Belgian

513
Army, and of the Belgian people has been of a kind to deserve the tribute of admiration and sympathy which we desire to lay at their feet this evening.
All who are lovers of liberty, all who can appreciate the virtue of self-sacrifice, all who are able to admire patriotism and who entertain respect for Treaty obligations, must feel that Belgium has rendered to the civilised world a signal service by what she has done. If she had been inspired by less glorious ideals, if her standard of honour had been less high, it might have been easy for her to evade these responsibilities and to escape the terrible penalties which have fallen upon her through her observance of them. She might have urged that this dispute had arisen over a question which was far removed from her and her interests. She might have dwelt upon her own comparative weakness as compared with the strength of the Great Powers who are engaged in this colossal struggle. She might have urged that events were moving so rapidly that there was not time for her friends to range themselves at her side when the struggle began. She might have dwelt upon the ruinous consequences to herself and to her people of allowing the first act of this drama to be played upon Belgian soil. But she did none of these things. She never faltered in her sense of what she owed to her own position as an independent State. When the bribe was offered to her she knew how to thrust it on one side. She advanced two simple propositions—first, that to accept the German proposal meant the sacrifice of her honour as a nation; second, that she felt able, in case her territory was violated, to defend her own neutrality. My Lords, no simpler, no more dignified rejoinder could, I venture to say, have been given to the inducements which the German Government did not hesitate to dangle before Belgium as the price of her dishonour.
We know how gallantly Belgium did defend the neutrality of her soil. She has emerged from the struggle bruised but indomitable. Even now we read of the renewal at Antwerp of the same gallant resistance which characterised her initial defence of the position at Liége, and I venture to think that she has come out of this, the first, phase of a great war with a halo of reputation of which any mighty Empire might well be proud.
514
If we had been merely disinterested spectators of these events the conduct of Belgium would have claimed our applause and our admiration. But we are not mere spectators. We are the comrades in arms of Belgium, we are her allies, we are associated with her in this vast enterprise, in which our country has so tremendous a stake, and therefore it is that we have to offer to Belgium not merely our admiration, but our gratitude, for the great achievement which she has accomplished. It is not easy for a civilian to estimate the value of what Belgium has contributed to the first phases of the war. This at any rate we may say without fear of contradiction, that it is due to her that the great aggressive movement which might have carried everything before it was effectually checked at the outset. It is not uninstructive to compare what has happened during these first days of the war which is now raging with the events which took place at the beginning of the war of 1870; and if, as I believe, the situation now is a very different one from the situation in 1870 it is, I venture to say, to Belgium that we owe it. It was owing to the readiness of Belgium to sacrifice herself upon the altar of duty that the Allies have gained in this war a period of some two or thee weeks the value of which to us is, I will venture to say, incalculable. But for that delay it would not have been possible for the French Government to complete their mobilisation in time; it would not have been possible for them to bring over their troops in time from Africa; it would not have been possible for them to complete the defences of their fortresses and military positions. And Lot only is that so. But for the time thus gained it would not have been possible for the British Expeditionary Force to take its place, as it did, in the first great battle of this campaign; and we have learned from the gallant Field-Marshal who now holds the seals of the War Office how magnificently that force acquitted itself at what was probably one of the most critical moments in the whole of this campaign.
The noble Marquess dwelt in eloquent words upon the price which the people of Belgium have had to pay for these great achievements. It has indeed been a terrible price. We can, at any rate, offer to them the whole-hearted sympathy of our people. And I will take upon myself to say this. Whatever else may happen

515
during the course of the war—and it is a war in which there will be no doubt stirring episodes and great feats of arms—nothing can happen which will more affect public opinion in this country than the conduct of Belgium in this short period of time. Whatever else is forgotten, that episode will remain graven upon the hearts of the people of this country. I believe there is not a man or woman within it who does not pray that in the fulness of time we may be able to give practical proof by our deeds of the gratitude, the sympathy, and the admiration which in feeble words we are seeking to express this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente, and ordered accordingly: The said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, the powers which this Bill will confer upon the Board of Agriculture are rather startling, and I will say a few words with regard to the way in which we propose to employ them. First I would like to emphasise the point that this is a purely precautionary measure, and perhaps I may state what has happened which has caused us to think it necessary to bring it forward. At the beginning of the war there occurred in the price of feeding-stuffs, as in the price of almost every other article, a sudden and severe rise, and the result has been that in a good many cases a considerable amount of alarm has been created in the minds of farmers and an uncertainty as to whether it would be possible for them to continue to maintain and feed the number of stock that they habitually have upon their farms. As a matter of fact, since then the price of almost all feeding-stuffs has dropped. We have gone very closely into this question and have had conferences with millers and other producers of feeding-stuffs, and we are satisfied that if things pursue their expected course there will be no need for farmers to have any special alarm on this subject, and no necessity for them to reduce their stock. But the fact that this uncertainty has been created in the minds of farmers—as a matter of fact, a certain amount of slaughtering has taken
516
place—has led to a measure of this kind being recommended, first of all by the very strong Consultative Committee of practical agriculturists under the chairmanship of Sir Ailwyn Fellowes, and, secondly, by a large number of other bodies.
The danger that we have to apprehend is that if some unforeseen incident occurs there may be another sudden rise in the price of feeding-stuffs, perhaps more severe than has occurred up to the present time. Probably if anything of that kind did happen it would only be for a short time, but if during that time the farmers took alarm and killed their stock they might do an enormous amount of damage to the breeding stock of the country, which would be particularly serious at a time when we want to be in a strong position at home with regard to the producing of home-grown meat. If circumstances arose under which prices were likely to be kept up for a considerable time and the prohibition to slaughter animals or sell animals for slaughter would mean a heavy loss to farmers, it would not be fair, of course, to apply the steps proposed in this Bill without at any rate some alleviating measure being passed. It is well known to be an evil at the present time, but it is a long-standing evil, that there is a great deal of killing of immature animals in this country, especially in the dairy business—the killing of young calves—which does have a very bad effect upon the supply of cattle of this country. But that is the normal state of things. We do not in this Bill propose to interfere with that. We should never apply these powers in cases where only the normal amount of killing went on. The powers would be employed only where an absolutely abnormal amount of killing, such as would endanger the breeding stock of the country, occurred. The other evil is a great one, but it cannot be dealt with by powers like these and especially at a time like the present. After the explanation which I have given I hope that your Lordships will read the Bill a second time, with the assurance that we at the Board of Agriculture realise fully what a difficult measure this would be to apply and how much hardship could be caused by doing it, and that we shall only apply it in cases where we are convinced, after the fullest knowledge of the circumstances, that the breeding stock of the country was being seriously endangered.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Lucas.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Lord has pointed out the wide-reaching character of this Bill, and the very drastic method in which it has been drafted. I do not rise to oppose the Bill, because I am sure that all agriculturists at the present time are only too anxious to do everything they can in the public interest, even though it might necessitate the sacrifice of their private interests. I rise to ask the noble Lord a question. He has pointed out that it would be only in exceptional circumstances that the Bill would be put into operation. But the powers in the Bill go much further, and might be exercised in a way which would be very serious as regards the business interests of those engaged in agriculture. I wish to ask whether the Board of Agriculture would agree, in the carrying out of this Bill, to act with an advisory committee representative of agricultural interests. The introduction of a consultative committee would be a guarantee that the Bill would not be used outside the limits indicated by the noble Lord.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I should like to interpolate one suggestion in connection with the question which has just been asked by Lord Parmoor. If the President of the Board of Agriculture is able to hold out any hope of his Board working in connection with an advisory committee, I would suggest that the county farmers committees or chambers of agriculture would be the best bodies in each case, because then you would have the local opinion.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, I entirely agree that it is of the greatest importance to have the help of local opinion in this matter. We are dealing with the whole question of live stock by means of the machinery that we already have at hand. We have our advisory councils, most competent bodies, and also the live stock committees of those advisory councils, the members of which are chosen because they are practical breeders and practical farmers. I should be most happy, if that would meet the point of noble Lords opposite, to undertake that we would make use of these committees and discuss the matter with them before applying the Bill to any district.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, this Bill as it stands is the most drastic measure I have ever read. The Board of Agriculture are empowered to
518
form their own opinion of what breeding stock is required, and are given power absolutely to control the whole of this trade. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill has been good enough to say that he is quite prepared to consult the committees to which he referred. We are very much obliged to him for that undertaking. At the same time there is nothing in the Bill which in any way makes that consultation necessary. I hope that when we take the Committee stage the noble Lord will agree to the insertion of an Amendment to make his promise good.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, it cannot, of course, be disputed that the phrasing of this Bill gives very wide and drastic powers to the Department. On the other hand, it is reasonable to consider that it is purely an emergency measure, and one which it is hardly possible to suppose would become part of the permanent law of the land. It clearly could be only in expectation of, or at any rate under dread of, a possible panic which would induce farmers to slaughter, in order to save the expense of feeding them, young cattle or pigs or any kind of live stock which ought to be reared for breeding purposes, that the Bill would be put into operation; and a panic of that kind would be almost certain to be local in its operation. It might conceivably start in some dairying district or in some pig-breeding district. A number of farmers there might become alarmed and their alarm might affect others and lead to indiscriminate slaughter. In such cases there ought to be meals of stepping in at once. I think my noble friend opposite might be content to leave the carrying out of this emergency measure in the hands of the Board of Agriculture.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I entirely sympathise with the object which the Board of Agriculture have in view, and if I make any criticism of the Bill it is with the purpose of helping it. I see that the power taken is to regulate and restrict slaughter either generally or in a particular area. Surely it will have to be done generally. If it is done in a particular area, is there any power to prevent the owner moving the beast that he wants to slaughter into another area in which the restriction does not operate and killing it there? If you want to restrict slaughter, surely you must also take powers to restrict movement.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for what he has said as to his Department consulting the advisory committees. Although there is no provision to that effect in the Bill, the noble Lord's undertaking meets my point.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, in reply to Lord Balfour I may say that the reason why powers are taken to apply restriction only to one district is that we contemplate that it would be in effect for only a short time. If it was found that there was a particular district in which the farmers had taken alarm and were killing unduly, it would probably be sufficient to schedule that district and apply the regulations to it. But if the cattle were sent out of the scheduled district then, of course, the area would have to be increased and the restriction made general. Where a panic arose we should send down our inspectors and try and reason the farmers back into what we regard to be the right frame of mind.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, though this is a drastic Bill I am sure every one of us wishes to give the most ample power in this matter to His Majesty's Government as long as the war lasts. I think we may safely leave the matter to their discretion and judgment.
On Question, Bill read 2ª.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Committee negatived.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Lord Lucas.)
LORD HARRIS: Would it not be possible, before an Order is made under this Bill, to issue a notice in the locality stating that it is intended to make the Order? Otherwise the people there may not know what is going to be done.
LORD LUCAS: I cannot give a definite pledge to the noble Lord on that point, but anything we can do in the way he suggests to prevent hardship we will do—consistent, of course, with not defeating the purpose of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 3ª.
LORD LUCAS: I move to insert, after Clause 3, a new clause which has been left out, through inadvertence.
Amendment moved—
Insert as a new clause:
"This Act may be cited as the 'Slaughter of Animals Act, 1914.'"—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE SUPPLY OF CEREALS.
*VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether in view of the certainty of a world shortage of cereals, and especially of wheat, in 1915, the Government propose to take any steps to ensure an adequate supply in this country, and whether such steps include any encouragement to British farmers to increase the area sown with wheat this autumn. I had some hesitation in putting this Notice on the Paper, or, indeed, in raising any question at the present moment, because I feel strongly that there is only one thought uppermost in the minds of us all and only one point to which all our efforts should be directed, and that is victory in the present struggle. I should not like to do anything to distract the attention or to waste the time of any Government official, high or low, by bringing forward questions which, however important in themselves, have, in view of a great world crisis, for the moment only a subordinate interest. But I do not think that that applies to this great question, because obviously the state of the supplies in this country under our own control may have the most momentous effect upon the course of the struggle in which we are engaged.
I am told on the best authority that the supply of food in this country at the present time is unusually large; the prices, as we see, have not risen excessively; and therefore there is no fear for the immediate future. But is not that rather a reason why the Government should seize this opportunity, when supplies are large and when the price is cheap, to get reserve stocks under their own control which would enable them to keep the price down and prevent a corner being made in any particular article of consumption, such as wheat, at the period when the pinch will come, which I take it we may expect in the early months of next year, if the war continues? That is one

521
point. But there is another and, to my mind, an even more important point to which I wish to direct the noble Lord's attention, and to which, indeed, my Question primarily applies. Whatever happens in regard to the harvest of the present year, it seems to me inconceivable that the harvest of next year should not greatly suffer from what is now going on. I am directing attention specially to the wheat supply, or rather I should say the wheat and rye supply, of the world. For the object which I have in view to-day the two must be taken together.
I think I am right in saying that the total wheat and rye supply of the world amounts normally to something between 600,000,000 and 700,000,000 quarters. More than half of that is produced by countries the whole able-bodied population of which is at the present time engaged in war. Those countries are engaged in a struggle of a most desperate character, which is calling upon the whole of their resources in manhood. It is possible to exaggerate the effect of this. I do not mean to say either that the present harvest will not be got in or that the ground will not be prepared in some sort of fashion for the harvest of next year. I am old enough to remember what happened in Germany in 1870. During the whole of the war I was living in that country and I remember that it was astonishing, when the great armies swept forward to the front, what the remaining population managed to do in the way of getting in the harvest. I do not think there was any loss at all, though there was difficulty in preparing the ground for the sowing of the fresh crops. As the war went on there was a great falling off in labour; and I do not imagine that the drain upon the labour of Germany in 1870, the drain especially upon agricultural labour, was anything like what it is likely to be in the present year. And, mind you, then it was only a case of Germany and of France having between them a production of some 100,000,000 quarters; whereas now Austria-Hungary and Russia, with their upwards of 200,000,000 quarters, are equally involved.
It seems to me an absolute certainty that next year will see a great shortage in the supply of the two principal food stuffs of the world. One does not need to be a great economist to realise what a shortage
522
of 20, or even of 10, per cent. in the supply of an article of universal necessity must mean in the rise of prices. It may be said—I think it can truly be said—that this country is rot as much affected as others, owing to the fact that the transoceanic supply is shut off from a great part of the Continent of Europe while it remains open to us. We at any rate shall be able, if we keep the seas open, as we all hope we shall, to be amply supplied. Yes, my Lords. But in the first place that assumes that there will be no unfortunate accident to our control of the sea highways. And beyond that, assuming that the war was over sooner than we now think likely, that it was over I next spring or within the next few months, in that case it seems to me that a rise of prices in this country would be even a greater certainty than if the war were going on, because in the case of peace all the countries of the world would be competing for the trans-oceanic supplies. By emergency measures the Government might control the price of wheat in this country, but it could not control the world price. From that point of view it seems to me that our only insurance is a large supply under our own control actually within the shores of this country, with which the Government could deal if there was a famine rise all over tire world.
I know of no way of insuring this except by a large increase in our production of wheat during the coming year. The time is very short. If anything material is to be done to encourage British farmers to increase the area sown with wheat it must be done in the next month or two. The Government have had the benefit of the advice of the consultative committee to whom the President of the Board of Agriculture has already referred. The names of the members of that committee command our confidence. It would be a matter of great interest to this House if the noble Lord, should he feel free to do so, could tell us what that committee have recommended and what steps the Government feel justified in taking with regard to those recommendations. I hardly like to make any suggestions myself. I do not claim to be a practical agriculturist, although I happen to have had perhaps quite exceptional experience of what can be done by emergency measures to provide a food supply for a country threatened with famine in consequence of war.

523
It is a question, to my mind, of the encouragement to be given to farmers. First of all, they should be made to realise what the situation is; and, secondly, the assurance should be given them that if they risk something, if they upset their ordinary method of procedure in order to increase the most vital of the food supplies of this country, they will be insured against the possibility of loss. Personally I do not think there is the remotest chance that farmers will lose by a very greatly increased cultivation of wheat in the present year. But they may be of a different opinion; they may feel doubtful as to the effect of such a course. Is it not possible for the Government to take a certain risk in order to insure farmers against loss if they do take that course?
It is no use dealing with this matter it any niggling way. Unless our wheat production could be more than doubled next year I do not think the situation would be materially affected. It is the opinion of many first-rate agriculturists that with an effort this could be done. It could be done by increasing very considerably the area under wheat. It could also be done by an increased use of fertilisers, which I believe all the best agriculturists to-day admit render a second cropping of the same land with wheat a perfectly feasible and practical operation. Next to a victory in the field there is nothing of greater importance to this country than a close attention to the question of our independence, or such independence as we can achieve, whether by storage or by increased production, in the matter of the most vital of all our food supplies—namely, wheat.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, before the President of the Board of Agriculture replies I should like to say a few words. As I understand, the noble Viscount's suggestions are two. First, that the Government should take advantage of the present low price of wheat to make a store in this country. Of that suggestion I make no complaint. Wheat is low in price and plentiful, and, without taking the pessimistic view of the noble Viscount as to the shortage next year, I think it might conceivably be wise for the Government to make a store of wheat now, merely to reassure the public, even if they do not believe that there is going to be any shortage next year. I cannot
524
help thinking that the noble Viscount is an alarmist in asserting that there is a "certainty of a world shortage of cereals, and especially of wheat, in 1915." That is a most alarming statement, and the one thing which none of us ought to do is to alarm anybody. It is quite probable that with Germany, France, and Russia at war there will be a diminution in the supply so far as those countries are concerned. At the same time we know that in France and Germany, while the fighting men are away, the amount of work done by the elderly men and by the women and even by the children to make up for the deficiency is extraordinary.
VISCOUNT MILNER: It is extraordinary, but it does not make up the deficiency. It did not in 1870 over a much smaller area.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: If other people believe that there is going to be a shortage in the world's supply there will be larger areas sown in India, in Australia, in Argentina, in the United States, and in Canada. Therefore I think the noble Viscount is going very far in prophecy when he says that there is a certainty of a world shortage in 1915. In all the markets, not only in Great Britain but all over the world, there are clever men dealing daily—gambling, if you like—in produce. There are men watching every storm, every drought, every cloud of locusts, every single thing that can affect a crop anywhere, and putting prices up or down accordingly. You must remember this fact, that wheat was very low in price the day on which war was declared. The price rose suddenly on a panic for a few days, but it has come down to the figure at which it stood before the war. If these produce brokers thought there was going to be a great shortage in 1915 the price of wheat to-day would be double, or more than double, what it is. It is obvious from the price of wheat, and from that alone, that the cleverest men in the markets who are dealing with this commodity do not share the view of the noble Viscount. In agreeing to the noble Viscount's suggestion that the Government might make a store of wheat, I do so more with the idea that a panic or risk of a panic should be prevented than with any idea that there is going to be a shortage. If our fleets hold their

525
own, as we all believe they will, there will be plenty of wheat that can be imported into this country.
I come now to the noble Viscount's other argument—that His Majesty's Government should hold out inducements to British farmers to increase the area sown with wheat. What good is that going to do us? Ours is a small country with a large population. It is a country the greater part of half of which—the Western half—is wholly unsuited to the growing of wheat, and I believe it would be a misfortune to the country to urge farmers to grow wheat under unnatural conditions. Many of the older members of the House can recall the days when the grass lands on the Downs of Wiltshire and Hampshire, grass lands that were admirable sheep runs and ought never to have been interfered with, were broken up, many of them at the time of the Crimean war, to grow wheat. They grew a crop or two, but no more. It would be a misfortune if farmers were encouraged from a false idea of patriotism to repeat that mistake. The best agriculturists agree that more land has been broken up in Great Britain to grow wheat than ever ought to have been put under wheat.
VISCOUNT MILNER: No, no. I could mention the names of some leading agriculturists of Great Britain who hold very strongly the opposite view. I would ask the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture to say whether it is the opinion of his consultative committee that land is at present unprofitably cultivated in wheat and that it would be an advantage to this country to cultivate less land in wheat.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: I did not say that. I said that more lard had been broken up in this country to grow wheat than ought to have been broken up. I was talking of the past. I am not saying that at the present moment you could not grow a certain amount more wheat in this country with advantage.
VISCOUNT MILNER: I misunderstood the noble Lord and apologise for my interruption. He was referring to too much land having been broken up during the wars of the past. I do not dispute that.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: My anxiety is to try and dissuade the Government from doing anything rashly in a panic which would lead to a repetition of the state of things to which I have referred. The best agriculturists have been of late years, with much labour and at great expense, putting back under grass land that never ought to have been broken up, and it would be a misfortune if those men were now told that it was their patriotic duty to break up the grass they have been laying down and put wheat on the land again. This is a very small country with a very small acreage. After all, we cannot grow everything. In the last few weeks we have seen whit the shortage of horses is. Directly this war is over the Government will have to take up the question of horse breeding. If you break up more and more of the good grass lands you are not going to do any service to the breeding of horses and the breeding of cattle. What we have to do at the present time is to encourage people not to be afraid and to deprecate any panic, and I do not believe for a moment that it would be a good thing for the Government to take the advice of the noble Viscount and encourage farmers, under the idea that they are benefiting their country, to grow wheat on land that is not adapted for that purpose.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Viscount a very definite reply—for the reason, not that we have not been considering this question very deeply, but because we are at the present moment in the middle of our deliberations upon the subject. I can give him the assurance that the Cabinet Committee on Food Supplies consider the question of the supply of wheat one of the most important of the questions with which they have to deal, and are now giving it their most serious attention.
There are, as the noble Viscount says, two quite distinct problems to deal with. One is the position that is going to occur in the world's market of wheat next spring when the crop at present being harvested begins to run low, and the second is the question of what is going to be done, if anything in that direction is necessary, to stimulate the sowing of an extra amount of wheat next year. As to whether or not it is necessary for the

527
Government to take any steps, it is obviously impossible to make any statement now. On the other question I agree with my noble friend behind me who spoke last, that the matter is not so simple as the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches seems to think. I am quite sure that if farmers were invited to put a much larger acreage of land under wheat they would willingly respond to the invitation. It would be quite easy to increase very largely the acreage under wheat, and probably, if it was worth while to take the step, we could get sufficient wheat grown in this country to provide us with six months supply, and that in the case of a national shortage would be a very important consideration. But I can assure the noble Viscount that the question is not quite as simple and as straightforward as that, and that the considerations which Lord St. Davids has placed before your Lordships are very cogent ones and regard has to be had to them. If we were to invite the farmers to put a largely increased acreage of land under wheat we might be faced with the prospect of having to apply to Parliament for grants to make good the losses of the farmers should this measure of precaution turn out to have been unnecessary. I can assure your Lordships that the matter is receiving the most careful consideration of the Cabinet Committee on Food Supplies, and I can say for that body that the steps which we may take in the matter will be taken in plenty of time to enable farmers to grow more wheat if we decide that it is the right policy to ask them to do so.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, both of the suggestions which were prominent in the speech of Lord Milner are dealt with very fully in the voluminous Report of the Royal Commission over which I presided some years ago. The question of giving subsidies to farmers in this country to grow wheat was very fully discussed, and four or five plans were put before us which we criticised in a friendly way but we were unable to recommend them as part of a permanent policy to be pursued by this country. I am one of those who do not think that the certainty of a shortage next year is as clear as the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches seems to consider. We must remember that the harvest goes on practically the whole year round, because there are now, by the facility of transit, enormous supplies of
528
wheat to be got from the Southern Hemisphere; and one of the things brought before the Royal Commission by those prominent in the wheat trade was that the prospect of a rise almost certainly brought out wheat from stores in a great many countries, and that a general rise in the price of wheat, so far as could then be foreseen, was improbable. The Final Report of the Royal Commission was published in 1905, and I venture to suggest to those interested that they will find a good many arguments on both sides on both of these questions set out in that Report.
I admit that the special circumstances this year may be peculiar, and that it may be well worth the consideration of the Government whether, as a purely temporary measure, they should offer a certain premium upon land already in cultivation which could be put under wheat. But there are two great difficulties. The question will arise as to whether it will have to be a bounty on the wheat actually produced or upon the acreage put under wheat. There are obvious disadvantages in the latter course, because not the best land might be selected and the results would not be commensurate with the expenditure. With regard to the suggestion of having Government stores of wheat, I venture to hope that the criticisms in our Report on that subject will be examined. There are very great difficulties about the Government going into trade in a matter of this kind. To begin with, wheat is a perishable article, and if the Government accumulated a large stock the question would arise as to whether they should sell or whether they should hold and their action might disarrange the quotations and markets all over the world.
I venture to suggest that before a scheme of this kind is advocated by any responsible persons it would be well for them to look at the arguments which we marshalled and put in as convenient a form as I think it was possible to put them. A perusal of the statistics in that Report will show the range of countries which can produce wheat, and the certainty from previous experience—I take India as an example—that the moment the price rises in other parts of the world the population of India take not to using

529
wheat but to exporting it and to living upon other produce which they have. I venture to think that the reply given by the President of the Board of Agriculture to-day was a judicious one. He told us that the matter was being considered, and if he will pay us the compliment of considering it in the light of the facts and statistics which we brought together in the Report to which I have referred I am sure he will find a great deal of useful material. And I may add that if the experience which I gained in the five years that I presided over the Royal Commission would be of any use to the Government in this matter, they have only to ask for it and it will be cordially given.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, I rise to say a few words in support of what the noble Lord has just stated with regard to the great inadvisability of the Government holding stocks. If there is any experience on a large scale to be found in any country, that country is India. During the many famines from which in recent times India has suffered, the question of accumulating Government stocks came most prominently to notice. At first the idea found great favour, but as experience accumulated it was entirely abandoned. Although the Government can do far more than any individual trader, the Government cannot do as much as all traders put together; and any action taken by the Government in the way of accumulating stocks discourages private enterprise, and, in the end, leads to great disaster.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, I desire to express my thanks to Lord Balfour for the offer which be made, and to say that I shall lay it before the Cabinet Committee on Food Supplies. The noble Viscount on the Cross Benches asked for the opinion of the Consultative Committee on these matters. The Consultative Committee have been kind enough to report upon the two questions with which the noble Viscount dealt, and they have made recommendations with regard to both of them—first with regard to the idea of taking steps to maintain in this country a certain amount of this year's English crop; and, secondly, with regard to extending the acreage under wheat for next year. I am bringing both of those recommendations before the Cabinet Committee.
VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the answer he has given. The matter, however, is one of such peat importance that the House will, perhaps, forgive me if I appear unduly persistent. I would like to make one or two remarks upon the criticisms which have been passed on these proposals. I am indebted to Lord Balfour for calling my attention to the Report of the Royal Commission, with which I am familiar though I have not consulted it within the last few days. I am aware of all the arguments which have been adduced—and strong arguments they are—against Government stores. I did not go the length of advocating Government stores. What I said was that I thought it would be an advantage if the Government could get control over at least a portion of the present supply in this country, with a view of being able more effectively to control the price next year if it was necessary to do so. As regards the major proposition—the encouragement of production in this country—I think I am entitled to demur to the suggestion that if one tries to point out a danger and to avert an evil one is thereby encouraging panic. There is nothing "panicky" in my attitude.
LORD ST. DAVIDS: It was not on that point that I said the noble Viscount was encouraging panic. I said that he was encouraging panic when he stated definitely that there must certainly be a shortage in the world's supply in 1915.
VISCOUNT MILNER: Well, that is my conviction. I admit that it is always a mistake to talk of certainty in regard to anything; but, humanly speaking, it is certain. I have pointed out that the countries at present engaged in a life and death struggle which is bound, unless all past experience is misleading, materially to affect their agricultural operations, are the producers of half of the whole of the wheat and rye of the world. I submit that that condition of things indicates an overwhelming probability of a shortage, and that as reasonable people we ought to take it into consideration and lay our plans accordingly. It is not as if the suggestion that steps should be taken to increase the wheat supply of this country was running counter to general considerations, because there is a strong preponderance of opinion amongst the best agriculturists that we

531
have gone too far, from the point of view of agriculture, in abandoning the production of wheat; and it would be a positive advantage, even were there no prospect of a deficiency next year, to encourage further production.
My suggestion has no reference to the proposal to break up good pasture lands. I admit that even in an emergency that would be an unwise course to pursue. But is there any likelihood of that? In the first place, there could be a considerable increase in the production of wheat if farmers were encouraged to undertake it upon existing arable land; and, in the next place, there is undoubtedly a great deal of land which has dropped down to pasture that is very wretched pasture, and the reconversion of which into arable land has long been advocated by the most experienced agriculturists. I am grateful to the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture for his explanation, and I feel confident that, with the attention which the Board of Agriculture are paying to the representations of the consultative committee, the result on further consideration is likely to be more favourable to the policy which I have ventured to advocate than the noble Lord seems to indicate at the present moment. At any rate, I am glad to know that the subject is receiving the urgent attention of the Department, and I hope that the time which we have spent in discussing it this evening may not be without advantage.

ARTICLES OF COMMERCE (RETURNS, &c.) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Wimborne.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which is an emergency measure to give powers in connection with the present war to obtain information as to stocks of articles of commerce and for enabling possession to be taken of any such articles unreasonably withheld—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: The noble Lord is moving the Second Reading of a Bill which has only a moment ago been brought up from the other House. I am not aware that all our Standing Orders have been suspended, and that we have arrived at the condition when any number of Bills can be brought up and passed through all their stages straight away.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: In reply to my noble friend opposite I may say that we have, as a matter of fact, come to the condition which he mentions, of course on the understanding that only Bills would be put through which were of an urgent or what is called an emergency character. The two Standing Orders which apply have been in fact suspended for the remainder of the session.
LORD WIMBORNE: I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied with that explanation.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am not at all satisfied.
LORD WIMBORNE: We are living in exceptional times, and it is necessary that Bills of an emergency character should be passed through all their stages without delay. If the noble Earl will look at this Bill—
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: How can I look at it? We have no copies of the Bill. It was only a minute or two ago that the House ordered the Bill to be printed.
LORD WIMBORNE: I am sorry that noble Lords have not been able to see the Bill, and I will therefore explain it at length. Clause 1, subsection (1), gives the Board of Trade power to require returns for the purpose of obtaining information as to the quantity in the United Kingdom, or in transit to the United Kingdom, of any articles of commerce, and the Board are given power to serve a notice on any person supposed to be in possession of any article of commerce requiring him to state within a specified period what quantity of such article is in his possession. Subsection (2) gives the Board power, for the purpose of testing the accuracy of any return which may be made to them on this subject, to require a duly authorised officer of the Board to enter the premises of any person suspected of withholding information on the subject and verify for their own satisfaction the statements submitted as to the quantities of articles of commerce so

533
held. That is rather on the analogy of the powers which factory inspectors possess. Subsection (3) deals with penalties. They are the more or less ordinary sort of penalties which would apply to cases of this kind. Any person wilfully refusing or neglecting to give information, or making a false return, or obstructing or impeding any officer of the Board is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £100, or, if the Court is of opinion that the offence was committed wilfully, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding three months.
Clause 2 deals with quite another matter—the power of the Board to take possession of any such articles of commerce which they think are being unreasonably withheld, and to do so at such a figure as may be agreed upon between the Board and the person concerned, or as the result of the arbitration of a Judge of the High Court selected by the Lord Chief Justice of England in England and by the corresponding legal authorities in Scotland alai Ireland. Clause 3 is merely to enable the Board of Trade to make arrangements with other Departments to act for them; and Clause 4 defines what an "owner" is, and so forth. The scope of the Bill is quite clear. The discussion which we have recently had with regard to the possibility of a rise in price and its effect upon the cattle supply of this country will suggest at once to your Lordships the sort of objects for which this Bill might be used. This is an emergency measure designed to extend only to the period of the war, and it is on all fours with other emergency and preventive measures which have received the sanction of both Houses of Parliament. In these circumstances I hope that your Lordships will see your way to pass the Bill through all its stages to-day. It is, of course, important that these powers should be obtained at once, and I think the House may rest assured that they will not be harshly or unjustifiably applied, and that nothing will be done to restrict legitimate commerce. It is merely with a view to taking such precautionary measures as may be rendered necessary by the exceptional and urgent state of affairs in which we find ourselves to-day that we ask for these powers.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Wimborne.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we are invited to discuss this Bill and other Bills under conditions which render it absolutely impossible for us to satisfy ourselves as to their contents and as to the manner in which they will operate. I am afraid we have to accept that as a necessity arising out of the urgency of the moment; and I hope that His Majesty's Government will take note of the fact that, in our desire not to impede them in carrying legislation which they deem essential to meet the difficulties of the moment, we are not in any way standing upon our rights or insisting upon the amount of scrutiny and investigation to which we are certainly entitled. With regard to this Bill, I note one point which seems to me to require a word of explanation. Under Clause I. subsection (2), any officer of the Government Department "authorised in that behalf by the Board" may enter premises and satisfy himself with regard to the articles of commerce contained on those premises. Will the noble Lord in charge of the Bill tell us what is meant by an authorised officer? Does it mean an officer holding a formal authority from the Government Department to do these things, or may any gentleman suddenly descend upon the business premises of an unfortunate tradesman and say that he is an authorised agent and thereupon conduct an inquisitorial examination into the affairs of that trader?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, with regard to what has fallen from the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, may say that we quite appreciate the attitude which he and his friends have taken, and we are grateful to them for raising no objection to the prompt and somewhat hurried passing of these Bills. At the same time it is only right to point out that if we chose to carry on prolonged sittings for their consideration there is nothing to prevent our doing so. It would be, I think, rather a waste of your Lordships' time, but there is nothing to prevent our carrying on, perhaps at somewhat inconvenient hours, a considerable examination of these measures.
So far as this particular measure is concerned, it is, in fact, an extension of the action with regard to food stuffs which was taken, as the House will remember, quite early in the day when the crisis

535
began. There was a tendency at that time to lock up, sometimes from motives of foolish panic and sometimes, perhaps, from still more unworthy motives, supplies of food stuffs to the public disadvantage. It has been found necessary to extend that power of prohibition to a number of other articles which will be scheduled under powers given by this Bill. With regard to the particular question which the noble Marquess asked, of course it is clear that incursions on to private property for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is an undue collection of any of the articles in question could only be made by a person acting under Departmental authority, and I think the noble Marquess can be quite easy in his mind that no abuse will be allowed of the powers which are given by this, I admit, somewhat drastic provision. As I have stated, and as my noble friend made clear from his original statement, this is simply an extension of a principle which was adopted by common agreement quite early in the day. We have seen in the public Press complaints of the over solicitude of individuals, sometimes from quite honourable motives, in collecting articles of commerce which ought to be at the public disposal. We have heard the singular complaint that, owing to the operations in that direction of a number of benevolently inclined people, hospital stores of all kinds have become almost unpurchasable with the result that hospitals are unable to know where to look for such articles as, for instance, carbolic acid. Therefore a measure of this kind is absolutely necessary.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, it is impossible, of course, to discuss in detail an autocratic and drastic measure of this kind, which I understand is introduced for emergency purposes only. But the noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that the same machinery was being adopted as regards the officer of the Board authorised to enter premises as had already been adopted under the Factory Acts.
LORD WIMBORNE: It is on the analogy of the Factory Acts.
LORD PARMOOR: I would point out that there is no analogy between what is proposed in this Bill and what is carried out under the Factory Acts. The provision in the Factory Acts is that every
536
officer authorised to enter premises shall be furnished by the Board with a certificate of his authority, and in applying for entry into any premises he must, if so required, produce the said certificate to the occupier. The object of that is that no unauthorised person should enter premises alleging that he had the authority of the Board of Trade. Surely if there are to be drastic proposals of this kind some protection should be given in this Bill, as in the Factory Acts, to secure that no person should enter premises unless he has the certificate of the Board of Trade and produces it before he exercises his right of entry. I hope that on that point some satisfactory answer may be given, because it is a very drastic proposal to allow any one to enter upon premises the owner of which has no guarantee as to whether or not he is an authorised officer.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, thanks to the courtesy of Lord Lucas I have had a copy of this Bill, as printed for the House of Commons, put into my hands. I notice that it gives power to the Government to obtain complete trading information. That is something which traders do not like to reveal without some assurance. I would therefore ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for an assurance that in normal cases, where no offence is shown, the information will be treated as wholly confidential.
LORD WIMBORNE: That is provided for in Clause 1, subsection (4).
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: That subsection enacts that no individual return or part of a return made under this Bill, and no information obtained under the Bill, shall be published or disclosed except for the purposes of a prosecution under the Bill. That does not meet my point. What I mean is that the information shall be kept within the Department which will have to administer this Bill. The Board of Trade are given power in the Bill to obtain information which traders will not wish to be given to other Government Departments. Therefore I ask for an assurance that the information obtained will only be used within the Government Department concerned with the administration of this Bill. I understand that the noble Lord is prepared to give that assurance.
LORD WIMBORNE: Yes.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I notice, from a hasty perusal of the Bill, that the Government may take possession of articles, but no power is conferred to sell or distribute those articles. What is it proposed to do with them? What is the agency of distribution? That is a point which will have to be put right. I suppose it will be met by an Order in Council, but no doubt the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will consider that point. The policy of fixing maximum prices has its disadvantages. The maximum price ipso facto becomes the minimum sale price, and if you make a habit of fixing maximum prices, as has practically been done to-day, you cut from beneath our feet the very pillar and foundation on which we hope to rest during this period—namely, the inducement to foreign traders to rush their exports to this country. I therefore strongly urge that that form of competition should not be discouraged.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): I would call your Lordships' attention to Clause 4, subsection (4), which provides that this Bill shall have effect only while a state of war exists between His Majesty and any foreign Power, and for a period of six months thereafter.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Under that subsection this Bill could have been in operation, with just a few years' interval, practically since the Crimean War. "A state of war between His Majesty and any foreign Power and six months thereafter," would almost cover the history of the Afghan frontier. We must be given some assurance that the Bill is to have effect only during the present war, and is not to become a permanent Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not intended that this Bill should be operative except for the purposes of the present emergency—that is to say, during the present war. The desire of the Government is to reduce interference with the ordinary course of business as much as possible. The emergency makes it necessary that we should possess these powers. By Clause 3 the Board of Trade is empowered to make arrangements with any other Government Department for the exercise by that Department on behalf of the Board of Trade of the powers of the Board under this Bill with respect to any particular article of commerce. Lord Parmoor desires that the officer who enters upon premises should give
538
evidence of the authority which be possesses. Of course, no officer could enter premises unless he was duly authorised. That is quite clear from Clause 1, subsection (2). He must be an "officer of the Board authorised in that behalf by the Board"; otherwise he would be a trespasser and could be resisted. I quite agree that the officer should have some certificate, and my noble friend in charge of tae Bill will communicate with the Board of Trade on that point and arrange that then shall be a certificate. If Lord Parmoor will be content with that undertaking, he will have secured the object he has in view without the necessity of delaying the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: I think that the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion would meet the difficulty, and that an Amendment in the circumstances would be unnecessary. But there is this further point. It is not only that a certificate should be given to the officer of the Board of Trade, but that the owner should have the right to ask that that certificate should be shown to him before a particular individual enters upon his premise. That would not preclude an authorised officer from entering, but it would prevent from doing so an unauthorised person who might take advantage of the Act and seek to enter premises.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, I will undertake to represent to the Board of Trade the points which have been raised by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Parmoor). I have no doubt whatever that the Board will be able to take such steps as will meet the difficulty which he contemplates, and in that way protect traders from unauthorised trespass on the part of persons who have nothing whatever to do with the Board of Trade or the carrying out of this Bill. As to the point raised by Lord Crawford, who inquired what the Board of Trade would do with the articles which they had acquired, I may say that their object, of course, would be to distribute them, to pat them on the market. They would not take action at all if they were not certain that articles were being held up, that there was a demand for them, and that they ought to be circulated in the market in the ordinary way. In my opinion the fact that the Board would possess the powers conferred in this Bill would be sufficient to stop very largely, if not wholly, the action of holding up. I think it is very unlikely that it will often come to a forced sale, for which Clause 2 provides.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Does the noble Lord say that Clause 2 gives the Board of Trade power to sell?
LORD WIMBORNE: Under Clause 2 the Board of Trade have power to purchase, either by agreement or as the result of arbitration. Their object in purchasing would be, no doubt, to sell.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: How and to whom?
LORD WIMBORNE: If it is true, for instance, that, owing to mistaken zeal on the part of some voluntary hospital association, a sort of run has been made upon a commodity needed for hospitals and that in consequence there is a shortage of that article, this Bill would enable the Board of Trade to acquire, either voluntarily or by arbitration, from that mistaken voluntary association such article, and, if necessary, supply it at the same price at which they had acquired it to the hospitals which needed it. As I have said, I think that the mere fact that the Board would possess such powers would go a long way to preventing articles being unreasonably withheld.
On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 263.)

CUSTOMS (EXPORTATION PROHIBITION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Wimborne.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, this is also an emergency Bill. Its object is to extend the prohibition which the Board of Trade may impose under Section 8 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879. The Bill provides that Section 8 of the Act of 1879, which enables the exportation of certain articles to be prohibited, shall have effect, whilst a state of war in which His Majesty is engaged exists, as if in add-
540
tion to the articles therein mentioned there were included all other articles of every description. By Clause 2 any Proclamation or Order in Council made under the said section as so amended may, whilst a state of war exists, be varied or added to by an Order made by the Lords of the Council on the recommendation of the Board of Trade.
By this Bill the Board of Trade will have power to prohibit during the war the exportation of any article which they think in the public interest should not be exported. It is also provided that the Privy Council should be able to make alterations without the signature of the King; this is to enable any small variation, which the Board may find to be desirable, to be carried through with as little formality as possible. We have had several instances of the undesirability of the free export of articles being permitted, as is normally the case, and I think many instances will occur to your Lordships where it would be very undesirable for this country to be deprived at the present time, owing to the tempting prices which might prevail elsewhere, of commodities which may be as necessary to the welfare of this country as any other sinews of war. I can assure your Lordships that in utilising these powers the Board of Trade will have the greatest regard to legitimate trading interests. They will use the powers very sparingly, and only where they are convinced that it is in the public interest that the prohibition should be enforced.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Wimborne.)
On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 267.)

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Viscount Allendale.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, this No. 2 Bill makes some small extensions of the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914, passed a few days ago, by which His Majesty in Council has power, during the continuance of the present war, to issue regulations as to the powers and duties of the Admiralty and Army Council and of the members of His Majesty's forces and other persons acting in his behalf, for securing the public safety and the defence of the realm; and His Majesty may, by such regulations, authorise the trial by courts martial and punishment of persons contravening any of the provisions of such regulations designed (a) to prevent persons communicating with the enemy or Obtaining information for that purpose or any purpose calculated to jeopardise the success of the operations of any of His Majesty's forces or to assist the enemy; or (b) to secure the safety of any means of communication, or of railways, docks, or harbours.
These emergency measures were hurriedly drawn, with the result that certain omissions took place. It has been found necessary to ask your Lordships to amend the Defence of the Realm Act. The No. 2 Bill which I am now submitting enables the military authorities to deal with the spreading of false reports in the same way as they can now deal with a communication of information to the enemy. It enables the Admiralty or Army Council to apply to training camps certain provisions which apply now only to defended harbours, such as the prohibition of signalling and the requirements that lights shall be extinguished after a certain hour and that all persons shall remain indoors after a certain hour at night. It enables the military authorities to exercise their existing powers for the acquisition or use of land or the making of by-laws without the existing restrictions such as consents of local authorities, publication in newspapers, etc., which occupy time and are inapplicable to war conditions.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Allendale.)
On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 266.)

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Emmett.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, a week or two ago I was asked by Lord Camperdown why there was to be no Education (Provision of Meals) Bill for Scotland, and I explained at the time that Scotland already appeared to possess these powers. It transpires, however, that there is a small gap in the powers which Scotland possesses. Children can be fed under the Scottish Acts whilst they are actually in attendance at school, but there is some doubt as to whether they can properly be fed on days when the school does not meet. This Bill is to repair that deficiency.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Emmett.)
On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 264.)

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (WAR SERVICE SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, this is a Bill similar to one which has been already passed for England. The object of the Bill is to prevent loss or diminution of benefits under the superannuation scheme to teachers in Scotland who are on service during the present war with the naval or military forces of the Crown or are engaged in any other service of public benefit in connection with the war. I am sure that your Lordships will sympathise with the object of the Bill, and readily agree to pass it through all its stages.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Emmett.)
On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 262.)

HOUSING (No. 2) (EXTENSION TO IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Wimborne.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to extend to Ireland the provisions of the Housing Act which your Lordships recently passed. Anybody familiar with the conditions in Dublin and elsewhere in regard to housing must be well aware of the necessity which Ireland has of sharing in the provisions of the Act to which your Lordships recently gave your assent. In these circumstances I hope the House will pass this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Wimborne.)
On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 268.)

ISLE OF MAN (WAR LEGISLATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Viscount Allendale.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, a Moratorium was established by Proclamation in the Isle of Man in the same way as in the United Kingdom, but the Postponement of Payments Act did not apply to the Isle of Man. This Bill remedies that defect and enables any of the other emergency measures to be applied to the Isle of Man.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Allendale.)
On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª and passed. (No. 265.)

NAVAL BILLETING, &c., BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Wimborne.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to give the naval authorities in Ireland power to billet. The Army has, of course, power to billet in Ireland; the naval authorities, however, have not. This Bill extends to the Navy the powers which the Army have with regard to billeting and the requisitioning of wagons, etc., on emergency.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Wimborne.)
On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 270.)

POLICE (SCOTLAND) (LIMIT OF AGE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, in Scotland at the present time no person over the age of 25 can be appointed a constable. It has been necessary in some of the Scottish Police forces to increase the regular police, with the consent of the Secretray for Scotland; and it has been found also that the existence of a statutory age limit hampers the action of the authorities. In England the age can be altered by regulation made by the Home Secretary, and the object of this Bill is to confer a similar discretion on the Secretary for Scotland. Apart from any other reasons, it is undesirable at the present time that there should be competition between recruiting for the Army and recruiting for the Police service.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Emmott.)
On Question (Standing Order No XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 269.)

SPECIAL CONSTABLES BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Viscount Allendale.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, special constables are usually appointed under the Special Constables Act, 1831, which for present purposes is somewhat out-of-date. It is very desirable that special constables should be organised in close connection with the Police forces and should be under the same control. Under the Bill this will be done by Order in Council, and, where necessary, the provisions of the existing Police Acts will be applied to special constables. In particular the provisions of the Police Acts with regard to allowances to constables injured on duty and to the dependants of constables killed on duty will be applied to special constables, subject to any necessary modifications. Under the existing law, as governed by the Special Constables Act, 1831, special constables can be appointed only in view of actual or apprehended tumult; riot, or felony. It is very desirable that under present conditions there should be power to appoint special constables for the purpose of strengthening the Police forces when there is no immediate apprehension of riot, etc. The Bill enables this to be done, and any appointments already made without sufficient authority are validated.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Allendale.)
On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 260.)

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (WAR SERVICE SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question; Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, this is a Bill to enable certificated teachers to reckon service in connection with the
546
present war as recorded service for the purpose of the Acts relating to elementary school teachers' superannuation. Your Lordships have already passed a similar measure applying to Scotland; this Bill is intended to apply to England only. In these circumstances it is unnecessary for me to say anything more, except to assure the noble Earl below the Gangway (Lord Camper-down) that although, unfortunately, it was not possible to have this Bill circulated, copies of it have been lying on the Table of the House during the sittings of yesterday and to-day.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived: Bill read 3ª, and passed. (No. 261.)
BLYTH HALL (TRANSFER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 271.)
COATBRIDGE DRAINAGE AND BURGH EXTENSION CRUDER CONFIRMATION BILL (No. 272.)
DUMBARTON BURGH (WATER, &c.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 273.)
NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (INVERGARRY AND FORT AUGUSTUS RAILWAY VESTING) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 274.)
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have een read 2ª (The Lord Emmott), and reported from the Committee: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bills read 3ª, and passed.

HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES AND DEATH DUTIES.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, the noble Marquess who leads the House will recollect that he was good enough to say that he would to-day answer the Question which I asked yesterday—namely, whether, in the case of officers and men of the Navy and Army who may lose their lives during the present war on active service, their property will be charged with Death Duties.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I am able to give the noble Earl in general terms the information for which he asked. He will remember that, as the law now stands, the estates of deceased officers or soldiers killed in action or dying in the campaign can be relieved of payment of all duties provided that the estate does not exceed the sum of £5,000. That is the limitation which was fixed in 1900, and is still operative. But it was felt that something further ought to be done in order that nobody might entertain the thoroughly unpalatable idea that the Revenue was profiting by the deaths of those who lost their lives in the service of the country. The proposition, therefore, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes is this, that in lieu of calculating the duty on an estate of any value above £5,000 upon the total capital value, the calculation should be made on the value discounted, according to the three per cent. actuarial tables, by the expectation of life which would, according to his age, have been held by the deceased officer. The House will see, therefore, that the younger the man is who is killed or who dies, the larger the proportion which his estate escapes in the calculation of the duty. Where a man is far advanced in life, he would pay a larger proportion. This applies only to the estate as inherited by the wife or passing by lineal descent. But the House will remember that there is a provision in the Finance Act of this year with regard to the exemption attached to rapid successions, which in some other cases would, of course, be operative in saving the estate from the full charge. That is all that I can tell the noble Earl, and I think it answers the Question which he put yesterday.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am glad to get the crumb of comfort which the noble Marquess has given me, but I am not quite certain that I thoroughly understand the answer. Say that a man is killed in action when he is 35 years of age, and Death Duty is levied on the estate that he leaves. Am I right in supposing that the amount which would be
548
levied would be calculated on the basis of his having died at the ordinary time—say at 60 or 65 years of age—and that the difference would be discounted according to the three per cent. tables?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I should have liked the whole better; but I am obliged to the noble Marquess for the concession.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Taking the average, I understand that it works out at something like a relief of 50 per cent. of the duty all-round, although variously allocated according to the ages of the different officers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, a Royal Commission has been fixed for 2.45 p.m. to-morrow. It is desirable that the House should meet at half-past two, as there will be two or three Bills to be passed through all their stages. One of those Bills deals with the further issue of bank notes. It will not take long to explain, but something ought to be said upon it. I am not likely, however, to be able to made any statement to-morrow with regard to further business, but I hope to be able to do so definitely on Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Then the noble Marquess proposes that the House should sit next week?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: On Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Only on Monday?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That is exactly what I am unable to tell the noble Marquess at this moment.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Two o'clock.