Sitting of 1 July 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Tramways Provisional Orders Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Kilmarnock Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Sutton District Water Bill [Lords],
Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Aberdare Urban District Council (Tramways, etc.) Bill [Lords],
Northwich Gas Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Railway Bills (Group 3),
Sir LUKE WHITE reported from the Committee on Group 3 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee has adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Private Bills (Group B),
Sir EDWIN CORNWALL reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills;
1910
That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,—That they have agreed to,—
Milk and Dairies Acts Postponement Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Sunderland Corporation (Wearmouth Bridge) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) Act, 1899.
Copy presented of Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under Section 2 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, that they are of opinion that the Provisional Orders be allowed to proceed, subject to such recommendations as they may hereafter make with respect to the several Orders [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
Return ordered "showing for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1915 (1) the amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, of the Revenue collected by the Imperial officers; (2) the Expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the balance of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, which are available for Imperial expenditure (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 387, of Session 1914)."—[Mr. John O'Connor.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ENEMY MERCHANT VESSELS (ITALIAN DECREE).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will circulate with the Votes a translation of the Order under which Italy is confiscating enemy merchant

    1911
    vessels; and whether the example will have any effect on our own action in this matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): On 30th May the Italian Government issued a decree directing that enemy merchant vessels should be dealt with in accordance with the rules laid down in The Hague Convention. Since then a statement has appeared in the Press that the Italian Government have modified their attitude in this matter, and we have telegraphed to our Ambassador in Rome for confirmation of this report.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how many inspectors of all classes, male and female, the Department has at work throughout Ireland; whether they have been required to report specially on the places, nature, and extent of resources for increased food production; and how he accounts for the fact that only one-eighth of the arable land of Ireland is tilled now, less than when the Department was established, while Denmark, our competitor in agricultural products, tills three-fourths of its arable land and is prosperous?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Department have upon their staff ten agricultural inspectors. Such of these officers as are specially connected with the work of food production frequently report to the Department upon the subject, at office conferences, and in other ways. The relative position of Danish and Irish agriculture is, obviously, too large a subject to be discussed within the limits of a reply to a Parliamentary question.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked whether he is aware that on 31st May last the price of Australian sheep, T T T brand, was 4s. 2d. per 8-pound stone; whether the Government's agent selling this brand on Smithfield refused offers of less than this amount; whether on the same date the firm of Parker and Fraser, of Smithfield, were offering T T T brand sheep at 4s. per stone, and effected several sales on this basis; whether this firm were extensive speculators who had bought heavily off the agent now acting on the Government's behalf; and whether, 4s. per stone being
    1912
    the market value of these sheep on this day, he can explain why the agent refused to accept less than 4s. 2d.?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): On 31st May the first parcel of mutton of the T T T brand was sold on behalf of the Government. It was a small parcel of 100 carcasses, and was sold at 4s. 3d. per stone, which was the price offered for it. I have no information as to the transactions of Messrs. Parker and Fraser, referred to by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked whether the commission allowed by the Government to the agents who sell their meat on Smithfield Market is 2 per cent.; whether the bulk of such meat is sold ex store and the principal work of the agent consists in making out a store transfer in the interest of the buyer; whether, before the commandeering of supplies, it was customary to allow only 1 per cent. on this kind of transaction; and whether he will explain why the rate of commission has been doubled at a time when the public are being advised to eat less meat?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The rates paid to the agents referred to in the question are 1 per cent. on sales ex ship and 2 per cent. on other sales, as compared with 2 per cent. all round, which was the usual rate formerly paid. The duties of the agents are more extensive than is suggested in the question, as they include the work of accounting.
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has noted that the beef recently imported from Southern Brazil, though damaged in transit, mainly consisted of good average serviceable quarters, though somewhat badly butchered; whether the owners of the works are prepared to load this beef f.o.b. at 4½d. per lb., and less if the Government will supply refrigerated space; whether he will open negotiations with the owners in question; and, with a view to being ready for business in the event of negotiations being successful, will he see what arrangements can be made for discharging frozen meat cargoes in ports not so congested as London, and, if cold storage be not available in such ports, arrange for a supply of refrigerator trucks to convey the goods to places where such storage is available?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: As my hon. Friend has already been informed, my right hon. Friend is waiting to learn the results of

    1913
    certain sample shipments of meat from Brazil, which will be made in July and August. Until then he is not prepared to enter into negotiations as suggested. The suggestion in the last part of the question will be borne in mind.
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the necessity for conserving the meat supply of the country and the steps that are now being officially taken for the prevention of the slaughter of young animals, he proposes that the production of calf vaccine lymph shall be discontinued by his Department?
    Sir J. SPEAR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask him whether he is aware that a very abnormal number of calves are being reared which is menacing the food supply—they are taking food which can be used for fattening—and whether, therefore, he will not yield to the hon. Member's request?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Walter Long): The question of my hon. Friend has nothing to do with my Department; it concerns the Board of Agriculture. My answer to the question on the Paper is No. I do not propose to take any course of the kind.
    Mr. G. GREENWOOD: Is it not a fact that calves used for the production of vaccine lymph are subsequently employed for human food?
    Mr. LONG: The calves which are employed and used for this purpose are slaughtered after they have been used, and if after veterinary, examination they are found to be absolutely wholesome they are used, but in no other case.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the necessity of conserving the meat supply of the country and the steps that are now being taken by his Department for the prevention of the slaughter of young animals, he is prepared to issue an instruction to the manufacturers of vaccine lymph in this country that the use of calves for that purpose must be discontinued?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The Board are not disposed to use their powers under the Slaughter of Animals Act to interfere with the necessary operations for the preparation of vaccine lymph.

    NIGERIA (IMPORTATION OF SPIRITS).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a lecture delivered at a meeting of the Royal Colonial Institute on 27th October, 1914, by Mr. R. E. Dennett, of the Forests; Department, Nigeria, in which he suggested that spirits for importation into Nigeria, which have hitherto been produced in Germany, might be made in Great Britain; and whether he will take steps to prevent Colonial officials from encouraging a trade which has been condemned by international agreement as being inimical to the moral and material welfare of the native population?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): I have examined the lecture referred to, which seems to me to do nothing more than suggest that to whatever extent consumption of spirits does take place it is better that it should be of gin made from grain in the United Kingdom than of potato spirit made in. Germany. I see nothing objectionable in Mr. Dennett's remarks, and I have no reason to believe that any officials have encouraged or propose to encourage this trade.

    MUNITIONS.

      SPELTER SUPPLIES.
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date communication was first made to the British Government by the Australian Government in respect of large quantities of German-owned spelter in Australia; and whether the supply will be brought to this country, seeing that it is needed for the manufacture of munitions?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware that there is any German-owned spelter in Australia. Australia, however, produces large quantities of zinc ores and concentrates. These were not manufactured into spelter in Australia, but before the War they were principally exported to Germany for that purpose. On 11th December the Commonwealth Government drew the attention of His Majesty's Government to the existence of the ore and concentrates and to the contracts with German firms by which they were controlled. The question of these contracts and the

      1915
      whole problem of the increased manufacture of spelter in the United Kingdom is engaging the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government.
      Mr. HEWINS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his predecessor in office assured me on the 20th April that these matters were under consideration? Are we not entitled to ask for some result?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I am as anxious as my hon. Friend to see a result, but very complicated legal questions are involved, and I can assure him every effort is being made to hasten a decision.

      SKILLED MECHANICS.
      Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Minister of Munitions if he can state the number of applications which he has received from employers engaged on War Office work for the discharge from the Army of skilled mechanics who have enlisted and whose services are now urgently required; whether the discharges which have been granted by the War Office are provisional and subject to the discretion of the officers commanding the men; whether such commanding officers are in many, if not in most, cases refusing or holding up such discharges; and whether, in view of the urgency and importance of this subject, he proposes to take steps so as to ensure that the skilled men whom he considers necessary should be promptly released from the Army and allowed to return to thier civil employment?
      The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): I am unable to state the precise number of applications received. It is for the War Office and not for individual commanding officers to give authority for the return of the men from the Colours for industrial employment on munitions of war. Arrangements are being made for the purpose suggested in the last part of the question, but it must be for the Ministry of Munitions to decide where the services of the men available are most required. They will not necessarily be sent back to the employers in whose services they were when they enlisted.
      Mr. TERRELL: Am I to understand from the reply that the right hon. Gentleman has experienced no difficulty whatever with the War Office in granting these discharges?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would not like to say that.

      UNIVERSITY LABORATORIES.
      Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Minister of Munitions if he can make a statement as to the steps that have been taken, and are about to be taken, for co-ordinating for war purposes the services of men of science and for utilising the laboratories and workshops of our universities and technical schools for experiments and for the making of munitions of war or parts thereof; and whether it is intended to establish, as has been suggested, a Central Committee or Bureau for dealing with inventions and practical scientific questions incidental to the operation of the War?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am fully alive to the great importance of securing the co-operation of scientific workers throughout the country, and of utilising, so far as practicable, the laboratories and workshops of our universities and technical schools for such purposes as those alluded to in the question. I am not at present able to make a detailed statement as to the points raised in the last part of the question.
      I take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the valuable help which is already being ungrudgingly given to the Ministry of Munitions by men of science and by scientific authorities and institutions.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the efforts that are being made by him as Minister of Munitions, he is working in close co-operation with the Admiralty and the War Department, so as to prevent overlapping of efforts, which up to the present has been serious.
      Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
      Mr. LYNCH: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed what is being done in France in this matter by M. Albert Thomas in bringing together officers from the front to confer with the representatives of the Academy of Science, and is he prepared to do something of the kind in this country?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That seems to be a very admirable suggestion, and I hope to be able to do something of that kind in a very short time.
      Sir P. MAGNUS: May I ask the right Gentleman consider the importance of establishing a Central Bureau Committee?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is one of the things which I have been discussing during the last few days.

      FACTORIES IN INDIA.
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India to what extent India is participating in the manufacture of munitions of war; whether any offers have been made by the Government of India of factories and labour for this purpose; and, if so, to what extent His Majesty's Government has been able to accept such offers?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): I am in close consultation both with the Government of India and the Munitions Department on the subject, but I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement. I am not quite certain that it would be desirable that I should make an exact statement.

      TRANSFER OF WORKMEN.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the necessity for facilitating the transfer of workmen from one district to Another, the Labour Exchanges have now arranged that local agents could deal directly with applicants for employment and so obviate the delay which takes place when, as in the past, they were compelled to communicate with the Labour Exchange?
      Mr. PRETYMAN: Arrangements of the nature suggested by my hon. Friend have been made, and will be put into operation very shortly.

      SUPPLIES OF METALS AND MATERIAL.
      Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Minister of Munitions if the supplies of metals and material required for the manufacture of munitions and other articles for use in the War, hitherto purchased independently by the War Office and the Admiralty, will be contracted for by his Department and distributed by it to the different works where they may be required?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Arrangements are being made whereby material re-
      1918
      quired for the manufacture of munitions which were previously ordered by the War Office and the Admiralty will be bought through the Ministry of Munitions.
      Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has adopted the system of lists; and is it not a fact that manufacturers have found many difficulties in getting on them?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should be obliged if my hon. Friend will put that question down.

      LABOUR DISPUTE (DARLINGTON).
      Mr. W. THORNE: I beg to ask the Minister of Munitions a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether he is aware that some hundreds of workmen engaged in munitions work at the Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Company, the Railway Plant Company, Limited, Messrs. Thomas Summerson and Sons, and the Whessoe Foundry Company, Limited, of Darlington, are now idle in consequence of the firms named deliberately provoking a strike of labourers; whether he is aware that the North-East Coast engineering employers three months ago granted all workmen an advance of 4s. per week in accordance with the terms of the agreement peacefully arrived at, and that in accordance with long-standing custom such agreement governs labour conditions of the firms at Darlington; that the latter have granted the 4s. per week advance to skilled workmen, but will only offer 2s. to labourers; that the firms refuse arbitration; and if he intends taking action under any powers he may possess?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am aware of the dispute at Darlington. Until the Munitions of War Bill becomes law I have no power in the matter.
      Mr. THORNE: Will not the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to use some pressure upon these particular firms, because they have absolutely refused arbitration? I personally believe in the right hon. Gentleman using his good offices, and, if he does, it will be possible to settle this strike before the Bill becomes law.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope the Bill will become law to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "To-morrow!"] Then I think I shall be able to settle this dispute.

    ARCHBISHOP OF MALINES.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary if he will explain how it is that the censoring authority allows the publication of statements about the Archbishop of Malines being in prison, prevents in certain areas the publication of the truth on that subject, and also prevents the publication of any account of the imprisonment of the Archbishop of Lemberg in a Russian fortress since last September?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Simon): As I stated on Tuesday last, the Press Bureau have not prohibited the publication of any statement with regard to the Archbishop of Malines. The original allegation, the German denial, and the repetition of the latter in the alleged interview with the Pope, have all been passed. I have no knowledge of the statement about the Archbishop of Lemberg, and the officers of the Press Bureau have no recollection of the case.

    WAR SERVICE REGISTER (WOMEN).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of women who have registered at the Labour Bureaux under the special registration scheme; how many of them have already been used and in which trades; how many are being trained for various kinds of work, and which; and how many are being maintained while in training for such work?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The total number of women who have placed their names on the War Service Register up to the 18th June was 87,241. Of these, 2,332 have been placed in employment, the number being distributed principally amongst the following trades: Armament works, textile trades, dress, agriculture, chemical workers, etc., food preparation, leather workers, domestic and laundry, conveyance of men and goods, clerical, shop assistants, and waitresses. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the explanation given in the reply to the hon. Member for North Salford on 10th June. The total number of women from the War Service Register who are being, or have been, specially trained is 342. The schemes at present in operation give training in agricultural work, the grocery trade, and
    1920
    motor driving. About half of the number taken from the War Service Register are being maintained during the period of training. The above figures do not include women who are being trained by their employers, or those who have arranged privately for training.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Member say what is the use of getting further names of women between fifteen and sixty-five if, out of 87,000 women who have offered, the Government has only utilised the services of 2,000?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My hon. Friend must remember, from the answer previously given, that the 2,000 does not include those who have been on the ordinary register as well as on the war register. We do not know how many have been thus employed.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is not that fact quite easily ascertained from the officials of the Labour Bureaux?
    Sir W. BYLES: Will there not be some disappointment among these women when they know that only one in twenty has been taken?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Every effort will be made to make use of their services.

    UNSIZED COTTON PAPERS.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the quantities of blotting and filter paper and other unsized papers largely composed of cotton exported from the United Kingdom to Holland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden during the six months of the present year and the first half of 1914, respectively?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The papers in question are not separately distinguished in our export returns but are included under the general heading of "Paper unenumerated and articles thereof." The exports under this heading to the destinations mentioned have not shown any expansion as compared with last year.—[See Written Answers this date.]

    UNEMPLOYMENT (COMPOSITORS).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the printing trade, both in London and the provinces, has been and still is in

    1921
    an extremely depressed state, and that in London alone between five and six hundred compositors are unemployed at the present time; whether, owing to the scarcity of male labour in certain directions, there are suitable avenues of employment open for such skilled artisans; and whether he will use the Board's influence with Government Departments in endeavouring to secure employment for such workmen?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I am aware that there are a considerable number of workmen unemployed in the printing trade according to the returns made to the Board of Trade by trade unions. The number of these applying for work at the Labour Exchanges throughout the United Kingdom at the 11th June was, however, only 223. If the unemployed workmen in the printing trades will make application at a Labour Exchange and indicate the kind of work which they are prepared, if necessary, to accept, the Department will, in consultation with the branch secretaries of the association, make every effort to assist them, and would be in a much better position to do so than they are at present.

    ROYAL GUN FACTORY (WOOLWICH).
    Sir ALBERT SPICERasked the Minister of Munitions if he will direct that in future sufficient orders are sent to the Royal Gun Factory, at Woolwich, to keep the men and machines in full work, it being confidently stated by those having knowledge in the district that machines in the factory are idle and the men lacking work?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am informed that the machines and the men in the Royal Gun Factory are kept as fully at work as is the case in any works dealing with engineering, regard being had to the dependence of one trade on another or to the occurrence of special causes of interference with work, such as breakdowns and the necessity of putting through urgently special repair jobs. I must also point out that certain of the large machines at this factory cannot be run continuously as there is not always a constant flow of large work and they are not capable of handling smaller work. It is
    1922
    only in exceptional and unavoidable cases that men or machines are not fully employed at the Royal Arsenal.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that 97 per cent. of the kind of work which can only be done by these large machines has been given to private contractors, leaving only 3 per cent.?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think those figures are accurate, but if the hon. Member will give me notice, I will furnish the correct figures.
    Mr. CROOKS: It the right hon. Gentleman aware that since April last the same complaint has been made, and that billets of steel and other manufactured articles, which were there for the manufacture of articles the Government required, were sent to private contractors?
    Mr. TENNANT: Again, I should like to have notice of that question, because I am not able to give an answer to my hon. Friend off-hand.
    Mr. CROOKS: That is the same reply I got in April last.
    Mr. TENNANT: It stands to reason that you cannot always keep a great factory like this going in all its departments at its full speed. One department must depend upon another.
    Mr. CROOKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the orders were actually placed, and the materials for the execution of these articles were in the department, but were transferred to a private firm of contractors, and your own men were kept idle?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I am not aware of it.

    REDUNDANT SCHOOLS.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether he is aware that at Oxenhope, Yorks, there is a provided school capable of accommodating all the children in the two departments of the council school as well as the children in the non-provided; whether, with a view to the economy of the rates, the concentration of our civic resources, and the maintaining a high standard of education, he will state whether it is the policy of the Board at this time to discourage and suppress unnecessary schools or to leave wasteful and overlapping arrangements exactly as

    1923
    they are; (2) whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by many local education authorities to supply the ranks of teachers; whether, with a view to solving this problem and to the economy of the rates, he will issue a circular to local authorities pointing out how the closing of small redundant schools and the removal of children in scatterd districts by means of vehicles would result in concentration and economy of the rates; and (3) whether he is aware that there are two schools, one provided and one non-provided, at Gargrave, in the West Riding, that either of these schools is large enough to accommodate all the children now in both schools, and that the closing of one of them with the concentration of all the scholars in one building would result in an economy of £150 per annum to the ratepayers; and whether, in view of the need of public economy at this time, the Board will take any action in this and similar cases?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The facts at Oxenhope and Gargrave appear to be as stated. I am aware of the difficulty in the supply of teachers, and have addressed a circular to local education authorities on the subject. They appear to be sufficiently alive to the economy of closing small schools where possible, but there is no power to close existing voluntary schools on the ground that they are unnecessary unless the managers consent or the average attendance is under thirty. Action on the lines suggested by the hon. Member would certainly give rise to controversy, which at the present time is very undesirable.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the introduction of emergency legislation to close these small redundant schools temporarily for the period of the War?
    Mr. LEWIS: I am afraid that question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

    EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will take steps to secure that, where children of school age are employed in any capacity, their hours of labour, remuneration, and general conditions of employment must be approved by the Board of Education, whose inspectors shall have power
    1924
    to visit the place of employment and report on the conditions prevailing there?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The proposal of the hon. Member would affect the functions of other Government Departments, and would require legislation which, I am afraid, could not be regarded as uncontroversial.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that in the discussion on the employment of children in agriculture general support was given to this suggestion in all quarters of the House, he will take steps to ascertain whether legislation upon this subject would be regarded as controversial?
    Mr. LEWIS: I think the hon. Member's question covers a much wider field than that.
    Mr. WINGasked the President of the Board of Education if he will issue instructions to all education authorities that where children of school age are employed in any capacity their hours of labour, remuneration, and general conditions of employment must be approved by the Board of Education, whose inspectors shall have power to visit the place of employment and report on the conditions prevailing there?
    Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I may refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have just given to the hon. Member for Leigh. My right hon. Friend has no authority to issue such instructions nor would local education authorities have power to give effect to them under the law as it stands at present.
    Mr. WING: Is it a fact that the late President of the Board of Education (Mr. J. A. Pease) gave the House to understand that such action would be taken?
    Mr. LEWIS: I am not quite sure of the time to which my hon. Friend refers, but many attempts have been made to transfer the administration of the Employment of Children Act to the Board of Education, but such attempts have not been successful.

    BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the War Risks Committee estimated that 40 per cent. of the British mercantile marine is employed in trade between foreign countries; if he will consider what

    1925
    steps can be taken to give the Government power to make such British shipping available, if need be, for the conveyance of cargoes to or from this country during the War; and if he will consider the question of taking powers, if necessary, to prohibit British vessels from carrying goods to places from which they are likely to reach the enemy?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The estimate referred to by my hon. Friend, and relating to the year 1911, was laid before the Sub-committee of the Imperial Defence Committee appointed in 1913 to consider the subject of the insurance of ships and cargoes in time of war. I can assure him that the maintenance of the carrying trade to and from the United Kingdom is a matter which has my right hon. Friend's constant care and attention, but I do not think that any additional legislation is necessary at present.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has answered the second portion of my question.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Do you mean about powers?
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Yes.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No legislation is necessary at present.

    MEDICAL CONSULTANTS.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty the terms of the new arrangements made with medical consultants at Royal Naval hospitals?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The new arrangement is that seven consultants should be given temporary commissions as Surgeons-General, with the pay and allowances of that rank, namely:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Full pay

    1,300

    0

    0

    per annum.

    House allowance

    70

    0

    0

    per annum.

    and two temporary commissions as Fleet surgeons of ten years' seniority, with the pay and allowances of that rank, namely:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Full pay

    638

    15

    0

    per annum.

    House allowance

    50

    0

    0

    per annum.

    Hospital allowance

    53

    0

    0

    per annum.

    As in the case of other naval medical officers, they have been informed that their appointments will not entirely preclude their engaging in private practice,
    1926
    provided it is clearly understood that such practice does not interfere with the performance of their naval duties.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would have been better if this practice had been availed of from the beginning instead of having salaries of £5,000?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer that question, but I will say on behalf of these very distinguished gentlemen that they readily acquiesced in this alteration in the most patriotic way.
    Mr. WATT: Is the effect of the answer that nine men are being employed in this capacity instead of five?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, there were seven consultants and then there were two others; we have not added to them.

    NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL.
    Mr. DENMANasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) how many persons, are expected to be occupied in the compilation of the National Register; (2) what is the estimated cost of producing the National Register; how many million forms will be distributed; and how many months will elapse before the information obtained will be available for practical use?
    Mr. CLOUGHasked by what date the proposed National Register will be completed; what are the numbers of the present staff, and of any extra staff, that will be employed upon its compilation; and what is likely to be its ultimate cost?
    Mr. LONG: Under the scheme of the Bill the local authorities will themselves arrange for the distribution and collection of forms in their own areas and for the actual compilation and maintenance of the register, and, as I have said, I anticipate they will get plenty of voluntary help for the purpose. It is impossible to say how many persons will actually be engaged. The cost will largely depend on the amount of voluntary help that is available. I anticipate that some twenty to twenty-five million forms will be distributed in England and Wales. I hope that a good deal of valuable information will be available in a few weeks after the date of registration.
    Mr. KING: Have the forms for this inquiry been already ordered and printed?
    Mr. LONG: The hon. Member surely realises that it would be very wrong of me to take that step until the Bill has received the assent of Parliament.

    MILITARY CAMPS, GRANTHAM (POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS).
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received complaints of serious irregularities in the postal service between Manchester and the Military camp at Grantham; and whether the Post Office Department holds itself responsible for the delivery intact to the addressee of postal communications, or whether such communications when addressed to the troops are subjected before delivery to a preliminary handling by the military authorities?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): There have been complaints of the non-receipt of letters sent to soldiers in camps at Grantham, but there is no reason to suppose that the losses occur in the post. The Post Office does not undertake to deliver any letter to the addressee in person. In the case of a letter addressed to a soldier in camp, the responsibility of the Post Office ends with its delivery to the post orderly appointed by the military authority.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. WATTasked the hon. Member for Lincoln, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether the heads of the National Health Insurance Department are openly discouraging enlistment in that Department and are refusing permission to many there who have expressed the wish to enlist; and whether he has considered how far the work of that office is suited for women substitutes in view of the fact that it is nearly all routine work?
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. C. Roberts): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. On the contrary, during the last three weeks permission to enlist has been given to sixty-one additional men, bringing the total figure up to 529 out of 1,220 men of military age. In addition, forty-one men have been lent to other Departments for special war service. The
    1928
    policy of engaging women as substitutes, where practicable, has been consistently adopted for many months past. In addition to the normal work of the Department, which is by no means accurately described in the question, the staff and organisation of the Commissions are being used in the performance of certain special duties arising out of the War, and not directly connected with the work of national insurance.

    AGRICULTURAL RETURNS.
    Sir J. SPEARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if the Agricultural Returns made on 4th June are sufficiently tabulated, will he state what is the number of cattle in England and Wales below the age of one year, and the number of lambs; and what was the number of similar animals for the three preceding years?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Agricultural Returns to which the hon. Member refers are not yet tabulated, and the figures for the current year, therefore, cannot yet be given. The figures for the last three years are as follows:—

    Cattle under one year—1,266,443 (1914), 1,141,281 (1913), 1,142,089 (1912).

    Sheep under one year—7,269,809 (1914), 7,010,390 (1913), 7,260,515 (1912).

    Sir J. SPEAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly supply the figures at the earliest moment they are available?
    Mr. ACLAND: The hon. Gentleman has so much experience with farmers that he knows it is rather difficult to get them to send in their returns punctually, and I cannot promise them until August.

    WAR LOAN.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause inquiry to be made from all bankers as to accounts in their books which may have remained unworked for a longer period than seven years, with a view to investing such sums in the War Loan, so that the bankers' customers may receive the benefit of the interest and the country have the convenience of the loan of the money during the present emergency?
    Mr. ACLAND: My right hon. Friend, for the reasons stated in his reply to a

    1929
    similar question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Donegal, does not think he can usefully take steps of the nature suggested.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has further considered the desirability of increasing old age pensions for the period of the War, in view of the increased cost of living; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. ACLAND: I will refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and learned Member for York on the 22nd June.

    TREATMENT OF BRITISH WOUNDED (HOSPITAL SHIP "OXFORDSHIRE").
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, on the hospital ship "Oxfordshire," from Havre to Southampton, on 19th March, sixty British soldiers, the majority of them from the Black Watch and 6th Gordon Regiments, were taken out of their cots to make room for sixty Germans; that one of the British soldiers so removed subsequently died; and that, in addition, the Germans were supplied with fresh eggs and bread, while the British wounded soldiers had only biscuits; and if in the future he will see that the British soldier when wounded is not subjected to any worse treatment than wounded German prisoners?
    Mr. TENNANT: The report on this matter has not yet been received. I will communicate with my hon. Friend when the information he asks for is available.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety about this question, as it was understood there were very distinguished Scottish regiments on board, and we should like to know the facts as soon as possible?
    Mr. TENNANT: I quite believe that there is anxiety, but on the other hand the ship may be away, and it takes a considerable time to get the information.
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who is causing the delay? Has he ascertained the reason of the delay?
    Mr. TENNANT: This information relates to a date some two or three months ago. It was only asked for a week ago. I have made the request for the information and it has not yet reached me. I do not think that is unreasonable.

    OPERATIONS IN DARDANELLES.

      NAVAL AND MILITARY CASUALTIES.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister what is the total number of casualties divided into killed, wounded, and missing in the Dardanelles campaign?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The total casualties sustained by both Naval and Military Forces up to the 31st May are as follows:—

      Officers—

      Killed

      …

      496

      Wounded

      …

      1,134

      Missing

      …

      92

      Total

      …

      1,722

      1,722

      Men—

      Killed

      …

      6,927

      Wounded

      …

      23,542

      Missing

      …

      6,445

      Total

      …

      36,914

      36,914

      38,636

      Sir A. MARKHAM: Does that include the Indian contingent?

      OFFICIAL DISPATCHES (PUBLICATION).
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to publish dispatches from the Admiral Commanding-in-Chief and the General Commanding-in-Chief in the Dardanelles?
      The PRIME MINISTER: A dispatch from Sir Ian Hamilton will be published within a few days.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared to make a statement as to the reasons for starting the campaign in the Dardanelles in the way it was started and as to the progress of such campaign?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot in the public interest make a statement at the present time.

    NEUTRAL COUNTRIES (IMPORTS).
    Mr. HEWINSasked the Prime Minister whether the Trading with the

    1931
    Enemy Committee and the Contraband Committee are being continuously informed by the Board of Trade and by His Majesty's representatives abroad of the quantities imported into neutral countries of goods in certain classes; whether the information, if any, so obtained is sufficient for the purposes of those Committees and to guide the Government in any action they might deem it expedient to take; and, if not, will he take other steps by the appointment of a Special Statistical Committee, or otherwise, to obtain this information?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first two paragraphs of this question is in the affirmative. A statistical section has been formed at the War Trade Department, where all available information from other Departments concerned is collected and tabulated.

    DAMAGE BY ENEMY AIR RAIDS.

      STATE INSURANCE SCHEME.
      Mr. LAURENCE HARDYasked the Prime Minister when the Government scheme for insurance against damage caused by hostile raids by air and otherwise will be brought forward; and whether he is aware that, owing to the approaching harvest, it is essential that agriculturists should be in possession of full information at an early date?
      Mr. PRETYMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The consideration of this matter is being pressed forward, and I hope to be able to make a statement at an early date.

    RECRUITING (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister, with reference to the request of the Secretary of State for War that men refusing to enlist be asked to state their reasons, whether he is aware that, for stating his reasons, William Moloney has been arrested at Limerick Junction, kept in military custody some time without trial, then tried by a civil Court under the Act of Edward III., and bound to the peace; whether this is the method of dealing with men's reasons in this country; whether the Irish practice will be introduced in England or the English practice in Ireland; and whether he has sanctioned the Irish practice as a due carrying out of
    1932
    his pledge, given in Dublin, that recruits were desired only as the free gift of a free people?
    The HON. MEMBERalso asked the Under-Secretary of State for War, seeing that men desired for the Army are now asked their reasons for refusing to join and that in Ireland all such reasons are obnoxious to recruiting agents, what instructions have been given to guide those agents in Ireland as to reasons admissible, inadmissible, and offences under the Defence of the Realm Act, respectively; and whether the reason that Ireland is entitled to be neutral like Holland and the other small nations nearer to the seat of war is classed in the third of these categories?
    Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer question No. 50, and I will at the same time answer No. 61. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misconception. No special instructions have been issued to Irish recruiting agents as to their attitude to reasons advanced by men for not enlisting, and I am not aware that their attitude in the matter has been otherwise than perfectly correct. I have no information regarding the case of William Moloney, but, if he has been arrested, I imagine it must have been for something else than the fact that he stated his reasons for not enlisting.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this practice in Ireland carries out the pledge given by the Prime Minister that recruits were desired only as the free gift of a free people?
    Mr. TENNANT: Certainly!
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say to which category the reason belongs. Is not Ireland entitled to be neutral, like Holland?
    Mr. TENNANT: I really am at a loss to know how any part of this country is entitled to be neutral, seeing that we are engaged in war.
    Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question as to why the reasons given by this man were treated in the manner they were?
    Mr. TENNANT: The question makes my brain reel.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it in accordance with the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is quite accurate in his information.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it an offence, under the Defence of the Realm Act, for an Irishman to refuse to enlist on the ground that his country is entitled to be neutral?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not an offence against the Defence of the Realm Act to refuse to enlist.
    Mr. GINNELL: On that ground?

    TRANSFER OF OFFICERS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will state the reasons which induced the Military Secretary to refuse to sanction the transfer of an officer from the 11th Cheshire to the 17th Middlesex, notwithstanding that such transfer received the approval of the colonels of both battalions, the brigadiers of both brigades, the divisional generals of both divisions, the general commanding the Southern Command, and the general commanding the London Command?
    Mr. TENNANT: The fact that a transfer receives recommendation from the military authorities in the commands is not necessarily final, and the War Office must retain the right to decide what is or is not against the interests of the Service viewed from a wider standpoint. The transfer of the officer in question was not considered to be in the interests of the Service, nor was his transfer in the rank of captain recommended by his commanding officer. I am loth to encourage the discussion in this House by question and answer of the reasons for or against the promotion or transference of individual officers. The hon. Member and the House should rest assured that the interests of the Service as a whole is and must remain our guiding principle.
    Mr. TICKLER: Is it not a fact that the only consideration of the commanding officer in recommending a transfer is that it is in the interest of the Service, and that there is no other consideration?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think it is so.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it not the case that the commanding officer did in this case recommend the transfer on those grounds?
    Mr. TENNANT: My information is not in accordance with that received by the hon. Gentleman. I understand that the commanding officer would not recommend this particular officer to be transferred in the rank of captain.

    TERRITORIAL BATTALIONS (ACTIVE SERVICE).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether several Territorial battalions who have volunteeed for foreign service are being detained here indefinitely on account of their reserves being under strength, owing to the drain by the New Armies on their special recruiting areas; and, if the battalions are to be detained, will officers and men who have devoted much time and labour to training in peace be given an opportunity of transferring to units which are serving or are about to serve at the front?
    Mr. TENNANT: With two or three exceptions, all first-line Territorial battalions have either gone oversea or are in course of preparation for service oversea. I do not think it is correct to say they are being detained indefinitely, but obviously they cannot proceed until they are ready in all respects. The transferring of officers and men in the manner suggested would retard the process of preparation and tend to reduce the number of available units for service.

    INOCULATION.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary for War the number of cases of and deaths from, paratyphoid fever that have occurred since the outbreak of War, up to the latest date available, amongst officers and men serving with the British Forces in Europe; and will he state the numbers of the cases and deaths amongst men who had been inoculated against typhoid fever and the numbers of those who had not been so inoculated?
    Mr. TENNANT: In the Expeditionary Force in France there had been up to 22nd May, 1915—and I have no later figures—297 cases of paratyphoid, with ten deaths. There are no figures available to show in how many of these cases there had been inoculation against typhoid.
    Mr. G. GREENWOOD: May I ask whether paratyphoid is not merely another name for typhoid when it manifests itself in persons who ought not to have it because they have been inoculated?
    Mr. TENNANT: No; I am informed it is a disease wholly distinct from typhoid.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the number of cases of and deaths from typhoid fever that have occurred since the outbreak of War up to the latest date available amongst officers and men serving with the British Forces in Europe; and the numbers of the inoculated and non-inoculated cases and deaths?
    Mr. TENNANT: In the Expeditionary Force in France there had been up to 22nd May, 1915, 827 cases with 128 deaths. Of these cases 508 occurred amongst the uninoculated, and of these 106 died; of the remaining 319 cases which occurred amongst the inoculated 22 were fatal. The House will be interested to know that the ratio of attacks is fourteen times and of deaths forty-two times greater amongst the uninoculated men.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are these figures averaged over the whole period, including the period when the 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the men were uninoculated, or is the right hon. Gentleman merely dealing with the figures relating to the present day?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am dealing with the figures for the whole of the campaign—from the beginning of August.

    COURTS MARTIAL (DEATH SENTENCES).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked how many courts martial have been held during the War on non-commissioned officers and on privates, respectively; whether any and, if so, how many death sentences have been imposed; in how many cases the death penalty has been inflicted; and when not inflicted what alternative punishment is imposed?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not in the public interest to give the information asked for in the first three parts of the question. As regards the last part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Somerset on 9th June.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether certain lieutenants of the Royal Army Medical Corps Special Reserve serving in France were given to understand some months ago that their names had been noted for transfer to the Regular Royal Army Medical Corps; whether they have been gazetted accordingly and, if not, when they may expect to be gazetted; whether their transfer on being gazetted will be antedated to the time that they were noted for the change; and whether, as the transfer was entered in some cases before the recent general promotion of Regular Royal Army Medical Corps lieutenants to be captains, those who were noted for transfer prior to the general promotion will be included in the list for captaincy and be gazetted accordingly?
    Mr. TENNANT: No promise of a transfer to the Regular Royal Army Medical Corps has been given, but a certain number of lieutenants of the Special Reserve and temporary lieutenants have made applications for permanent commissions in the Royal Army Medical Corps, and their requests have been noted for consideration in the event of it being decided to give direct commission instead of, in the usual way, by open competition. The question of the date from which such appointments would take effect and what rank would be given would be for consideration when the matter is settled.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will undertake to refrain from transferring men who enlisted in the Royal Army Medical Corps before the passage of the Army Act Amendment (No. 2) Act from the non-combatant to the combatant branches of the Service, having regard to the fact that the men in question enlisted in the belief and, so far as they knew, on the distinct understanding that their services would be utilised for the purpose for which they were volunteered?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot give my hon. Friend any absolute pledge to abstain from using, in the case of men of the Royal Army Medical Corps, the powers conferred by the Act to which he refers, but I think I can assure him that the consideration he urges will be borne fully in mind.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend at least guarantee that he will give these men a choice?
    Mr. TENNANT: We always endeavour to carry out the wishes of the men in the matter of transfer.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of the Scottish Royal Army Medical Corps desired to join the Royal Scots, and were not allowed to do so?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am looking into that.

    RAILWAY WAGONS (INSPECTION).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary for War whether many thousands of railway wagons have been purchased by the War Office since the War from railway companies for service abroad; whether these wagons were sent to Woolwich to be inspected; whether this resulted in great congestion of traffic; and will he say the number of special trains employed for this purpose, and why inspectors were not sent to the works of the railway companies to inspect these wagons, this being the ordinary procedure adopted by business firms?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid my hon. Friend has been misinformed. No railway wagons have been sent to Woolwich to be inspected, nor are railway wagons ever sent there for that purpose.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Did they not go into the district of Woolwich?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is not in accordance with my information.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Then where were they inspected?
    Mr. TENNANT: I should like to have notice of that question.

    EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS AS HARVESTERS.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary for War whether soldiers are being supplied to farmers in the Tibberton, High Ercall and Bayston Hill district, near Shrewsbury; whether he is aware that the farmers have refused to negotiate with the workmen on the question of wages; and whether he will inquire into the matter before giving his sanction for the use of soldiers in this employment to defeat the requirements for increased wages, owing to the high cost of living, made by farm workers in the district?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I will have inquiry made. The intention is that soldiers will not be lent as workers in connection with industrial disputes.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether receipt of a separation allowance will be accepted as primâ facie evidence of the right to a pension should the soldier making the allotment for allowance be killed?
    Mr. FORSTER: No scheme for pensions to dependants of soldiers has yet been approved, and until this has been done it would be premature to make any statement on the point raised.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does that mean that we shall be required to wait until the new authority is set up?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I do not think it will be necessary to wait until then. It will be necessary to wait until the scheme which is now engaging our attention has been settled.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the War Office separately and the Admiralty separately will settle with the dependants, or whether it will be the new authority set up under the new Bill?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think the scale will be settled by the two Departments.

    KRUPP'S (PATENT ROYALTIES).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the inquiry has been completed as to the legal position under which two firms in this country have to pay royalties of 9d. to 1s. on every fuse to Krupp's as affecting the prices charged to this country; and, if so, what is the result of the inquiry?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir. We are advised that the sums due to Messrs. Krupp under these agreements stand in the same position as any other commercial debts to enemy subjects, and consequently the War Office has no power to intervene in the matter.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is my hon. Friend aware of the reply to the question I put on this matter some time ago to the former Financial Secretary to the War Office, in which he stated that this patent had expired, and when I asked whether the patent royalty was still being paid, although the patent had expired, he undertook to obtain legal advice on that point?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; I was not aware of that answer. My information is that this patent is running. That is the information we have at the War Office, and that Messrs. Vickers, and I think some other firm, are manufacturing under the patent.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor definitely stated that this patent had expired, and will he put the question to him about it?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think that will be the best way, as I am not familiar with the matter.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Are these royalties being paid over to the Public Trustee?
    Mr. FORSTER: That I cannot say. That is out of our control altogether.

    EUROPEANS AND VOLUNTEER FORCES (INDIA).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether any steps are being taken to compel every European in India to join the forces hitherto known as volunteers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No such steps have been taken, nor would they be suitable in the special circumstances of India; but there has been a satisfactory increase in the numbers of the volunteers since the War began.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is any such step under the consideration of the Government of India?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I said, in answer to my hon. Friend, that no such step would be suitable in the special circumstances of India. A very large proportion of the male population of British birth in India are already occupied in positions in the Government service from which they could not be spared.

    ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for India whether the chief engineer and secretary to the Public Works Department of the Government of Assam is a German of the name of F. O. Oertel; and, if so, why the services of a German are retained by the Indian Government in a position when so much information of value to the enemy must necessarily be available to him?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. F. O. Oertel is the secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Assam in the Public Works Department, having been appointed to that Department in 1883. He has lived in India for thirty-seven years and renounced his German nationality before he went there. He is, therefore, not a German subject. From a report received from India earlier in the year, I am satisfied that there are no grounds for dispensing with his services.

    GERMAN STORES (INDIA).
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for India if he can ascertain the number of stores and shops in India which at the date of the War were owned and managed by Germans; and if he will consider the desirability of taking over the whole of this property and putting it in the form of a corporation with British managers in the stores instead of German, and put an end to this plan of increasing German influence throughout India?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question, inquiry will be made. As regards the second, there are only a small number of shops or stores to which licences to trade have been granted without conditions. I have every reason to believe that the Government of India are alive to the necessities of the situation, but I am in communication with the Viceroy on the subject.
    Mr. FELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman himself personally look into this and consider whether it is not an admirable opportunity for getting rid once for all of this German business, which ought never to have been allowed?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not waited for the suggestion of my hon. Friend; I am giving the whole matter my personal attention.

    ENEMY ALIEN MISSIONARIES (INDIA).
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for India if he will consider the advisability of deporting all the missionaries of German or hostile nationality from India at the earliest date possible and taking the necessary steps to prevent their return there at any time in the future?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The whole question of the treatment of enemy aliens in India is receiving very careful consideration. I have already described, in answer to questions in this House, the general nature of the steps which have already been taken. I am now awaiting a report from India, and I can make no further announcement till it has been received.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (TRAVELLING WITHOUT LIGHTS).
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Order 289, Defence of the Realm Act, regulating lights visible from the sea or from the navigable waters of any estuary, prohibits the use of lights on motor cars if such light be visible from the sea; and, if so, whether, in view of the statutory provision against travelling after sunset without lights, it is proposed to amend the Statute in that behalf?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): Yes, Sir, the Defence of the Realm Order covers motorcar lights, and is made under statutory authority. No other amendment of the ordinary statutory provision appears to be required.

    COTTON GOODS (GERMANY).
    Commander BELLAIRS: I desire to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether Germany has prohibited the manufacture of cotton goods, and, if so, from what date?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: No notice at all of the question has reached me.
    Commander BELLAIRS: It was sent this morning.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am very sorry I have not had it.

  Kiao-Chau.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Kiao-Chau is now open again to unrestricted foreign trade?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: My attention has been drawn to a statement in the "Times" of the 26th ultimo that British merchant vessels would henceforth be allowed to enter the port of Tsingtau on the same footing as Japanese merchant vessels, but I have so far received no official confirmation to this effect, and I will make inquiries on the subject.
  Mr. LYNCH: Will the hon. Member let me know when he gets official information?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Certainly.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of parcels of land forming new holdings vested by the Estates Commissioners in each of the ten years ending 31st March, 1915?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The number of parcels of untenanted land vested by the Estates Commissioners as separate holdings in purchasers under the Land Purchase Acts during each of the ten years ended 31st March, 1915, is as follows:—

  Year.

  No.

  1905–6

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  126

  1906–7

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  197

  1907–8

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  226

  1908–9

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  289

  1909–10

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  499

  1910–11

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  647

  1911–12

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  615

  1912–13

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  614

  1913–14

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  162

  1914–15

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  370

  Victoria Irrigation District.
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that amongst the inducements held out to persons in this country to invest capital and to settle in the irrigation district of Victoria is the statement in official literature published by the Dominion that the irrigation system eliminates the risk of loss in dry seasons; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding these assurances, the irrigation system broke down this year, the Government or the Water Commission having gambled on the chances of rain and lost; and whether immediate steps will be

  1943
  taken to secure that the British settlers who were misled by the official prospectus, and who have sustained heavy losses, will be adequately compensated?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There is, I believe, no foundation for the statement contained in the question that any publication of the Victorian Government states that all risk of loss in dry seasons is eliminated. The provision made for the water supply for the irrigation areas was based on the lowest flow of the rivers ever recorded, with the addition of what was considered by experts to be an ample margin. During the recent drought, however, the flow of the rivers was far lower than any previously recorded, with the result that some loss was incurred by a small proportion of the settlers. I am informed that the State Government have agreed to compensate these settlers by suspending payment of rent for three years.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the unfounded statements in the literature be withdrawn?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My information comes, of course, from the Victorian Government, and I am informed there is no statement in their publications to that effect.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the literature.

  Death after Wrongful Arrest (Hull).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take with reference to Gunners Price and Parker, whose conduct has been found by a coroner's jury to have accelerated the death of Alfred Donnison, at Hull; and, as the conduct in question, brought to light only by death in that case, is becoming common, whether he will propose emergency legislation for the protection of civilans from both that conduct and the kind of swearing by which it is supported?
  Sir J. SIMON: The coroner's jury found that Donnison's death was due to cardiac failure consequent upon fatty degeneration of the heart, and accelerated by shock through being wrongfully arrested by the soldiers in question. The soldiers, who had expressed their regret, and were, of course, ignorant of the state of health of the deceased man, were severely reprimanded
  1944
  by the coroner. I have no reason to think that such incidents are common, or that legislation is required to deal with them.

  Second Division Clerks (Sick Leave).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the practice to allow second division clerks two days' sick leave without requiring the production of a medical certificate, provided such absences on sick leave do not exceed in the aggregate seven days in the year; whether this practice was departed from recently in two instances in the General Register Office, Dublin; and, if so, will he inquire into these cases, and issue instructions that in future similar cases the general practice governing absences on sick leave shall be followed in the General Register Office as in other Departments?
  Mr. ACLAND: The practice referred to does not debar heads of Departments from calling for such evidence of illness as they may think necessary in any particular case, and the Treasury would not feel justified in interfering with their discretion in the matter.

  Lighthouse Keepers (Wages).
  Mr. HOGGEasked whether any decision has yet been reached with regard to the petition of the lighthouse keepers for a rise in wages of 6d. per day?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: On 28th May the Board of Trade sanctioned the payment by the three general lighthouse authorities as from the 1st April last for a war bonus of 4d. per day to lightkeepers who are provided with quarters, fuel, etc., and of 6d. per day to the rest.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILL PRESENTED.
    NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS (EXTENSION) BILL.
    "To extend the Notification of Births Act, 1907, to areas in which it has not been adopted, and to make further provision in connection therewith for the care of mothers and young children." Presented by Mr. LONG; supported by Mr. McKinnon Wood, Mr. Birrell, and Mr. Hayes Fisher; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: May I ask what the business will be for next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we shall take the Second Reading of the National Registration Bill, and the Notification of Births Bill.
  On Tuesday, the Committee stage of the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill.
  On Wednesday, the Committee stage of the National Registration Bill and the Notification of Births Bill; and
  On Thursday, Supply, the Insurance Commission, and other Votes.
  Ordered,
  "That the other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]
  Ordered,
  "That the Proceedings upon the Munitions of War Bill and the War Loan (Trustees) Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed."—[The Prime Minister.]
  Ordered,
  "That the House do sit To-morrow, at Five of the clock, and that the Proceedings be not interrupted at half-past Five of the clock, and that Mr. Speaker, as soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to the Bills which have been agreed on by both Houses, do adjourn the House without Question put."—[The Prime Minister.]

  MUNITIONS OF WAR BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  MUNITIONS OF WAR BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Settlement of Labour Differences.)
    (1) If any difference exists or is apprehended between any employer and persons employed, or between any two or more classes of persons employed, and the difference is one to which this Act applies, that difference, if not determined by the parties directly concerned or their representatives or under existing agreements, may be reported to the Board of Trade, by or on behalf of either party to the difference.
    (2) The Board of Trade shall consider any difference so reported and take any steps which seem to them expedient to promote a settlement of the difference, and, in any case in which they think fit, may refer the matter for settlement either in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, or, if suitable means for settlement already exist in pursuance of any agreement between employers and persons employed, for settlement in accordance with those means.
    (3) The award on any such settlement shall be binding both on employers and employed and may be retrospective; and if any employer, or person employed, acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, the award, he shall be guilty of an offence under this act.
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "or is apprehended" ["If any difference exists or is apprehended"].
    I wish to thank the Minister of Munitions for the attention he has given to these Amendments since the Second Reading of the Bill. I had the pleasure of meeting him in his room with other Members to discuss many of the Amendments which we had put on the Paper, and if he did not entirely meet the objections we had in some cases, certainly no exception can be found to the spirit in which he approached the discussion. I am quite sure that the conversation we had will greatly facilitate the discussion to-day. The object I had in moving this Amendment was that it seemed to me that the Clause was rather wider than my right hon. Friend might think necessary in several respects. The first words of the Bill are

    1957
    a little startling. It says, "If any difference exists or is apprehended." It is rather severe to legislate about apprehension. It raises the question apprehensions of whom, what sort of apprehensions and whether some qualification ought not to be introduced. It seems to me that the words of the Bill would afford facilities for causing friction and giving trouble which would not exist if those words were knocked out.
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): My right hon. Friend is light in substance, and yet I cannot accept his Amendment, and I think he will agree with me when I give him the reason why. If the Bill had no reference at all to Bills of a similar character which had been passed before it would have been quite unnecessary to use the words, but unfortunately these words are used in the Conciliation Bill, which deals with the settlement of disputes. If we left the words out here it might be said "there is a difference between a dispute that exists and a dispute which is apprehended, and it is intended here that it should only apply to disputes which have actually arisen, that is when there is an actual strike, and it ought not to refer to a case where you are on the brink of a strike." My right hon. Friend will agree that it is very much better that you should stop a strike before it arises than that you should deal with it after it has actually occurred.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "this" ["one to which this Act applies"] to insert the words, "Part of this." It is quite evident that the words have simply slipped out, as anyone can see.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept the Amendment.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "or on behalf" ["by or on behalf of either party"].
    I formally move this to ask if the same reason applies; if so, I shall not persevere with it. It seems to me that this power of going to the Board of Trade on behalf of someone is a rather wide power, and it I might be sufficient for the parties to the dispute to go to the Board of Trade.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The reason for the inclusion of these words is that we do not want to exercise these powers if by the old method we are able to settle the dispute, and if the machinery of the Board of Trade is able to accomplish the end without any reference to new powers of this character. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that it is very much better that that should take place.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "difference" ["promote a settlement of the difference"] to insert the words "or to prevent the difference actually arising, as the case may be."
    I think this Amendment is necessary because the words in the Clause, "promote a settlement of the difference," hardly cover a difference which does not exist but which is apprehended. We have got apprehended differences already in, and I think the words I propose make it quite clear.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Of course, if we could prevent differences arising it would be very satisfactory, but I am afraid it is quite impossible to prevent differences, whether between labour and capital or in politics. I am afraid my hon. Friend is asking something which is quite beyond the power even of this Bill, and I hope he will not press it. The original words were "difference exists or is apprehended." That really goes as far as we possibly can.
    Mr. KING: I will withdraw, though it is not often that a Minister of Munitions refuses extra powers which are offered him.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made: After the word "if" ["if suitable means for settlement already exist"] insert the words "in their opinion."—[Mr. King.]
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), at the end, to add—
    "(3) Where a matter is referred under the last foregoing Sub-section for settlement otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, and the settlement is in the opinion of the Board of Trade unduly delayed, the Board may annul the reference and substitute therefor a reference in accordance with the provisions of the said Schedule."

    1959
    The Minister of Munitions is so very reasonable that no doubt he will accept this, too.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think this is an improvement on the Bill. There are several Amendments down in the names of some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway intended to accomplish the same purpose and to prevent any unnecessary delay occurring in bringing the matter to the point. It is a speeding-up Amendment, and it is a better way of meeting the particular point my hon. Friend wishes to deal with than the way they have suggested in their Amendments; therefore I accept this.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "employed" ["binding both on employers and employed"], to insert the word "thereafter." The Committee will notice that the right is to be retrospective, and the effect of the insertion of the word "thereafter" will be conclusive.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think this is important, and I accept the Amendment.
    Question, "That the word 'thereafter' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "shall" ["or fails to comply with, the award, he shall"], to insert the words ("without prejudice to any liability to any civil proceeding in respect of such contravention or failure, as the case may be"). It seems to me that the Clause as it stands in regard to penal proceedings under this Section prejudices the right of the employed person to get recovery in the County Court or otherwise for any wages due to him. I think that is so, and therefore I propose to insert the words given in my Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps I had better read the note I have on this Amendment. "It is at least harmless, and may be accepted."
    Mr. HODGE: I hope the Minister of Munitions will not do that. I think that they are dangerous words, and, so far as we are concerned on these benches, we shall certainly oppose their insertion, because under the Munitions Tribunal the man will be dealt with, and if you are going to leave the employer the opportunity of taking the man before a civil
    1960
    Court the man may be punished twice for one offence. That is the reason why I am opposed to this Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Hodge) for the first time is mistaken. It is rather a question of the workman having his civil right. He may have been dismissed, for instance. I think he ought to have his civil right. This preserves his right to civil proceedings against his employer, and he should not be deprived of that. As a matter of fact, he would not be. This is not a criminal proceeding, and even without the insertion of these words he would have his civil right; but, in order to make it absolutely clear, I am prepared to accept the Amendment. I do not think the words make any difference; the words are quite harmless because they are unnecessary, but we want to safeguard the rights of the worker where he has been dismissed.
    Mr. HODGE: If they are unnecessary, why insert them?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the hon. Member (Mr. Hodge) is right. If you read the Bill, Sub-section (3) states:—
    "The award on any such settlement shall be binding both on employers and employed and may be retrospective; and if any employer, or person employed, acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, the award, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
    That means either the employer or the person employed. The hon. Member is perfectly right in saying that the person employed would be liable to be brought up before the Munitions Tribunal, and also equally liable to be brought up before the County Court for contravention of the award.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: So would the employer.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I agree. I have no particular interest in it, but I think the hon. Member for Gorton is perfectly right when he says that this Amendment does place a further liability on the employed person. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, No!"] I think it does.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Does the hon. Gentleman really suggest that, if these words are not here there will be any interference of any sort with the statutory right either of the employer or the employed? This Bill does not interfere with anything of that kind. As I have said, the words of

    1961
    the Amendment are quite unnecessary, and, if there is any objection to them, I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish to press them.
    Mr. KING: I do not wish to create any discord. I thought I was doing a good thing for the workman. Of course, if he does not like it, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), seems to me to negative what we have already passed in the Clause. [At the end of the Clause to add the words, "provided that no employer and no workman shall be required to enter into a new contract of service after the expiration of the contract then current."—[Mr. Lough.]
    Mr. LOUGH: It does not appear to me to be quite so. I think the matter is one of some substance. With great respect, Sir, I think that the Clause deals with differences which may arise during any contract of service, and I suggest that if the workman has finished his contract of service or the time for which his master has employed him has expired, and if there is any difference about that, and if the Clause that we have passed could be stretched to remove any restraint in regard to new service, it would be rather unfair to the workmen to stretch it unduly.
    The CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that this Amendment, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson), as I read them, would, if inserted, really negative the whole Clause. [Amendment, to add at the end of the Clause the words, "Provided that nothing herein contained shall require any employer or any person employed to enter into a new contract of service after the expiration of the term of the contract current at the date of such award, or to require any such person to refrain from giving whatever notice may legally be required for the termination of such contract of service; and no person employed shall be guilty of any offence merely by giving such notice or by refusing to continue in employment beyond the term for which he has contracted to serve."—[Mr. Anderson.]
    Mr. ANDERSON: With all respect, I submit that this does not negative the Clause and is not a destructive Amend-
    1962
    ment. We want to find out what is the right of individual contract. This Clause puts very drastic restrictions upon the right of a number of people to adopt collective action by means of a strike. Is there any right for an individual workman, when he gives in his notice, to work his notice and leave, apart from the restrictions that are proposed later on in regard to controlled establishments? This Section does not refer to controlled establishments, but may refer to work outside controlled establishments. Is the right of individual contract under which a workman can give a week's notice or a fortnight's notice, and leave at the end of that time, abolished? Now, in regard to inside controlled establishments, if a man gives a week's notice and works on and leaves at the end of that time, we know that the employer can withhold his certificate, and, under the Bill, if it is passed as it stands, he can be kept out of work for six weeks. Would an action lie against him in addition to that for breach of contract? I think it is very important, and I should like to have a statement on the matter from the Minister of Munitions.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is quite clear that if this particular Amendment, or the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson), were inserted, the whole of this provision will be nugatory. The employer will simply have to say, "I am not going to lock out the men; I will give a week's notice that I am not going to renew the contract." At the end of the week he does not renew the contract, and the result is he locks out the whole of his men. He will say, "Oh, I am not locking out the men, I am saying, under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Attercliffe, that I will not renew the contract, and I have the authority of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Attercliffe for what I am doing." The same thing would apply to the men. Instead of working on they could say, "We are simply giving a week's notice that we will not renew the contract." If it is a question of the individual, this Bill does not interfere with the action of the individual, in so far as the later Clause is concerned, which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Attercliffe. In regard to an individual who wants to leave for ill-health or other reasons there is no interference. The question is, whether the thing is of such a collective character as to assume the form of a strike or lock-out. That is the point.

    1963
    If this Amendment is inserted the whole of the workmen can give notice and say, "We do not propose to renew our contract," and the same thing would apply to the employers. As I have said, it would negative the whole Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is how the matter appears to me. Of course, if the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson) or the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) desire to do so, they are quite entitled to raise the point on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. ANDERSON: We wanted the statement that we have now obtained in regard to the right of the individual, because the workman will know that there are penalties under certain circumstances if he leaves his work, and he has a right to know when he is free to leave his work without any question of criminal proceedings.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is a question of collective action.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I am not speaking of any collective action or of any strike, but purely of individual action.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. LOUGH: I am glad that this matter has been settled by my right hon. Friend. What I was afraid of was that this Clause might be of general application. I never had any desire in any way to delay my right hon. Friend in getting the powers necessary for munitions, and other matters connected with the service of the War. But I was afraid that this Clause was drawn in such general terms that it might be quoted so as to interfere unduly with the liberty of workmen and of employers.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Prohibition of Lock-outs and Strikes in Certain Cases.)
    (1) An employer shall not declare, cause or take part in a lock-out, and a person employed shall not take part in a strike, in connection with any difference to which this Part of this Act applies, unless the difference has been reported to the Board of Trade, and one month has elapsed since the date of the report, and the difference has not during that month been referred by the Board of Trade for settlement in accordance with this Act.
    (2) If any person acts in contravention of this Section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "strike," to insert the words "and no person shall advocate or propose any lock-out or strike or attempt to induce any person (whether any particular person or generally) to take part in any lock-out or strike."
    This Amendment is directed against outside agitation. The ordinary laws with regard to accessories would extend to persons counselling an illegal strike or lock-out which actually took place, but it would not cover the case of a person coming from outside, or possibly distributing leaflets or writing to the newspapers, even though he did so unsuccessfully, in order to bring about an illegal lock-out or strike. The words that are proposed to be inserted are intended to cover this question. Even though it might be argued that owing to some interpretation of certain Clauses of the Summary Jurisdiction Act these words are not necessary, yet in order to make the case really quite clear, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The hon. Member made a suggestion which we thought would be useful in the first Clause. I hope that he will understand that, if we resist this proposal, it is really because we think that it would not improve the Bill. We are quite willing that the Bill should be changed at the suggestion of hon. Members in such particulars as would improve it, but there are two objections to the suggestion which he makes. One is that the words are, on the one hand, necessarily very vague words, and, on the other hand, rather alarming words. It is a very serious thing to add as some new offence, if it were a new offence, a thing which must necessarily be described in language so vague as this. It is difficult to use language more precise, and I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman's drafting. I think that it is very good. I am only suggesting that if you are going to carry this measure through, and work it in the friendly and co-operative spirit which is essential for its success, it is hghly desirable that you should not multiply minatory provisions of this sort. In the second place, it is desirable that it should be plainly understood by work-

    1965
    men and everybody else that if you do that which is an incitement to something which our Statute prohibits, that is a matter which can be dealt with under common law. Of course, it is only in a really serious case, but in such a case the law already provides the protection which I think is needed and which the hon. Gentleman seeks to provide. For those reasons I hope that he will see his way to withdraw his proposals, because we are quite satisfied that they would not improve the Bill.
    Mr. KING: I do not accept the arguments of the Home Secretary. But the right hon. Gentleman has put forward his views in such an admirable manner that I will withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "one month has," and to insert instead thereof the words, "three days have."
    As I understand this Clause, at present it allows the Board of Trade a month before they are compelled to refer a difference which may be submitted to them to one of the tribunals set up under this Bill. All who have had experience of arbitration under the existing Act know that the cause which has been responsible more than any other for the comparative failure of this legislation, has been the delay. It is most important, therefore, that there should be as little delay as possible. It is reasonable to assume that there has been a considerable amount of irritation between the workmen and the employers before the matter is, in the first place, reported to the Board of Trade, and I think it most undesirable, in the interests of the smooth working of this Act that there should be the possibility of a further month's delay before the Board of Trade refer the matter to some tribunal for settlement. Therefore, I propose that the Board of Trade should be given only three days in which to decide the tribunal to which the dispute should be submitted. Then, by a later Amendment, I propose to give the tribunal a week in which to make its award, and I am quite sure that unless there is to be a very considerable reduction in the time from a period of a month there would be a great deal of unnecessary irritation in the working of this Act. For these reasons I beg to move the Amendment.
    Sir RICHARD COOPER: I entirely support the hon. Member. I think that in normal times of peace there might be a great deal to be said for the delay of a month, but in the circumstances of this particular Bill, and the circumstances of this War, and in view of the necessity which exists for the manufacture of the munitions of war, if a dispute were to arise of such a nature as to threaten a strike, or something of that kind, I think that it would be extremely detrimental to the interests of this country that the powers that be should have as wide a margin as one month in which to think over what action they are going to take. During such time it is quite certain that you would have an increased feeling on the part of the men and of the employers, which might make the position infinitely more difficult for any tribunal to deal with than if they had a shorter time, and dealt with it promptly, as I think they ought to do in the interests of the country.
    Mr. HODGE: We have been seeking to get the Minister of Munitions to alter his Bill, so that where a dispute arises the proceedings would be expedited, and the reasons which we urged upon the right hon. Gentleman were that where a dispute arose there was naturally friction, and friction does not conduce either to speedy or to efficient work. As to whether the periods should be three days and seven days, I am not so sure. There may be a difference of opinion as to that, but I would suggest at any rate that the period ought not to be more than twenty-one days, which would give every opportunity to both sides to prepare, as well as for the Board of Trade to find the Court. We hope that the Government will at any rate see that the desire behind the Amendment is to assist the Government and prevent friction.
    Sir WALTER ESSEX: I cannot support the Amendment. I think that the time might be briefer, perhaps about a fortnight, but three days will hardly leave adequate time. If a fortnight were given there would be time to get the matter into order, and also for the other side to see what they can do.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: May I point out that the purpose of my Amendment is not to limit to three days the time for settlement of a dispute, but simply to limit to three days the time in which the Board of Trade is to decide the tribunal to which the matter should be referred.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it not desirable that the matter should be settled without reference to this Act during the War, and is it not the object of having a month that negotiations should be carried on in that period to complete an arrangement between the parties?
    Sir J. SIMON: Everybody will agree with the desire which is expressed, that in any case of difference or dispute a settlement should be arrived at as quickly as possible, but it does not follow always, even in matters of this sort, that the more haste you make the more speed you secure. The only reason for allowing as long time as one month is not in order to make certain that nothing shall ever be settled before the month has elapsed, but in order to ensure that the very serious position of the time limit having run out and no settlement having been reached shall be avoided. I feel certain that if this Bill is worked as I believe it will be, nothing like a month will elapse in all save very few cases before a settlement is arrived at, but you must think of the extreme cases. In legislation it is no good imagining the easy cases. You must imagine the difficult cases, and if you imagine the difficult cases, the view taken by those who will have the responsibility of working this Act, and who have the greatest possible interest in seeing that it works quickly and smoothly, is that the month which we have suggested is not too long.
    Mr. HODGE: The Bill as it stands is not a settlement within a month, but simply provides that if the parties have not agreed by the end of a month, then the matter must be referred by the Board of Trade for settlement, and then the other proceedings have got to take place which might take another month. That delay is bad for all concerned.
    Sir J. SIMON: There seems to be a misunderstanding. The provision of the Bill is not that employers and employés have got to have a difference lasting for a month before it is reported. The difference may be reported not necessarily by both parties, but by one of them as soon as ever he thinks it wise so to report it, and the month runs from that moment. Of course, if we said that employers and workpeople must dispute for a month and then at the end of a month have the matter reported, and that then another month must elapse before a settlement, there would be great force in what has been said, but that is not the point.
    1968
    Either may, without the consent of the other side, report to the Board of Trade a dispute even before it has arisen.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: We have to apply our experience in this matter, and it is that whatever the nature of a dispute may be at the commencement, the longer it exists the wider it becomes, a hundred and one things being added to the difficulties to be dealt with by the Board of Trade. Surely it is not too much to say that the Board of Trade, having the power to submit the dispute to one of the three tribunals—and that is my hon. Friend's Amendment—should have three days to decide to which tribunal the dispute should be referred. We are not dealing at all with the nature of the complaint, whether it is fair or just; all we say is, that the Board of Trade ought to be able to say in three days what tribunal should consider the matter. Surely when this proposal comes from the workers who are giving up their rights, it is a matter which should be considered, and it is one about which we are anxious.
    Mr. CAVE: I rather gather from the Home Secretary that he took the view that the proposal was for only three days, or some other period, in which the Board of Trade had to deal with the dispute. That is not the proposal at all. The point is, how long a time shall be allowed between reporting to the Board of Trade and the time at which the Board selects the tribunal to which it refers the dispute? I am quite sure that three days is too short, and if the Government say that a month is not too long, I shall willingly take their word for it, and support them in opposing the Amendment. But I want to be sure that they do take that view. Unless they are quite satisfied about it I should have thought that the proposal of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge), who knows very much about these things, to reduce to three weeks the period of a month, would be a wise one. Whether a fortnight or three weeks is the best time I really cannot say, but I think the point might be considered whether the reduction of the period of a month might not be accepted. I understand that the time probably would not be wasted, and that during the interval there might be negotiations to settle the matter without a reference at all. I suggest that the Home Secretary might consider whether some reduction of the period might not be allowed.
    Mr. HODGE: I speak with twenty-seven years' experience of arbitration and conciliation boards, many of whose rules are that disputes must be settled within a given period; fourteen days is a common period. May I suggest that the desire of my colleagues, as well as myself, is to speed things up, and probably the wisest plan would be for the right hon. Gentleman to consider the proposals that we have made, so that an arrangement might be come to satisfactory to everyone concerned on the Report stage.
    Mr. W. ROCH: May I point out to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) that he need not assume that the Board of Trade would take the full month? If the Board of Trade saw that the area of the dispute was increasing, they would at once refer it to arbitration. The danger is that if this space of time is cut down the Board of Trade might have to refer the matter to arbitration at a time when they were very near arriving at a settlement. I think it would be suicidal to force the Board of Trade, when coming very near to settlement, to refer the dispute to an Arbitration Court and take it out of the Department's hands. The danger, both in New Zealand and other countries, where compulsory arbitration has been tried, is that it tends to kill conciliation boards altogether. In New Zealand the result of the Arbitration Clause has been that in 99 cases out of 100 the conciliation boards have been virtually killed. I hope that in this instance the existing machinery of conciliation will be tried to the fullest extent, and that my hon. Friend will rely upon the discretion of the Board of Trade, who, if they think that evils are likely to arise before a settlement is reached, would not allow a month to elapse.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The speech of my hon. Friend shows that he is still labouring under the misapprehension which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cave) just now quite removed, and it is one which I think the Attorney-General, if I may respectfully say so, seems to be labouring under also. My point is simply how long shall we give the Board of Trade to decide to which tribunal the dispute shall be referred? This Amendment has nothing at all to do with the time that shall elapse during which a settlement must be arrived at. No report will be made to the Board of Trade until a deadlock has been reached between the parties. There is always considerable irritation
    1970
    attending a dispute when it has reached the stage at which it is most important that immediate action should be taken. I am not tied down to three days, four days, or five days. Whichever might be considered by the Committee to be more reasonable, I shall be perfectly willing to accept. But I submit that it is perfectly ridiculous to say that the Board of Trade should take a month in which to decide which tribunal should have the settlement of the dispute. If I do not get any more satisfactory reply from the Government I shall have to press my Amendment.
    Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSON: If the Government were to accept this Amendment it is said that it would probably hinder negotiations that otherwise might be possible in regard to the dispute concerned. As one who has had some little experience of industrial disputes, I submit that the very converse is true. I put it to my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Roch) that, when a dispute has arisen in any given area, or in any given trade, and that there is a month, as the Bill now stands, before the Board of Trade need necessarily decide to which tribunal it is to be referred, the effect of that would be on the part of the workmen and on the part of the employers to delay the settlement until the last possible moment. I respectfully suggest to the Committee that the direct result and effect of limiting the time to which the Board of Trade will be confined to refer the matter to a particular tribunal will facilitate and help, rather than hinder the settlement of disputes.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: It surely is a mistake to infer that every dispute which may be reported by anybody must necessarily go to one or other of those tribunals, and it may well be that if the time which the Board of Trade has to decide whether they will, in the meantime, use the period, if they can, to settle the dispute, were cut down to three days, it would mean that the moment a representation was made by anybody on behalf of one of the parties automatically the Board of Trade must refer it to one of those three tribunals. I am not at all sure that that is the right view to take. Some time ought to be given to the Board of Trade, first of all, to try the other method in regard to any difference reported, and as the Bill provides to "take any steps which may seem to them expedient to promote a settlement of the difference." If that failed, then they might decide upon one or other of the

    1971
    three tribunals. Surely it would be a mistake to limit the time in which they could negotiate to three days.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am very anxious that we should arrive at a common agreement on this, as on other important matters. I hope the Committee will agree with what has been said by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. The Clause points out what the steps are, and they are really these. First of all, there is a difference either existing, or at any rate apprehended in some industry between employers and workmen. No doubt, as reasonable people, the workmen and employers try to settle that difference without reference to anybody else at all, and if they do not succeed, either one side or the other reports to the Board of Trade. The duty of the Board of Trade is not limited to taking the report and sending it at the week-end to one or other of the three tribunals; and the employers and workpeople of this country know the value of the work done by Sir George Askwith and his colleagues in many industrial disputes. The Department have to do their best by the very terms of the Bill, and if the Committee will look at Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 they will see what is the duty of the Board of Trade once this report is made to them:
    "The Board of Trade shall consider any difference so reported, and take any steps which seem to them expedient to promote a settlement of the difference."
    It is said that a month is too long, even as a maximum, to allow the Board of Trade for this purpose. That is not the view held by those who are responsible for the working of the Act; but we can only get on in these matters by arriving, as far as may be, at an agreement which is reasonable. If it will meet the views of those who are versed in these matters to substitute twenty-one days for a month, that is a thing I would do; although I agree that even so you are limiting the useful activities of the Board of Trade in taking steps which seem to them expedient to promote a settlement of the difference. If it should become clear to the Board of Trade that nothing but compulsory arbitration will do, then reference to one of these tribunals could be effected in twenty-four hours. You should only have compulsory arbitration after an attempt at adjustment and settlement by the Board of Trade, the result of whose experience and the machinery they employ has so often pro-
    1972
    duced satisfactory agreements. The Board of Trade would not occupy twenty-one days unless they satisfied themselves that it would be a useful thing to do. They have no desire to do it, and there would be no advantage, because the very day they found that they could not effect a settlement the matter would be referred to one of the three tribunals.
    Sir R. COOPER: If I am correct in my view of this Clause there are two important provisions in it. The first is the period, to which the hon. Member has referred, within which the Board of Trade has to fix upon the tribunal. That is the point on which I am anxious to support the hon. Member for Blackburn.
    Sir J. SIMON: The period is not for the Board of Trade to fix the tribunal. Anybody could take it to a tribunal in five minutes if you gave them the choice of two or three tribunals. The period is for the Board of Trade to consider the differences and to take steps to promote a settlement.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Surely the meaning of this Clause is that it is the intention of the Government to provide voluntary conciliation with compulsory arbitration. That is the problem, and what we want to do here is to expedite the settlement so that there shall be no strike if possible. Unfortunately we have little experience of how to work that. The work of the Board of Trade has been by voluntary conciliation, and we must go abroad to find out how these things work out. The experience in every country, without exception, that has tried to provide voluntary conciliation with compulsory arbitration is that when compulsory arbitration is behind voluntary conciliation, voluntary conciliation is of very little use. That is the experience in Australia and New Zealand. At the same time I think my right hon. Friend is quite right in preserving to the Board of Trade the power to use its good offices for voluntary conciliation. I think, however, he should not allow that to go on too long. This is an emergency measure, and we want to make strikes absolutely impossible. I would suggest if he takes a week off his compromise and make it a fortnight I believe voluntary conciliation will work its maximum of good, and then, if we find it has broken down in the way it has in Australia and New Zealand, go ahead with compulsory arbitration and settle the whole business with no strike or lock-out.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: We have had an extremely interesting discussion. I believe we all have the same object in view, and that is to prevent strikes, which are a very great danger to the country. The Government, I must say, have met the hon. Member very fairly. They have agreed to take a period of twenty-one days, and that offer has been made by the Home Secretary, and it is supported by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cave). I think, under those circumstances, we should accept the proposal.
    Mr. ROCH: May I make the suggestion, if the period is cut down to twenty-one days or fourteen days, that you could allow an extension to the full period of a month if both parties in the difference agreed to it?
    Sir J. SIMON: It is a very ingenious suggestion which, I dare say, might sometimes be useful, but simplicity is a very good thing in a Bill of this sort. As to what was said by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. E. MacDonald), with every desire to get general agreement I really cannot go below my limit of twenty-one days, a period about which expert opinion is very doubtful. I shall take the opportunity of considering other suggestions if I can be convinced that the period is unnecessarily long. My own opinion is very strongly the other way.
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: As chairman of probably the largest conciliation area in the Kingdom, may I point out that twenty-one days is the exact period after which, if we fail to agree, an independent chairman must provide an agreement? The term should not be too short, to enable decent negotiation between the two sides. On the other hand, it should not be too long, to render ineffective the negotiations taking place. Three weeks, as suggested by the Home Secretary, has been found to be the finest period to bring these negotiations to a success, and I will support that suggestion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "one month has," and insert instead thereof the words "twenty-one days have."—[Sir J. Simon.]
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "and the difference has not during that month been referred by the Board of Trade for settlement in accordance with this Act."
    1974
    At present there is no limit, and under my Amendment the whole business would have to be done in three weeks. I move in order to find out from the Government if they are putting any limitation of time within which a dispute is to be dealt with by the tribunal before a settlement is arrived at.
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend, I feel sure, is only moving this in order to put a question. If we really adopted his proposal we should completely destroy the effect and value of the Clause. The Amendment would have this result, that as soon as the three weeks had elapsed a strike or lock-out would be authorised, even though at the very moment the tribunal was endeavouring to settle the dispute. I am sure that is not a proposal which my hon. Friend wishes to make. He asks what is the limit of time within which the tribunal would decide? The answer to that is a practical answer. It is not a legal or chronological answer. The answer is that the tribunal has the greatest possible interest in deciding the thing as rapidly as ever they can. There is no question of trying to get both sides to come to an agreement, as it is compulsory arbitration. I cannot believe they would delay their decision an unnecessary moment, since the whole point of the Bill is that we should make prompt provision to settle disputes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "month" ["during that month"], and insert instead thereof the word "time."—[Mr. Snowden.]
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words "and unless one week has elapsed since the difference was referred to the selected tribunal."
    Before the dispute is referred to the Board of Trade it is reasonable to assume that negotiations shall have been going on between the trade union and the employers. The matter is then referred to the Board of Trade, and for twenty-one days they endeavour to bring the parties into agreement. They fail to do so, and then the dispute is to be referred to one of the three tribunals mentioned. It is, I think, important that a limit should be set to the further time. The tribunal might hang up the matter for weeks or months, and, so far as there is any provision in the Bill, for years. I want to set a limit to the time for the tribunal

    1975
    and I propose a week which I think is quite long enough, considering that the Board of Trade have had three weeks to endeavour to decide the matter.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): I admit a case might be made out for putting on a limit, but I am sure a week is much too short. I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. WARDLE: I hope the Committee will not pass the Amendment. Not only is there the question of the Board of Trade referring the matter to the tribunal and preparing the case, but there is also the question of the employers preparing their side of the case, and, what is more important from our point of view, there is the question of the trade union preparing its side of the case. A week in which everything has to be settled, the case tried, and the award given, is much too short, I quite agree that the period should not be prolonged indefinitely, but as no strike or lock-out is to take place in the interval, I do not see the use of fixing a week.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Really the argument put forward by my hon. Friend (Mr. Wardle) is the most extraordinary I ever heard. He says that we are giving too short a time for the employers and the workmen to prepare their cases. As I pointed out before, the matter has gone to the Board of Trade, the employers and the workmen have each been presenting their prepared cases to the Board of Trade for three weeks, and yet my hon. Friend says that they will not have time to prepare their cases—cases which have been prepared for at least a month before the matter could be referred to the tribunal.
    Dr. ADDISONmade a statement which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I cannot support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I am not in favour of compulsory arbitration, and by limiting the time for dealing with the cases which arise you are forcing the date on which they must go to compulsory arbitration nearer than it would otherwise be. I would rather leave the Clause as it is.
    Mr. WATT: The point I made on a previous Amendment, and which I repeat,
    1976
    was that some limitation should be put to the time. It may be that a week is too short, but I think the Government should agree to some limitation. The Home Secretary indicated two arguments against such limitation, but in my opinion those arguments are not strong enough.
    Mr. GRETTON: I think that this Amendment would carry us a great deal further than its Mover and supporters intend. The effect would be to render the whole Clause nugatory a week after the date of reference to the tribunal, whatever the tribunal might be. The hon. Member for Blackburn must be aware of the fact that, if this Amendment is carried, as soon as a week had elapsed the whole of the arbitration proceedings would fail. That is not what the Government or the Committee intend. I hope therefore the Amendment will not be accepted.
    Mr. HODGE: I should like to associate myself with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle). The hon. Member for Blackburn, having received his obligatory twenty-one days, ought to be contented. I have boon associated with arbitration cases where it has been necessary for the Court to travel from Swansea to Newcastle, and from Newcastle to Glasgow, in order to find out what was the practice in those districts, before they could give an award that was fair to both parties. In complicated cases of that character it would be perfectly impossible—or at any rate very difficult—to give an award within seven days. I believe that the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn in trying to expedite the matter are sincere, but we must not make difficulties. I speak from a long trade union experience and from much experience in arbitration cases. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. When once the Court gets to work, I do not think there will be any delay.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: On one occasion one of the hon. Members on the bench below me and I spent thirty days in trying to settle a dispute which had not arisen. [Laughter]. I mean, we were at that stage where a dispute was apprehended, and we spent thirty days in trying to settle the matter. If Amendments of this kind are accepted, we shall make the Bill absolutely impossible.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: As the Bill stands, there is no limit at all to the time. I understood the hon. Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison) to say that it was desirable

    1977
    there should be some time-limit. If the Government consider that a week is too short, let them say what time they think is reasonable. My hon. Friend, who has such wide experience in these matters, suggests fourteen days. I am ready to accept fourteen days. I shall press the Amendment unless I can get the concession of some period from the Government.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: I have had a little experience in dealing with these matters. There is already in existence in the engineering trade a powerful federation with which the engineers' unions and other similar organisations negotiate. They have a plan which has been in operation since, I think, 1897, and if the Minister of Munitions wants a plan upon which to run this business, there is that one already in existence. The time they allow is a month. I do not know that any of the unions which negotiate with the Engineering Employers' Federation have any quarrel with that period, so long as they know that whatever decision is arrived at dates back to the time of the inquiry. That is the only point they are concerned about. That plan has been in operation for donkeys' years, and that anybody should seek to quarrel with it or to speed it up is a matter of surprise to me. It would be all right if there was going to be only one dispute, but we may have to deal with an exceedingly large number of men—a larger number than has ever been dealt with by any of the employers' associations or trade unions. It is easily conceivable that for a certain period of time the whole horizon may be peaceful, while in another period yon may have a rush of cases, and even in a month the authority might not be able to deal with the whole of them. There has to be give and take in these things. As far as the workmen's organisations are concerned, they will be quite prepared to accept give and take so long as they know that there will be no unnecessary delay in dealing with the matter.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: The Committee should bear in mind that this is, after all, an emergency Bill. We are not setting up permanent machinery for dealing with disputes between employers and employed. We are in a time of war, and this is an emergency Bill. A Bill of this kind, dealing with so many complicated matters, must open up all sorts of difficulties, not only with regard to time, but in many other directions. I hope my hon. Friends below
    1978
    the Gangway will keep in mind that this is an emergency measure pure and simple, which will come to an end with the office of Minister of Munitions, and that in the working of such a measure we want as much elasticity as possible. The only way in which a Bill of this kind can be made to work is by the goodwill of all concerned. It is the goodwill of everybody in the working of this measure that will make it successful. When you are relying more upon goodwill than upon the legislation you are passing, I urge most strongly that you should give as much elasticity as possible. Do not let us argue as if we were settling for all time what kind of legislation we should have for dealing with strikes and lock-outs. I hope there will be no alteration of the kind suggested.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "(3) No proceeding in respect of an offence under this or the last foregoing Section, which relates to the settlement of labour differences, shall be instituted except by, or with the leave of, the Board of Trade."
    I move this Amendment in order to ascertain what is thought of it on the Treasury Bench.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope that my hon. Friend, having already had some success, will sea his way to withdraw his Amendment. There are one or two more Amendments of his which I am ready to accept, and I want to reach them as soon as possible.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Differences to which Part I. Applies.)
    The differences to which this Part of this Act applies are differences as to rates of wages, hours of work, or otherwise as to terms or conditions of or affecting employment on the manufacture or repair of arms, ammunition, ships, vehicles, or any other articles required for use in war, or of the machines or tools required for that manufacture or repair (in this Act referred to as munitions work); and also any differences as to rates of wages, hours of work, or otherwise as to terms or conditions of or affecting employment on any other work of any description if this Part of this Act is applied to such a difference

    1979
    by His Majesty by Proclamation on the ground that in the opinion of His Majesty it is expedient in the national interest that this Part of this Act should apply thereto.
    This Part of this Act may be so applied to such a difference at any time, whether a lock-out or strike is in existence in connection with the difference to which it is applied or not.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "differences" ["the differences to which this Part of this Act applies"], to insert the words "whether existing or apprehended."
    I think, in view of the drafting of Clause 1, we ought to have these words here.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The wording in Clause I governs the rest of the Bill; therefore these words are assumed in Clause 2, and the Amendment is unnecessary.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "repair" ["the manufacture or repair of arms"], to insert the words "or transport."
    I think this is a more important Amendment than the last. It certainly makes the meaning clearer.
    Mr. WARDLE: I hope the Minister of Munitions will not accept these words. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]
    Mr. KING: It is very strange the way in which one trade or another wants everybody else to have this Bill. Let us not discuss this matter in any sectarian spirit.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the words which come in the latter part of the Clause will cover transport in so far as it affects the production of munitions of war. The London tramway strike very seriously affected munitions at Woolwich. We have taken power in the latter part of the Clause in a case of this kind, where transport affects munitions, to deal with the matter.
    Mr. THOMAS: I do hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. There are many objections to it. Take, for instance, the railwaymen, who would be covered. They already have machinery which provides for an independent chairman, and if any dispute arises the
    1980
    machinery is already in operation. There are many other trades in the same position. It would be a mistake to introduce these words and bring in other trades, and so create difficulties instead of removing them.
    Mr. KING: I beg to withdraw my Amendment, though I am sure I am right.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "vehicles" ["ammunition, ships, vehicles, or any"], to insert the word "aircraft." I understand that this Amendment is going to be accepted.
    Word proposed inserted.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the word "or" ["or any other articles"]. This is purely a drafting Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am told that somehow or other this Amendment is mixed up with the next, and that to accept this Amendment means the practical acceptance of the next Amendment, which raises a very important question. I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment.
    Mr. KING: I will not move it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. S. WALSHhad an Amendment on the Paper—after the word "articles" ["any other articles required"], to insert the words "other than coal or cotton."
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Would it not be more convenient, Mr. Whitley, if the next Amendment were taken before that of the hon. Member for Ince? If it is accepted, then I think it covers the first.
    Mr. WATT: On a point of Order. Would it not be better to take the Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member for Islington?
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it is rather difficult for me to solve a point of that kind. I think the best way would be to take the Amendments as they stand on the Paper, and it may be that one discussion will clear up the whole matter.
    Mr. S. WALSH: I understand that the Government themselves propose to bring forward an Amendment at a later stage which, I believe, will more effectively meet the object I desire by the words that I am submitting. I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Before the Amendment is withdrawn—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not moved it, and there is therefore no Question before the Committee.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to move it.
    Mr. WALSH: I do not move it.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to move, after the word "articles" ["any other articles required for use in War"], to insert the words "of a similar character." The Amendment which I have on the Paper is put forward simply for the purpose of making the Bill clear. In the Bill this is the definition Clause:—
    "Manufacture or repair of arms, ammunition ships, vehicles, or any other articles required for use in war, or of the machines, or tools, required for that manufacture or repair."
    This is referred to as munition work. The other day when we passed the Ministry of Munitions Bill we had a definition, which said that munitions of war meant anything required to be provided for war purposes. The terms were, "Munitions, warlike stores, or material, and everything required for the equipment, transport purposes, or in connection with the production of munitions."
    I do not want to limit the scope of this Act, but it is clear there is a very great difference, indeed, between these two definitions. I do not know where the line is to be drawn, but I think when the matter is under consideration this point should be made perfectly clear and definite; that we should know exactly what it is the Government wish to include. I am quite willing to support anything, only it should be stated clearly what is intended.
    Sir J. SIMON: I hope the hon. Member will be prepared after the explanation I offer to withdraw his proposal. The intention is this, that we should include, in addition to arms and ammunition, ships, and vehicles, any other article which you can say is manufactured or repaired. It does not include raw material, but it does include anything that is manufactured or repaired, and, of course, that is required for use in the War. I do hope we shall not put in these limiting words, because I am assured on competent authority that there is no kind of controversy more appreciated by lawyers and more disliked by other members of society than a controversy over words, either
    1982
    "like," or "of a similar character." Lawyers have a name for it which I will not attempt to repeat.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Are we to understand that the widest interpretation is to be put on the Clause, or that this is probably not as wide an interpretation as is in the Ministry of Munitions Act, which I have just read. The interpretation there was very much wider than the interpreta-of this Clause.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member sees the limit here is that the article shall be an article which is manufactured or repaired, whereas, of course, the wider definition would not be so limited. So long as the article is an article needed for the use in the War, and so long as it is an article manufactured or repaired, we want to include it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, after the word "the" ["or of the machine"], to insert the word "metals."
    Mr. HOGGE: I should like an explanation why this is included, and for this reason: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is one industry in the country which depends upon the use of burnished copper in making photographs for illustrations. That copper can be sold after it has been used. It cannot be burnished in this country. The right hon. Gentleman might bear in mind, in any use he makes of any metal, that he can always have the old copper so long as the trade can have the burnished copper.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is one, reason why I want these words inserted, especially in the case of copper. In the case of the copper or spelter industries a strike would be more fatal than perhaps in any other to the production of munitions.
    Word proposed inserted.
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move to leave out the words "and also any difference as to rate of wages, hours of work, or otherwise as to terms or conditions of, or affecting employment or any other work of any description if this part of this Act is applied to such a difference by His Majesty by Proclamation on the ground that in the opinion of His Majesty it is expedient in the national interest that this part of the Act should apply thereto."

    1983
    The object I and my hon. Friends had in putting this Amendment down has been met, and I am satisfied with the proposal that the right hon. Gentleman has made to meet us. He has put down on the Paper an Amendment of his own, and, so far as I am concerned, I am quite satisfied to withdraw my Amendment and accept the words the right hon. Gentleman has put down lower on the Paper. I think it meets the whole case, and I hope my hon. Friends will take the same view.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As the right hon. Gentleman has very fairly stated, after consultation with himself and with hon. Members behind me, the Government agree to confine the operation of this Proclamation to strikes that affect, either directly or indirectly, the output of munitions of war.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I also put down this Amendment. I am not going to put the House to the trouble of discussion, but this is the only opportunity that arises in Committee for emphasising the very great dislike and great objection there is, on constitutional grounds, to give power of this kind to be exercised by Proclamation. This House has never shown itself unwilling to give exceptional powers asked for by the Executive in a crisis like the present. It is a much further step to go and take definite powers to be exercised by Proclamation. Therefore I am very glad, indeed, that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions has put down a later Amendment, to which reference has been made, in which the Government, of course, will take very wide powers, directly or indirectly, and which will cover most things in this world of ours. At the same time it is desirable to recognise the exceptional and dangerous character of action by Proclamation. Under the circumstances I agree with my right hon. Friend opposite, and will not take up the time of the House further.
    Mr. WATT: I also put down this Amendment. The point I objected to has been stated by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, namely, the power to be exercised by the Minister by Proclamation. If there is an Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman to overcome that evil, possibly my hon. Friends will take the view that we do?
    Sir F. BANBURY: As to the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, I
    1984
    quite agree with it. I do not like legislation by Proclamation. I am glad there is a change in the hon. Member opposite. I have always thought that he was in favour of this sort of thing.
    Sir R. ADKINS: That is one of the few cases in which the hon. Baronet is always in error.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the Amendment to be moved by the Minister of Munitions will cover the one put down by the hon. Member for Blackburn.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move to leave out the words "it is expedient in the national interest that this part of the Act should apply thereto," and insert instead thereof the words, "the existence or continuance of the difference is directly or indirectly prejudicial to the manufacture, transport, or supply of munitions of war."
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Does not my Amendment, Mr. Chairman, cover this? Mine is weightier, and says in seven words what the Minister of Munitions takes twenty to say. But if the right hon. Gentleman can really assure me that there is no legal difference, then I am prepared to accept his Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can assure my hon. Friend we wish to avoid litigation, and that is one reason why we have to explain, perhaps, at greater length in an Act of Parliament than we do in the short speeches we deliver in this House. For that reason I am advised—and here I really must take advice—that it is necessary to have seventeen words in place of the hon. Member's seven.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. R. MACDONALD: I beg to move, to leave out the words "by His Majesty by Proclamation on the ground that in the opinion of His Majesty it is expedient in the national interest that this Part of this Act should apply thereto. This Part of this Act may be so applied to such a difference at any time, whether a lock-out or strike is in existence in connection with the difference to which it is applied or not," and to insert instead thereof the words, "by Resolution of the House of Commons."
    I move this Amendment because I have a very rooted objection to acting in this way by Proclamation. If the Amendment

    1985
    which is going to be moved by the Minister of Munitions is carried, that gives him enormously wide powers. It is not that I do not want him to have power to prevent strikes that would limit the supply of munitions, but I think he ought to exercise that power with the full knowledge and assent of this House. We give him certain powers now under clearly defined and specified limitations, and he proposes at the end of the Clause to widen those powers in such a way that they really become indefinite. I am not moving this Amendment because I wish to hamper him, but because I think that constitutional methods ought not to be abandoned by this House. If he comes here and gives us reasons why he wants certain powers—why he wants to apply this Clause to certain conditions—the House will not only listen to him, but will give him his powers with alacrity. But I for one am not prepared to give him powers to extend Clause 3 by Proclamation under conditions which he himself might, of his own free will and on his own initiative, exercise.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am sure my hon. Friend does not want to injure or embarrass me in the slightest degree in the production of munitions. However much he and I might disagree about the War and its object, he is just as anxious as I am in wishing to bring it to a speedy conclusion, and he must know perfectly well that one way to bring that about is to accelerate the output of munitions in this country and among the Allied Powers. But whatever his object may be—and I accept his statement upon that—this Amendment, if incorporated in the Bill, would seriously embarrass the Government in the production of munitions, and I think when I point this out to him he will withdraw the Amendment without further argument. What does this Amendment mean? It is really a limitation of the powers of the Minister of Munitions and not an enlargement. My hon. Friend says, "I should be in favour of much wider powers if inserted in this Bill." I thought he said he would extend it to other trades.
    Mr. MACDONALD: I said I would rather give those powers if you asked for them specifically.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There are certain trades with which the Government do not wish to have powers of dealing under this Clause. We only want powers where strife in that particular trade would
    1986
    interfere with munitions. I have given one or two cases. I have given the case of tramways. I only want such powers where a strike or lock-out would interfere with the output of munitions. Supposing Parliament is not sitting—for, after all, Parliament must have a certain amount of recess—supposing we have six weeks' recess, and suddenly there is a great dispute on the tramways or with regard to a particular railway or some particular works on a railway, and supposing I have to wait until Parliament is summoned together in order to have a Resolution submitted to the House of Commons. It is of the greatest importance that I should be immediately in a position to proclaim that particular strike and deal with it there and then. As a matter of fact, this is a limitation. There is only one alternative, and that is to take complete powers with regard to all the trades in the Kingdom. This is a method of avoiding that, and limiting the power I should otherwise possess under this Bill.
    Mr. HODGE: I think that I would agree with the concluding part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. So far as my trade is concerned, I do not think there is the slightest chance of a strike, because we have the machinery necessary to prevent strikes; but we are included in the Bill, and will make no grumble about it. I think, however, trades in the Bill have a right to grumble about others being excluded. I think for the purposes of the War all trades ought to be included. Take the tram strike in London. It was a disgrace to the tramway men that, in this great crisis in their country's history, they should have made it impossible for workmen to get to Woolwich for the purpose of making shells and other munitions of war necessary to save the lives of our troops at the front. However, the Government have decided that certain trades are to be excluded. But I do not see that we should be the least bit squeamish, when we are applying it to a large number of trades, if those not coming directly under it come under a system of Proclamation, if they do anything injurious; because, when all is said and done, the steel made by the steelworkers cannot be taken away if the railwaymen go on strike. In the same way we cannot make steel if there is no coal to make it. They are just as essential to the production of munitions of war as the steelworker, the engineer, the brass-founder, the ironfounder, and anybody

    1987
    else. One of the things that has amazed rne—and I am speaking for myself, and not endeavouring to speak for anybody else at the moment—is that the Government do not cover all under the provisions of the Bill.
    Mr. THOMAS: I think if ever there was a time when it was necessary for us to realise the difference between speaking in the House of Commons and being quite certain that we could carry those speeches into operation, it is now. It is useless for one to proclaim his patriotism or his anxiety as to the War merely in this House. The time to do that, the place to do it, is when you are faced with the difficulty outside. It would be no measure of my support to give lip service in the House if, when I was faced with a hostile crowd outside, I did not adopt the same policy. Therefore, I want to make it perfectly clear that I have said long before this Bill was heard of or talked of, just what I say now, that in my opinion there ought to be no dispute to-day that is not capable of adjustment without resorting to a strike. That is the view I have not only expressed but to which I have tried to give effect, and have succeeded. That is an entirely different matter, however, from giving my support to anything when I know I cannot carry the men with me. What I do beg the House to remember is, that anyone who gives his support, and is not satisfied in his own mind that he can carry his men with him, is not rendering a service but is rendering a disservice. Therefore we are faced with this position: The Minister of Munitions, as we understand, decided to exempt certain trades. The first effect of that is to allow other trades to ask, "How is it we are not exempt?" That is inevitable, and we have got to face it. That renders the position of those of us who are included ten times more difficult.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the observations which my hon. Friend is making now would come better on the next Amendment which I propose. I think he will find, if he waits until I move it, that it will meet the point he is making.
    Mr. THOMAS: I am satisfied, but I do want the House to appreciate what I am saying in regard to any hon. Member getting up here and saying, "I am in favour of this or that." You may applaud it, but it is valueless unless we carry the men with us. What I am anxious for is to see
    1988
    that in this Bill all the powers we can give are given. I want to see the position of the country such that, from now until the end of the War, we shall never hear of a strike. That will not be accomplished, I repeat, by mere clap-trap from this floor. We should strive to mould this Bill in such a way that we shall be sure afterwards of carrying our men with us, and that certainly is the way I am going to approach this question.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think you had better dispose of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicester. It does not deal with such a wide point as this. Does the hon. Member press it?
    Mr. MACDONALD: I do not wish to press it. I understood an Amendment was going to be put down by the Government to meet this point.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not want to mislead my hon. Friend. I cannot say it meets this point, but it meets the point raised by my hon. Friend in his speech.
    Mr. MACDONALD: I understood that an Amendment was going to be put down which would meet the point I had in mind when I put down this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a strong objection to my Amendment, that difficulties might arise when the House of Commons is not sitting. At the same time, my mind is not the least changed with regard to the method of applying a Proclamation, and I think the House in some way or other should insist on having an opportunity of considering the scope of those Proclamations.
    There is just one thing the House must remember. If it is possible for a Minister to apply powers given to him to a specific trouble in the railway industry, then the trade is not excluded, but he cannot juggle with this matter in that way. If the right hon. Gentleman had made this Bill more comprehensive, and faced the consequences, good and well, but he has not done so. Consequently, having laid down as a general principle that certain trades are not going to be included, it is not good enough to ask us to give him powers to apply to specific troubles in those trades the very powers he is applying to the general trades under the general operation of the Clause. That is inconsistent, and it is really for the purpose of making the Bill run more smoothly that I suggest some other method of

    1989
    widening its scope other than by a Royal Proclamation. Under the circumstances I do not press my Amendment, and, having made my point, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "it is expedient in the national interest that this part of this Act should apply thereto," and insert instead thereof the words, "the existence or continuance of the difference is directly or indirectly prejudicial to the manufacture, transport, or supply of munitions of war."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add the words,
    "Provided that if in the case of any industry the Minister of Munitions is satisfied that effective means exist to secure the settlement without stoppage of any difference arising on work other than Munitions work, no Proclamation shall be made under this Section with respect to any such difference."
    We have heard a good deal about trades that object to coming under this Bill. I do not think they object so much to provision being made to prevent disputes and differences ripening into strikes and lock-outs. I have not met a single trade which objects to machinery for that purpose. I know they object to some of the machinery in this Bill on the ground that they have machinery in existence at the present moment, or are prepared to set up machinery, which they think would be better suited to the conditions of their particular trades, and which experience has taught them would be better suited than the machinery of this Bill. The first great trade that I had the privilege of meeting which presented to me this view was the miners trade, and they were just as anxious to avoid disputes during time of war as any other trade, but they say experience has taught them that the method they suggest is one which commends itself to hundreds of thousands of people in the trade, and is most likely to work without any friction. As far as the Government is concerned, it does not matter to us what the machinery is so long as it will guarantee us against strikes and lock-outs. We are not wedded to the machinery we suggest ourselves, and if the miners can produce some kind of mechanism which is more likely to stop disputes than that which we suggest we shall be happy to
    1990
    adopt it. Consequently they pass this resolution after two or three conferences:
    "That in order to prevent a miners strike during the War, we are prepared to enter into an agreement with the colliery owners of every district by which all disputes can be settled by representatives of the owners and the workmen; and in case of the two sides failing to settle any dispute an independent chairman to be called in with full powers to settle."
    That is practically the machinery set up by the Act of Parliament about three years ago. I think it is desirable where machinery is set up in a particular trade to which the men are accustomed for settling a dispute, that machinery should be adopted. I am told that there is machinery of that kind, in fact, I know there is. Of course, we cannot possibly assent to a proposition excluding miners or railwaymen or anybody else from the general provision that no strike or lockout should be permitted to interfere with the providing of munitions of war. A proposal of that kind we could not possibly accept, for it would be a national disaster, and if such power were not incorporated in this Bill, and a big dispute took place, Parliament would be bound to take immediate steps to prevent it. It is much too serious a matter, because the whole machinery on our side would be paralysed by differences which ought to be settled. What we propose, and I am glad to say that it has the acceptance of the Labour leaders, is the Amendment I am moving. This Amendment means that if there are effective means of settling a stoppage other than that provided by the Bill no Proclamation should be issued, and that machinery should be allowed to operate. On the other hand, if the existing machinery is not effective the Government will be in a position to issue a Proclamation under the provisions of this Bill.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I think there ought to be no hesitation whatever that miners should come under the full operation of this Bill. The industry with which I am associated makes no privileged claim that miners should be placed outside the scope of this Bill. I am not a lawyer, and therefore I am not able to quite understand the meaning of the words which have been suggested, and they seem to me very ambiguous. I understand if this Amendment is passed that in any coal mine supplying coal to the Government or to the railway companies if a dispute arise in any of those particular collieries, and the trade union is unable to arrive at a satisfactory settlement with the owners, the Government would then have the

    1991
    power to come in and settle the dispute. Is that so? What constitutes "work other than munitions work"?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The words in the Bill are "manufacture or repair," and we must have a provision of this kind to cover that case. In the case the hon. Baronet refers to of supplying coal to the Admiralty, that is not a manufacture. Whatever machinery the Government regard as effective for the settlement of the dispute, that machinery would be put into operation, but we must be satisfied that it is effective.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: My right hon. Friend is of course aware that in many cases the men absolutely refuse to take any notice of their leaders, and I could give him a case of a colliery in South Wales with which I am connected where during the past three months this has occurred time after time. In a case of that kind how are you going to proceed? In that particular colliery where they have repudiated the officials of the organisation, would that colliery be proclaimed although not supplying coal to the Admiralty but to the railways? Will my right hon. Friend answer that point? Assume that a colliery in the North or South of England is supplying coal for the purposes of a railway which is necessary to enable munitions work to be moved. If the railway companies are unable to move the raw material naturally a difficulty at once arises. If a dispute takes place at a colliery supplying coal to the railway companies, and the union officials are unable to agree with the owners, would that come within the provisions of the Act? I take it that it would, but not being a lawyer I cannot quite follow the exact meaning of those words. Unions like the Society of Engineers and other great unions are coming under this Act, and I do not think that the miners representing some 230,000 men have ever been consulted. There are no more loyal, brave and patriotic men ready to do their duty than the miners, and I do not think, if they had been consulted, that they would have asked for the special provision which the right hon. Gentleman has given them.
    Mr. S. WALSH: I rise for the purpose of supporting the Minister responsible to the House and to the nation in the attitude which he has taken on this matter. There was one point on which I specially agreed with the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). Mere professions of loyalty
    1992
    are nothing at all, and theoretical vapourings about "we all ought to be in, or none," are equals valueless. We have got to face the facts of the case to-day, if we have never done so before. The great desire of the nation and the great desire of the Minister is that all industries necessary to the nation's life shall be kept effectively at work. The point, then, becomes one of procedure. Can you do it best by availing yourself of the existing machinery which over a long course of years has proved immensely effective, or can you do it best by erecting a constitution on paper which will almost certainly collide with the existing machinery and introduce chaos where you desire organisation? It is because we feel and know in the mining industry that the existing machinery, handled by people conversant with it for a quarter of a century and more, has produced great good in the past and is just the kind of machinery to be useful in the present that we have met the Minister.
    First of all, the Minister received from us that which he had a right to demand, that the organisation as a whole should assure him that no stoppages of work should take place during the continuance of the War because of the application of this existing machinery. We gave him that assurance by resolution, and every member of the Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain has taken upon himself the responsibility of entering into an honourable and open covenant with the Minister and with the nation that no danger need be feared so far as the Mining Federation is concerned. We have the machinery. Is it necessary to go into the whole question what that machinery consists of? It is not necessary at all. We have given the solemn promise, and we know better than any other Member that promise will be redeemed.
    I would like to say, just by way of addition, that for nearly six months I have been sitting with several other Members on a Committee which had for its special object the better organisation of the mining industry, so as to keep the output as high as possible and to prevent it from receding, although, as the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) has said, nearly 250,000 men have joined the Colours. Three employers on the one side and three workmen on the other side, under the presidency of Sir Richard Redmayne, of the

    1993
    Home Office, have been sitting all these months. What have they agreed upon? They have agreed that in the best interests of the nation as a whole it is desirable that voluntary arrangements be entered into between employers and workmen on the basis of mutual good will. We are calling every lodge in the whole of Great Britain, England, Scotland, and Wales to send delegates to a mass meeting to be held in a few days. We are asking responsible Ministers, probably the chief Minister himself, to attend and lay before the whole of this vast audience the immense responsibility which rests upon them, and we feel sure that by such methods the highest national interests will be secured. If you go athwart the ordinary well understood lines upon which the miners' organisation has acted in the past you are sure to produce discord—and, indeed, it is almost certain that you will produce disaster. It is because the coalmining industry is so vastly different from anything above ground that the many difficulties which arise, and which are best handled by the existing organisation, constantly on the spot, would prevent any successful application of a Clause such as this, without the Amendment suggested by the responsible Minister.
    There is not an industry in the country the members of which are more loyal There is not an industry in the country the members of which, when properly appealed to, would be more willing to give their best efforts than the miners. There is not a position that has ever come before this House—I think I have on many occasions given proof of my devotion and loyalty to this nation—upon which I have ever been so absolutely convinced that the Minister and the miners are in the right, as in the matter of this Amendment. I do most earnestly hope that the House will accept it, will fortify the Minister in the Amendment which he has submitted, and will secure that position so far as the mining industry is concerned which the safety of the nation requires.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that this Amendment was the result of an arrangement between the miners' leaders and himself. He is aware that there is another great trade in the country, namely, the cotton operatives, opposed to coming within the compulsory arbitration Clause of this Bill. I should like to ask whether the Amendment has been submitted to them, and
    1994
    whether it has their approval, as I understand that it has the approval of the miners' federation.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. S. Walsh), particularly with reference to what he said as to the patriotism of those connected with the mining industry. I am sure that the Committee has listened with great satisfaction to the assurance which he has given on behalf of the men themselves that there is no intention on their part to create any difficulty during the War. The right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated upon the solution of the difficulty at which he has arrived. The only point we are concerned about is really the most effective method of preventing disputes. That can be dealt with, either by existing machinery, which the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied is efficient, or as provided by the Bill. I understand he has reserved power in the Bill to make the Proclamation only in cases where no efficient machinery is in existence. There has been for some considerable time past, and there exists to-day in the mining industry, very efficient and very well-tried machinery to deal with such disputes, and I feel quite sure that in the temper with which both the mine-owners and the miners themselves approach this question there will be no danger in accepting this particular Amendment. After all, the question turns far more upon the temper and upon the intentions of the parties themselves than upon any written enactment, and it is only by cultivating good relations between the employers and the employed, both in the mining industry and in other industries, that we shall secure avoidance of any disputes during the period of the War.
    Sir R. COOPER: Most of us will feel that we have got to be guided in this matter by the Minister of Munitions, but there are two points which I should like to raise. First of all, I cannot follow the hon. Member for the Ince Division (Mr. S. Walsh). Only this week the ordinary machinery so completely broke down in South Wales that it took three Cabinet Ministers to go down to settle the dispute. Secondly, I cannot understand the desire of hon. Members below the Gangway to exclude coal owners from having to give up a share of their profits as other munition manufacturers are going to do. Why should they be excluded? Why should not they be included? If this Amendment

    1995
    is passed, then, as I understand Clause 4, you will not bring the coal owners of this country under the Clause, and their profits will not be touched by this Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I had better answer the questions which have been raised. The hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) supposes a case of a dispute in a colliery supplying a railway company with coal, and he wants to know whether in that particular colliery this Proclamation could be applied. That depends entirely upon whether it is directly or indirectly connected with the output of munitions. If the running of the railway were essential for the purpose for the transport of munitions, then certainly in that case the machinery would have to be effective, and, if it were not effective, we should have to take other steps.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: If they settle the dispute, would it then apply?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, we do not propose to proclaim cases where disputes are settled. The second question put to me by my hon. Friend was a very important one. He said, "Suppose the men repudiate the action of their leaders and refuse to accept the decision?" Then certainly a Proclamation would apply, because those are not effective means, and Proclamation comes in where, in the opinion of the Ministry of Munitions, the means are not effective. If these are effective means, then we need not have a Proclamation. If they repudiate the action of their responsible leaders, then we shall certainly have to take other means by way of a Proclamation. That is the answer to the two points. I think the hon. Member will find that it is pretty watertight. We have considered this very carefully. He wants to see that, at any rate, there is a guarantee that there is no stoppage. That is the point that was put to the miners' representatives. I said, "Nothing short of something which is an effective guarantee." Personally, I should be prepared, and so would the House of Commons, to take their word, but there is always the possibility of the men perhaps repudiating the action of the miners' leaders. Therefore, they cannot always give a guarantee.
    Mr. BOOTH: Or the masters.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, there is the possibility of the masters repudiating
    1996
    the action of their committee. It has happened. The masters have refused to follow their leaders. Therefore, it is not enough that we should merely have machiney which appears to be all right on paper. We must have a guarantee that the machinery is effective, and, if it broke down as machinery, then we should have to substitute other means to suit the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) put to me the question whether I had consulted the cotton operatives. I saw the miners' leaders because they sought an interview with me, and if the cotton leaders had asked me of course I should have seen them. I have had a resolution from them. I am sorry that I cannot lay my hands upon it at the moment. It is substantially the resolution passed by the miners' leaders, which is a guarantee that there shall be no stoppage or strike during the War, and to the extent that it is effective we give exactly the same terms to the cotton operatives. This does not mean the exclusion of any particular trade. It is the adoption of machinery which is ever so much better, but if there is effective machinery in the cotton trade for making impossible, during the War, stoppages or strikes we shall certainly avail ourselves of that machinery. There is no difference here between our action with regard to the cotton trade and the action we propose to take with reference to the mining industry. The Amendment which I have moved is applicable to every trade alike, and for that reason I hope my hon. Friends will now see their way to accept it.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Does the moving of this Amendment prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking a percentage above the profits which otherwise he would get?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This has nothing to do with profits. It is purely a question of stopping strikes and lock-outs.
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. HODGE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
    "When this part of this Act is applied to any difficulty concerning work other than munitions work, the conditions of labour and the remuneration thereof prevailing before the difficulty arose shall

    1997
    be continued until such difficulty is settled in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 1 of this Act."
    I apologise to the Committee because this Amendment has not been placed upon the Paper. It is not my fault. We took advantage of the offer of the Minister of Munitions to meet him and, if possible, come to an agreement on certain points. I understood that the suggestion I am making had been accepted, and that the right hon. Gentleman intended to give effect to it by putting the Amendment down, but he has not done so, and, of course, I have not had an opportunity of doing it myself. The point is that, so far as munitions of war are concerned, the various trade unions have agreed that laws, written or unwritten, shall be put aside; semi-skilled labour will take the place of skilled labour, and women will take the place of men, if they can do the work. That was agreed to, as far as the production of munitions was concerned, without trouble, doubt, or hesitation. But the workshop may be a controlled one in which civil or commercial work is being carried on at the same time, and the employer may say to his workmen who are doing this civil or commercial work, "I want the same relaxation of rule on our commercial work as you have granted so far as munitions are concerned." We say that the employer has no right to ask such a thing, and, if he does try to get such a concession, he ought first to consult our views, and come to an agreement with the workmen before any such relaxation of rules is put into force. We want to be protected in that way in controlled establishments. Agreement must be come to before any alteration of conditions is effected.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The one thing I am a little afraid of is that the wording of this Amendment will interfere with the retrospective action of awards. I am not sure whether that is safeguarded, say, for instance, in cases where, as a result of the award wages are put up. I do not know whether it would render it impossible to have an increase of wages operating as from the date of the award.
    Mr. WARDLE: This question was put before the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, and the particular wording was given to him. This Amendment applies not so much to the question of wages as to the question of innovations or changes in rules which may be adopted in workshops other
    1998
    than those working on munitions of war. We wish to safeguard the position so as to ensure there shall be no innovations or changes of that kind except by agreement. The real object of the Amendment is to prevent these changes coming into operation, whether from one side or the other, until they have been settled by agreement.
    Mr. DUKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he cannot meet the difficulty by introducing into the hon. Member's Amendment words which would maintain existing conditions provisionally until the award has finally disposed of matters? That might be done by the insertion of half a dozen words.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am rather sorry I did not see the actual words before. What I am afraid is that the Amendment as framed might defeat the object which my hon. Friends have in view.
    Mr. HODGE: We are not bound up in any form of words. If the right hon. Gentleman is in agreement with us, as I think he must be, he will perhaps undertake, on the Report stage, to put in words which will cover the point we desire. I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment on that understanding.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps the better plan would be to insert the words here, and, on Report, if necessary, we can alter them. I will undertake the responsibility of doing that.
    Words proposed added.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I wish to say a few words in explanation of a statement which I made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden). I said that I should have been very delighted to meet the cotton operatives had they expressed a wish to meet me. I now understand that they saw the President of the Board of Trade upon this question. They did really communicate with the Government, and I want to make that plain.
    Mr. CLYNES: On the Motion that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the argument that he adduced against the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for

    1999
    Leicester, he can give an assurance that at least during the time the House may be in Session he will not exercise the personal power conferred on him by this Clause without some consultation with the House or some reference to the subject. If he agrees to do that I think the moral ground of objection disappeared. While Parliament is in Session the House should have an opportunity of considering these questions before the issue of the Proclamation. We are not accustomed in this country to be governed by Proclamation, and I believe there is a general feeling in all parts of the Committee against this instrument being applied without some opportunity being afforded to Members of the House to consider the situation. I believe, too, the moral effect of that consideration would go a long way in settling any serious dispute that might be pending in the country. Therefore I hope we shall have some such assurance as I have suggested.
    I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge) has been a little severe on a few sections of workmen who have exercised the right to strike in certain of the lower-paid trades. Happily for the mass of the men whom he so ably represents, they are highly paid and powerfully organised. They enjoyed high wages before the War began, and in many instances they have received considerable advances during the last half-year. But that position is quite unlike the position occupied by millions of other workmen and workwomen in this country. I say millions deliberately, because, as a matter of fact, the majority of the wage earners in this country have not yet received any advance whatever during the period of this War. Some industries powerfully organised have been able to look after themselves, but still a powerful organisation like that of the cotton operatives has not been able to get any advance of wages, and not five persons in a hundred in the cotton trade, in which so many thousands are employed, have received any advance. Consequently the pressure of the burden of high prices in regard to coal and other commodities which are necessaries of life is felt very severely indeed. While we are considering these matters we ought to bear in mind that these people are not in receipt of high wages and have had no advance during the period of the War.
    I wish also to put a question in relation to the words "as affecting the employment
    2000
    on the manufacture." I have my own view of what they mean, but I understood the Minister of Munitions to state, for instance, that coal was a commodity of which it could not be said it was directly affected by this work. Take the case of quarry workers and chemical workers. The product their labour produces is eventually used in connection with the manufacture of munitions of war, and into the smelting of steel and into various branches of the iron and machine trades these products eventually find their way. I desire to ask whether chemical workers and limestone producers would be considered as being outside the first portion of Clause 3? I ask these questions because I am intimately acquainted with such sections, and naturally such points will arise.
    Sir J. SIMON: As my hon. Friend has raised two points, perhaps I may be allowed to deal with them now, because I am sure that the Committee as a whole will desire that we should not have a very long discussion on this Clause in view of the very important matters which remain to be raised. I should like, in the first place, to deal with the first point put by my right hon. Friend. He urged that, at any rate if the House of Commons were sitting, it might be possible and desirable that the Minister of Munitions should intimate to the House and announce plainly to the House how far he was finding it necessary to exercise, from time to time, the power to secure the extension of this Clause by Proclamation. I have the authority of my right hon. Friend for saying that he thoroughly sympathises with that suggestion. The difficulty which we felt, and still feel, in regard to the proposal that we should get a Resolution from the House of Commons remains, but it is certainly an advantage that an intimation and plain announcemet should be made to the House as promptly as possible—that is to say, immediately—if any occasion is found to arise when this Power of Proclamation must be exercised. [An HON. MEMBER: "After or before?"] It would be much better that it should be done openly and publicly. I am convinced it will only be done in cases where public necessity requires, and, if public necessity requires it, I am convinced that the whole House of Commons will approve of it. My right hon. Friend is asked if he will invite the House of Commons to discuss the exercise of that power. When you are dealing with a matter which

    2001
    is so urgent, it requires to be dealt with immediately; but he says he will immediately announce the action he has taken and he will thereby expose himself to the criticism which the House, in case of need, will administer, and he will thereby promptly be able to ascertain whether his action is such as receives the support, as I trust it will, of the whole House of Commons. To that extent I am glad to be able satisfactorily to answer the question raised.
    The other question raised by my hon. Friend was with regard to limestone workers and chemical workers. I doubt whether, at this moment, we can make a precise list of those who are and those who are not coming within the first part of this Clause. I am not so familiar with the trades as the hon. Member, who speaks with special authority, but I should think that chemical workers, supposing the chemical was required for use in war, might well come under the words dealing with those employed in the manufacture of articles required for use in war. I am not quite clear that limestone workers could be described as being engaged in a manufacture. I should have supposed not. At any rate, that is the dividing line. Anyone who is employed in the manufacture or repair of any article that is required for use in war comes within the first half of this Clause. Any extension is an extension limited to the necessities of the War and is secured, as the Committee knows, by Proclamation. I am very glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that, so far as opportunity offers, the Proclamation shall certainly be intimated to the House forthwith.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: This Clause is very important in view of the Amendment which has been carried and which was moved by the Minister of Munitions in regard to meeting the difficulties of the cotton trade and the coal trade. I should like to know now whether that Amendment will apply to the iron and steel trades. They are manufacturers of munitions. The iron and steel trades, to my knowledge, never do strike. There is a probability that they may come within the Bill. The iron and steel trades are in favour of conciliation and arbitration. Every dispute must go before a standing committee within seven days of its arising. They have a standing chairman. Since 1868 they have never had a strike—I am speaking of the north of England—except on one occasion, namely, in 1882. It is very hard, when these men
    2002
    continue in work regularly, without any strike and without any bother, having their process of settlement of disputes continuous as it is by this method—in which they are an example to all trades in the country—that there should be a probability of bringing them within a Bill like this, when trades that do strike, such as the cotton trade and the coal trade, are really to be exempted. I remember the Truck Act of 1896. When that measure was going through the House of Commons these trades came and obtained exemption, but they forced the Truck Act upon women's trades. That is what I complain of. To-day we have seen trades coming here and practically getting exemption. I want to know now from the Home Secretary whether trades that have their boards of conciliation and arbitration, if they elect to continue those Boards—
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I must protest. The hon. Member ought to have listened to the Amendment which I read and the Committee accepted.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I thought we were on the Question, that the Clause should stand part of the Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes, but the hon. Member only needed to have read the Amendment, or to have listened to it, to know what the Committee has done and to get an answer to his question. We cannot go into that question now.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Controlled Establishments.)
    If the Minister of Munitions considers it expedient for the purpose of the successful prosecution of the War that any establishment in which munitions work is carried on should be subject to the special provisions as to limitation of employers' profits and control of persons employed and other matters contained in this Section, he may make an order declaring that establishment to be a controlled establishment, and on such order being made the following provisions shall apply thereto:—

    (1) Any excess of the net profits of the controlled establishment over the amount divisible under this Act, as ascertained in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall be paid into the Exchequer.

    2003

    (2) Any proposal for any change in the rate of wages, salary, or other emoluments of any class of persons employed in the establishment shall be submitted to the Minister of Munitions, and shall not be made without his consent:

    Provided that if the Minister of Munitions so directs, or if the Minister's consent is withheld and the persons proposing the change so require, the matter shall be referred for settlement in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, and the consent of the arbitration tribunal, if given, shall in that case have the same effect as the consent of the Minister of Munitions.

    (3) Any rule, practices, or custom not having the force of law which tends to restrict production or employment shall be suspended in the establishment, and if any person incites or encourages any employer or person employed to comply, or continue to comply, with such a rule, practice, or custom, that person shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

    If any question arises whether any rule, practice, or custom is a rule, practice or custom which tends to restrict production or employment, that question shall be referred to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade may either determine the question themselves or, if they think it expedient, refer the question for settlement in accordance with the provisions contained in the First Schedule to this Act. The decision of the Board of Trade or arbitration tribunal, as the case may be, shall be conclusive for all purposes.

    (4) The owner of the establishment shall be deemed to have entered into an undertaking to carry out the provisions set out in the Second Schedule to this Act.

    (5) Any person employed in the establishment shall comply with any regulations made applicable to that establishment by the Minister of Munitions with respect to the general ordering of the work in the establishment with a view to attaining and maintaining a proper standard of efficiency and with respect to the due observance of the rules of the establishment.

    2004

    If any person so employed acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any such regulations, that person shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

    (6) The owners of an establishment shall have power, notwithstanding anything in any Act, Order, or deed under which they are governed, to do all things necessary for compliance with any provisions of this Section, and any owner of an establishment shall comply with any reasonable requirements of the Minister of Munitions as to information or otherwise made for the purposes of this Section, and, if he fails to do so, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

    Where in any establishment munitions work is carried on in some part of the establishment but not in other parts, the Minister of Munitions may, if he considers that it is practicable to do so, treat any part of the establishment in which munitions work is not carried on as a separate establishment, and the provisions of this Act shall take effect accordingly.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I desire to ask your ruling, Sir, on what appears to be a very important question in connection with this Bill. Clauses 4 and 5 appear to be nothing less, in effect, than taxing Clauses. I know it may be said that they are not directly taxing Clauses, but I submit, with a great deal of confidence, that they come under the ruling that such Clauses cannot be entertained unless they originate by way of Resolution in Ways and Means. It is clearly laid down in the constitutional principle which vests in the Crown the sole responsibility for national expenditure, and which forbids the Commons to increase sums demanded by the Crown for the service of the State, which is strictly enforced in Committee of Supply and Ways and Means. What does Clause 4 do? This Clause increases certain Grants of money to the Crown. I think there is no getting away from that. It says that all the profits in excess of the net profits of the controlled establishment over and above the amount divisible
    "under this Act, as ascertained in accordance with the provisions, of this Act, shall be paid into the Exchequer."
    That is a sum of money exigible from somebody in these trades, which is going to be taken and passed into the Exchequer. If that is not a tax, I do not know what a

    2005
    tax is. I know a sum of money is to be taken from A, B, C, and D, and I admit that it is not taken from E, F, G, I, J, K, but that makes it all the worse. Here, in this Bill, you have a special application of a sum of money going to be taken from certain people and paid into the Exchequer for the use of the Crown. I submit, with all confidence, that that is a mode which must originate by Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means.
    The CHAIRMAN: This question, an extremely important one, was fortunately raised during the discussion of the Bill on the Second Reading. Therefore, I have had the opportunity of consulting with Mr. Speaker on the matter, not knowing which of us it might be who would have to give the decision.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I myself drew the attention of Mr. Speaker to it.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is so. The hon. Member drew attention to it during the Second Reading stage. I have had, therefore, fortunately, the opportunity of a conference with Mr. Speaker, as we did not know which of us it might be who would have to decide the point. The House is, and I hope also its authorities are, naturally very jealous of anything in the nature of a tax proceeding without the requisite procedure in Ways and Means. Therefore, I can assure the hon. Member and the Committee that this matter has been closely and carefully examined, and we have come to the conclusion that a Resolution in Ways and Means is not needed for the purposes of these Clauses. I think it may be described in this way: That these two Clauses contain an arrangement by which certain persons who receive certain benefits in the way of the relaxation of customs and rules will, at the same time, surrender certain financial advantages which would otherwise accrue to them, therefore, it is in the nature of a contract, in other words, a quid pro quo. Secondly, I think it may be looked at in this way: That the State proposes to give to certain establishments orders for war materials, and the limitation of the profit to be obtained by means of these orders is what in Committee of Supply we call an Appropriation-in-Aid—that is to say, that any amount beyond a certain produce shall come back to His Majesty's Government. That, I think, is the correct way of looking at the procedure of this Clause. I am very glad the hon. Member has been vigilant enough to raise this matter. I
    2006
    can assure him we shall jealously watch any attempt to impose any taxation without the proper procedure in Ways and Means.
    Sir R. COOPER: On a point of Order. May I ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether Clauses 4 and 5 do not propose an actual tax on certain sections of the community?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is the question I have just answered.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I do not want to interrupt the proceedings more than is necessary. I have listened to your ruling. Sir, with great care and interest. Certain points of it will have a certain bearing, probably, and I will repeat them and refer to them when we come to deal with certain parts of the Clause. There is a certain element of contract in this matter, but there may be points at which that contract does not apply and some relief may have to be granted. I thank you for your ruling, Sir.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the words "If the Minister of Munitions considers it expedient for the purpose of the successful prosecution of the War that any establishment in which munitions work is carried on should be subject to the special provisions as to limitation of employers' profits and control of persons employed and other matters contained in this Section, he may make an order declaring that establishment," and to insert instead thereof the words "The Minister of Munitions may, if he considers it expedient in the national interest to do so, make an Order declaring any establishment in which munitions work is carried on."
    This is an Amendment of a drafting nature, but I think it is rather important, because it makes the beginning of the Clause to my mind very much clearer. We had an instance just now when the Minister of Munitions informed the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) that it was necessary to say in twenty-one words what everyone else could say in seven. But I move this because I really think it is an improvement in drafting.
    Sir J. SIMON: I really do not think the change my hon. Friend proposes would improve the Clause. He recommends it as a drafting proposal and he thinks an improvement on the Bill, but really it is rather more than a drafting proposal. It differs from the Bill in two particulars.

    2007
    The Bill provides that this Clause for controlling establishments and limiting profits is only to be put into operation if the Minister of Munitions considers it expedient to use it to secure the successful prosecution of the War. My hon. Friend's proposal is that the power of this Clause should be used if it is expedient in the national interests to do so. That raises a very large question. Some people think it would be expedient in the national interest if the Minister of Munitions controlled everything. Other people possibly take the view that he ought not to have very wide powers. Surely he must limit this at any rate to the cases in which the Minister of Munitions considers it is necessary to use the Clause for the purpose of securing the successful prosecution of the War. There is a second difference. The Clause as drafted only applies if the Minister thinks the special provisions of the Clause ought to be applied. I do not think my hon. Friend's suggested change would introduce that limitation. While I am anxious that the Clause should apply in all proper cases it would only create needless alarm and concern if we make the Clause wider in this respect than it is as at present drafted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to move, to leave out the words "limitation of employers' profits and."
    I have subsequent Amendments to leave out Sub-section (1) and to strike out the whole of Clause 5. These Amendments are all directed against the Clauses which enable the Minister of Munitions to take a share of the employer's profit. I am not moving this with any hostility to the idea that profits out of the War should be taxed. I think they should be taxed, but the method which is proposed by this Bill is very inconvenient, and may work out in a very unjust manner to different classes of people. One has to look at Clause 4 to see what first of all is a controlled establishment. A controlled establishment consists of an establishment which the Minister of Munitions has by Order declared to be a controlled establishment, and it is only to that class of factory or works that this special system of taxation will apply. Of course, there are a great many other classes of individuals in the country who do not come under that definition at all who most of us have pretty good reason to suspect are making great
    2008
    profits out of the War, and I do not for the life of me see why they should be let off and only these particular establishments which are doing a special service to the State should be singled out. Suggestions have been made that unholy profits are being made out of food, out of transactions in clothes for the Army, out of coals, out of horses, and also out of timber. All the people who make these profits should have an opportunity of contributing their bit to the State audit is an entirely novel method of procedure to my mind, that the Minister of Munitions may select certain establishments and say, you are controlled establishments and you alone shall contribute, because that is, as I understand it, the method in which this Bill if it becomes law in its present form will operate. It only applies to those particular businesses which the Minister of Munitions selects, and it is they alone who will have the opportunity of making their special contribution to the national Exchequer. I do not think that is altogether right. There is another class which I think should have to bear the burden of a little direct taxation—that is the wage-earning class, those men who are earning very big wages as the result of the War.
    Mr. WARDLE: Is it in order to discuss taxation on this Amendment?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): Perhaps the hon. Member will indicate a little more particularly the point he wishes to raise.
    Mr. WARDLE: The hon. Member is discussing the question whether wages should be taxed and should pay something towards this War. I submit that that is a question which is not in order on this Amendment.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Chairman of Ways and Means ruled a little while ago that the question whether this was taxation such as would require a Resolution in Ways and Means did not apply to this Clause. I am not inclined to restrict the remarks of the hon. Member at present, but I will listen more closely to what he says.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: My point is simply this, that instead of the Minister of Munitions having the power to select this and that business for the purpose of taxation or contribution or limitation of profits—it all comes to the same—all classes should

    2009
    have their opportunity of contributing, and whatever system of taxation is adopted it should be universal and should apply to all. If you want to limit profits I cannot think of any fairer way than a swingeing Income Tax on all classes, and then exemptions in favour of those who can show that neither directly nor indirectly have they made any profits out of the War. That, to my mind, is a fair way of levying taxation. Certainly it is not a fair way and it is something entirely novel to give this power, and it is not a power which the House retains: It is given to a Minister to make a special levy on a special business and not only during the War, but for twelve months after the War. That, I think, requires a great deal more consideration than it has had. It does not stop at that. I want to have one discussion to deal with these different points. The Clauses as they stand mean that to ascertain what these profits are there will be a Committee or Commission of Inquiry, which will be very inconvenient and difficult. If you want to find out what profits a firm has made consequent on the War, the proper way is through the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Although my Amendment is directed to striking the whole of these Clauses out, yet it is not for the purpose of letting anyone escape, but rather with the object that the tax or levy, or whatever you call it, should be made applicable to all classes.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I am far from wishing to advocate the adoption of this Amendment being made operative in any way in the extremely extensive form in which it has been moved. I believe it has been arranged that on this Amendment something in the nature of a general discussion may be taken, and my object in rising is to elicit from the Government at as early a stage as possible a declaration of their view of what is to be the policy of the administration of this part of the Clause. I represent many thousands of working men who have their special locus standi in regard to any discussion which is now going on, and to them it is naturally a matter of concern to get some kind of prospect as to what is to be the principle of administration, both as to how the controlled industries are going to be selected and, secondly, as to what kind of principle is going to be adopted in regard to the restriction of profits. On the last of these questions we should like to know whether administration is going to proceed upon
    2010
    any principle more drastic than this, namely: Is more going to be done than to prevent any firm making unreasonable profits out of the War by charging extravagant prices, and is it going to be limited to profits which they might reasonably have been expected to make under normal conditions? The second question which is raised, though no doubt indirectly, upon which we wish to arrive at some kind of understanding as early as possible is this: It has been suggested in newspapers which I do not wish to advertise, but which undoubtedly get read by some of His Majesty's subjects, that when an industry comes to be controlled under this Act it will pass under some kind of discredit or stigma.
    There were some words used by one of the Ministers in a previous stage of the Bill which hinted that certain firms were deliberately restricting output in order to secure enhanced prices. As the right hon. Gentleman possibly knows, there is no place engaged in the manufacture of munitions which I believe has earned a better reputation for the loyalty and energy with which they have worked good time ever since the War began than the great city I have the honour to represent. We do wish to have it made as clear as possible that the selection of industries for control will go upon the principle that the industries are industries engaged directly or indirectly in furthering our success in the War by manufacturing munitions, and that it is not to be supposed in a single instance that because an industry is taken under the control contemplated by this Bill that it is exposed in the least to the suggestion that either the employers have held back output for the purpose of getting enhanced prices or that the workmen have not loyally in all cases put forth their best effort to secure the greatest possible output under the circumstances.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Although I cannot agree with the hon. Member who has put forward this Amendment, I go with him to a certain extent. He desires that all abnormal profits realised by traders during the currency of the War should be as to all or part of them transferred to the Exchequer, but he objects to the partial adoption of that idea as provided in this Clause 4. He went on to say that he could conceive that the Minister of Munitions might possibly select his friends here and there and lay upon them this embargo. He may have a closer knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman

    2011
    than I have, but I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would more probably select his enemy if he made any selection at all. Coming down to practical facts, are we not in this position? Faced with a gigantic need, the Minister of Munitions is empowered by this House to select certain firms. He is not going to deal with those firms or allow them to be dealt with on a normal basis at all. He is going to fill up their plant or add to their plant as much as possible, and enormously stimulate their production. Under those circumstances, the whole sense of the opinion of this country, I believe, vigorously supports the idea that that abnormal stimulant applied to these businesses shall not be a stimulant to the benefit of the owners, but that their profits should not be beyond what they would normally have been, or even beyond a commonplace or ordinary return for the capital they originally had in the business. That is the simple method that the Government have adopted. In a large number of cases these factories would be as to their nucleus the property of the shareholders, but as to the gigantic additions in many cases the property of the State. Large sums will be added in plant and equipment, which will represent a very great national holding.
    Mr. LOUGH(indistinctly heard): Can the hon. Gentleman point out in Clause 4 where it suggests that the State should provide the additional plant and equipment.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I will make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman's business knowledge. He has heard it from the right hon. Gentleman himself on the Treasury Bench that they intend to do everything in these businesses they take over to stimulate and augment their production. Does not that mean providing additional plant and equipment?
    Mr. LOUGH: I did not understand that.
    Sir W. ESSEX: If the right hon. Gentleman did not understand that, it seems to me that the rest of us have. The idea is, that we are not producing sufficient munitions. We have clothed the Government with authority to take over gigantic businesses and to augment their powers of production, and the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the most natural course to follow a decision of that kind would be to add whatever it may be necessary to add in equipment and plant, as
    2012
    well as men. Under those circumstances, a difficulty will arise, unless you take the whole of these abnormal profits, of assessing what amount of profit on the aggregate capital, national and private, would remain to each of the two parties contributing. Along that line the Government have taken the wiser course, especially in view of the national opinion—I think it is no less than a national opinion—that in these times of tremendous national stress and expenditure—expenditure which is to be borne by a large number of persons who are damnified and impoverished by the War—all profits arising out of the War which are more than normal profits shall revert to the State. Therefore I cannot support the Amendment, but I claim, and the hon. Member who moved the Amendment ought to see, that in taking the whole of that abnormal profit it would be an enormous gain to us if we can enlist on our side those businesses or factories which are taken over, and the owners will be enabled to say to us, "As you have done it unto us, you must do it unto others." By doing that, we shall be walking along the road which we all seek to travel.
    Sir R. COOPER: I am by no means opposed to taxing all abnormal profits in war time, and I am going to support the Amendment very cordially, because I think it is impossible for this House to contemplate giving a Minister of the Government the personal privilege of himself picking out firms in this country just as he likes and saying to one "Yes" and to another "No"; enabling him to say to one firm, "Your abnormal profits shall go into the Treasury," while his next door neighbour, engaged in an identical trade, may be putting the whole of his profits into his own pocket. The point I want to make is that to give such powers to any Minister or to any Government in times of war or in times of peace is totally unthinkable. It is a principle which has never been followed during the last hundred years of the history of this House. Secondly, it seems to me an extraordinary thing if there is any Minister in the present Cabinet who is willing to take upon himself such an extraordinary responsibility. No matter how honest or how careful that Minister may be who is clothed with these powers, he has got to pick and choose for reasons which may be good to him, but he must lay himself open to the grievous suspicion of exercising personal feeling and personal prejudice

    2013
    in any action which he may take. There is a more serious objection to the words as they stand in the Clause than that to which I have referred. The Hon. Member (Sir W. Essex) emphasised the fact that what we want is the production of more munitions. Yes, and the way the House proposes to get them is to penalise at once the very men you are appealing to to come forward and give up valuable work they may be doing because their machinery may be adapted for turning out some form of munitions. It is against human nature for people to do it. You may force them, and you may take their works, because you have the power to do it, but I am sure that everyone will agree that what we want to aim at now in order to get the good will of the whole country, and in order to get the immediate production of munitions, is not to use compulsion more than we can help, but to try to get the good will of these people by treating them properly and making it reasonably worth their while. But what we are going to do is to tax, presumably, the very establishment in which munition work is carried on.
    It is a fact that the right hon. Gentleman cannot take the profits of any other industry unless he can reasonably show that munition work is carried on. Is the coal-owner carrying on munition work? [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] What about the agents in this country who are making enormous sums of money—I have been accused of assisting them—and who have got enormous profits? Why should they get these enormous profits, while those who make the munitions are to be docked of any additional profits which they make? What of the other agencies and general manufacturers who are supplying the War Office with large quantities of goods? These, presumably, are excluded because they are not engaged in carrying on the manufacture of munitions of war. The point must be obvious, that first of all you are going to penalise the very firms that you want to support you at the present time, and you are going to allow others to go free. How can any individual or any firm in this country, no matter in what they are engaged, make a greater profit this year than the average of the last two or three years, unless in some form or other that increased profit has been brought about by the War? It must be. Every increased profit at the present time is a war profit, and therefore I do suggest that the Amendment my hon.
    2014
    Friend has moved is one of the most valuable I have heard so far on this Bill. I shall be extremely sorry if this Clause is passed as it stands. I think it is an iniquitous thing for this House of Commons to do, to penalise the additional profits of the very men who are working to make the goods you want, while you are going to allow the touts and the agents and others throughout the country to pocket large additional sums of money which they have made, and which I maintain are results of the War. I shall support this Amendment in every way I can, because while I approve of the principle in this Bill of taxing war profits, I want to make it clear that I believe in taxing war profits all round in a fair and equitable manner between all people.
    Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Baronet who has just spoken says that he desires to support this Amendment, which would omit all references to the limitation of employers' profits in controlled establishments, because he is attracted by the principle that war profits over a larger range should be taxed. This Clause does not prejudice that principle in any way. There are very good reasons, which I will point out, why this Clause should not go further than it does. If we were to attempt, or if anyone in this House attempted, to turn this Clause into a general tax upon war profits, it would be grossly out of order. The Bill which the House, by general consent, has allowed us to introduce is not a Bill for the taxation of war profits, but a Bill to facilitate the production of munitions of war. I know of no means by which, within the four corners of this Bill for facilitating the production of munitions of war, you can put in a Clause which says: "By the way, while we are about it, we will see that all war profits are taxed." That is not a possible Clause. I want to state quite deliberately and quite clearly that, while we deal with the matter in the way proposed within the limits of this Bill, by doing so, we in no way prejudice the principle of the taxation of war profits.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is it any part of the intention of the Government to do that?
    7.0 P.M.
    Sir J. SIMON: I think the hon. Baronet is an experienced Parliamentarian enough to know that that is a question which he had better put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, when he puts that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think he will find that the Chancellor of

    2015
    the Exchequer, being himself an experienced Parliamentarian, will not give an answer until he makes his actual proposal. What I say is that the principle of the taxation of war profits is not in the least prejudiced by anything proposed in this Clause, and indeed I would go further. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell) said just now that he felt as much as the hon. Baronet feels, that it may very well be that this Clause dealing in this way with the limitation of the profits of of employers in controlled munitions factories will be found in itself to be an argument which strengthens the contention for the more general application of the principle. All I say at the moment is that it is plainly not my duty—and it is beyond my function—that I should pronounce upon that. But I give the assurance with authority that the fact that we are now inviting the Committee to deal with the profits of this particular class of employers, in no way prejudges or prejudices the larger question, of which so many hon. Members have spoken as being one of so much importance.
    A second question which arises, which was also mentioned by the hon. Baronet, is undoubtedly a very important one, and one which is very close to the consideration of this Clause. He says that the scheme of this Clause is a scheme by which you are not going to permit the proprietor of the controlled factory to keep profits, save in so far as they correspond to past average profits which his establishment has previously earned, and he says—and I think there is force in the claim that he makes—that unless you make some adjustment in applying that principle, you really are not encouraging output as you should. I think that the Committee will see that there is force in that, and perhaps it may be convenient that I should indicate how we propose to deal with it. We propose that it should be dealt with in this way. The Clause, as the Committee knows, is a Clause which provides that the maximum of profits that can be divided in a controlled establishment is to be ascertained by reference to the standard. The standard is the standard arrived at by the past history of the earnings of the establishment. The standard is arrived at by taking an average of two years' profits before the War. We propose to take the years up to which the accounts of the business are normally
    2016
    calculated, not taking broken periods. I will propose an Amendment to that effect. Then we say that the divisible profits are not to exceed that which the average gives, plus a certain addition, namely one-fifth. That may be, and I submit that it is, a perfectly good rule to lay down to start with, but it is quite impossible, as I pointed out on the Second Reading, that that rule should be applied like a cast-iron rule, without any reference to the special circumstances of the special case. I will give two illustrations to show that that is so.
    The first is this: Suppose you have got two businesses, which, before the War, were each of them, let us say, carrying on a volume of work and producing an output represented by a turnover of £100,000 a year. Suppose that each of these businesses before the War was earning a profit which would amount to 10 per cent. on the turnover. That would be £10,000 a year. Now our standard, which is the standard with reference to past earnings, would therefore be £10,000 plus one-fifth of that, or a total of £12,000. Suppose that one of those factories, when it becomes a controlled factory, is prepared to throw itself into the work of producing munitions of war to such an extent that it doubles its shifts at work and goes in for an expenditure which may in itself not be permanently remunerative, and as a result is able to double its output and in consequence produces £200,000, instead of £100,000 of turnover. Since the divisible profits of that establishment are fixed by the rule, not by reference to future performances, but by reference to past earnings, that establishment would only be able at a maximum to keep a profit of £12,000. But after all, if it still was able to make a profit of 10 per cent. on its turnover, the profit which it would make would not be £10,000. The profit would be £20,000.
    Therefore that establishment, merely because it threw itself with all its energy into the work of making munitions of war, would find that only a portion, though, it is true, a substantial portion, of its earnings would be divisible as its own profit. If the other establishment which starts at exactly the same level, and has before the War had a turnover or £100,000, and which before the War was earning £10,000 on that turnover, does not show equal energy, but only increases its output to the amount of £120,000, then a profit of 10 per cent. on that turnover will yield

    2017
    £12,000, neither more nor less. And since £12,000 is no greater than the amount which it has a right to keep, it will be able to keep every penny of the profit which it has made as a result of the extra work. The result is that of the two establishments side by side, starting on exactly level terms, which can produce exactly the same ratio of profits to turnover, the one that makes the slight effort is able to keep the whole of its profit and the one that makes a great effort will find that the profit which it makes is, to a very large extent, diverted. I am not saying, if the profit is large, that there should not be such a rule, but as between those two cases it is perfectly plain that some adjustment has got to be made. I do not mean to say that the adjustment should be merely proportional or arithmetical. I can well see that, when you come to a certain limit of profits, it is quite right, even in the case of a factory which has thrown its utmost energy into the work, that this Clause should apply, and that the divisible profits should be less than the profits actually made, but we must have some adjustment, and I will tell the Committee in a moment what is the adjustment proposed.
    Next, let me give another example. You may have the case of an establishment which before the War did not succeed in making any profit at all, or was making only a very small profit. I remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington mentioned this case on the Second Reading. You may find that, owing to that establishment being controlled and its energy being thrown into the making of munitions of war, the capital which has been invested in it, and which for years has not been able to produce a return on the investment, is now producing a large return. I do not think that it would be right to say there, simply because no profit has been earned in the past, that it therefore follows that the whole of the profit which that establishment makes under the new conditions, should be forfeited, and therefore I do ask the Committee to agree that some sort of adjustment should be regarded as possible there. I give those two illustrations to show, first, that while the rule which we lay down is as we consider a very fair rule, and I do not see any reason why it should not operate, yet it should be made plain that within proper limits adjustment on these points should be quite possible. I do not want to discuss one Amendment while we are dealing with another, but it
    2018
    will be convenient when we come to the end of the next Clause (Clause 5), to provide that among the rules which the Minister of Munitions will make for working out this scheme, are rules to ensure due consideration being given, in carrying out the provisions of this Section as respects any establishment, to any special circumstances, such as increase of output, the provision of new machinery or plant, the alteration of capital, or other matters which require special consideration in relation to that particular establishment. I think that words of that sort will make it plain that, having thought it over, we are anxious to endeavour to meet that sort of point.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is that the new Amendment?
    Sir J. SIMON: It is going to be proposed at the end of the next Clause. But that does not mean that we consider that whatever profit is earned by one of these controlled establishments belongs, as divisible profits, to the proprietors of these establishments. You must preserve as an essential part of the scheme that there should be this division between the proprietor and the Exchequer, and it may very well be, that, having made that good and shown that it works, the argument which hon. Gentlemen opposite have urged in favour of the taxation of war profits, will be thereby fortified.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask whether the division of profits with the Exchequer will be arrived at after deducting Income Tax or before?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that I can go into that.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: It is rather a big matter.
    Sir J. SIMON: It is rather a big matter, and if the hon. Gentleman had his way it would be a bigger matter still. He thinks that there should be a good swinging Income Tax upon all profits, but I do not think at this particular stage that this particular point is one upon which I can be expected to rule now. What we propose to do now in this matter is to be guided by a strong, impartial, small Committee, who will constitute the Board of Referees to deal with this matter. I am authorised to announce that the chairman will be Sir Henry Babington Smith, whose name will be universally accepted as that

    2019
    of a man who is wholly independent in himself and qualified by his great experience and his grasp of things to deal with these matters. We propose to add two others, but I cannot yet give their names, because we have not yet had answers to the invitations which we have sent out. One will be an accountant, and the other a man of commercial experience, and we think that such a tribunal is probably the best tribunal that can be created for dealing with these particular cases.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I desire to ask a question as to the Committee which, the right hon. Gentleman suggests now, are going to officiate on this question of extra profits, instead of the Commissioners of the Income Tax. I take it, that they will not have access to all the files of the Commissioners of Income Tax, because those files, I believe, are, under Statute, secret and private?
    Sir J. SIMON: Really I must ask to be excused from replying to that. After all, the hon. Gentleman moved this Amendment, to omit the whole thing, because he said that the general question was of importance. I have not considered that point. If he desires the Commissioners of Income Tax to be dealt with in this Bill, he must put down an Amendment on the point. In matters of that sort I feel certain that those with whom we are dealing will see that, in the interests of everybody, the more information that is given the better, and that, on the other hand, confidences must be properly preserved. There are two other points. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hallam (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) asked first what was the principle on which we should seek to determine what firms would become controlled firms. I am very glad that he raised this question, because it is a very serious misunderstanding, if it was supposed that to proclaim a firm as a controlled firm was anything to that firm's discredit; it is very much the opposite. The scheme is that you should get, on the one hand, the supplies and the control of labour, which this Bill involves, in controlled firms, and that, on the other hand, you should entrust them with the responsible work of producing munitions of war as fast as possible. Those circumstances are not to the discredit of the firm. They show that it is a firm that you rely upon to give the nation the utmost assistance at a time of great crisis and importance. Certainly it
    2020
    would be the exact contrary to our rule if it were supposed that wherever a firm is turned into a controlled firm that involves some stigma upon it.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Or its men?
    Sir J. SIMON: Or its men; and the same thing, of course, is true about the men who are employed. My right hon. Friend has a knowledge of Sheffield, and nobody disputes that Sheffield has worked splendidly in producing munitions of war—both employers and men. The very fact that we have supporting this scheme leaders of the trade union movement, the very fact that it is being assisted by a great volunteer army of munition workers, is quite sufficient to cause Part II. of this Bill not to be regarded as a stigma on anybody, whether employer or workman, The other question which the right hon. Gentleman asked was as to what are the methods by which we propose to administer this Clause for the limitation of profits.
    Sir WILLIAM PEARCE: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whit kind of firms are going to be controlled at the option of the Minister of Munitions—what firms he is likely to take?
    Sir J. SIMON: I cannot, I am afraid, do more than say that every patriotic firm which seeks to do useful work, and would like to be controlled, has only to apply to the Minister of Munitions.
    Sir W. PEARCE: Will all the firms that make munitions be controlled?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not say that is so, but inasmuch as it is highly desirable that we should get the Ministry of Munitions in close connection with the work of making munitions, it will be obvious that this is not intended to apply merely to cases here or there, but an attempt to make munitions, partly by controlling labour and partly by controlling profits, within such limits as will enable munitions to be produced as rapidly as possible. I do not think I can give an answer more specific than that. There is this second point, namely, what is the principle on which we act to ascertain the divisible profits. I do not dispute that the principle must be what the right hon. Gentleman said, namely, that we must in this matter act reasonably, and distinctly on the understanding that what we are carrying out is really something in the nature of a bargain between two sides. You cannot fairly

    2021
    ask the skilled workmen, whose labour is essential to the production of munitions, to put themselves under the Clauses of this Bill, as I believe they are, broadly speaking, quite willing to do, unless you make it perfectly plain that the extra exertions which they are willing to undergo shall not be simply and solely for the purpose of rolling up the profits of private individuals. That is the essence of the bargain, and we shall be just as much breaking faith with the workmen on their side if we forgot that, as we would be breaking faith with the employers if we did not see to their reasonable requirements, in view of the special circumstances. I hope that the explanation I have given will shorten discussion, seeing that there are other specific points that will arise.
    Mr. LOUGH: I am very glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman finds that there is something to which to call the attention of the House in regard to the proposals which the Government have brought forward, and hon. Friends of mine in maintaining the rights of labour should be very careful indeed that they do not overstep their responsibility. The Minister invariably pleads that we could not ask labour to do this unless we ask employers to do something else—[An HON. MEMBER: "Quite right!"]—and then the Government frame the precise proposals which they submit. I am rather a heretic on this question of profits, and I hold that this House has to take a broad, national view in this emergency by looking at wages just as at profits. I have often fought the battles of labour, and upheld the rights of labour, because I represent a large labour Constituency, and have endeavoured to see that workmen are properly remunerated for all they do and that capital should not get too much out of them; but this proposal says, in effect, that the workmen and employers shall not be able to adjust matters between themselves, because the Government come in and take the whole of the surplus profits. The Government stand between the two—a shell to each and the oyster is the lawyer's fee. The Government takes the profits and leaves capital and labour to settle with one another. That is a position that ought to be carefully examined before the House approves of this proposal. It is absolutely necessary, though we are in Committee, to have a sort of Second Reading Debate on these Clauses. The Government have
    2022
    practically admitted that their proposals are impracticable.
    The object of the Bill is to take the profits of two periods before this year and to add one-fifth to the profits of the controlled establishment during the War period. In a conference which I had the pleasure of having with the Attorney-General I pointed out to him how absurd the proposal was—I do not want to use strong language—I pointed out that the thing would not work, and I am glad to see, at any rate, that the right hon. Gentleman sees that it will not work. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech introducing the Bill, said that the means of supplying munitions were quite inadequate and that we had to mobilise new sources of supply. How are new sources of supply to be obtained? Perhaps some firm making motor cars have no profits at all in the two years previous to the War. Under the Bill the Government come in and the firm does most useful work and makes a large profit, having had no profits in the previous two years. What are you going to do? Are you going to give them no profits at all? That is the proposal of the Bill. My right hon. Friend, however, has seen the necessity of altering it, and the Government have an Amendment to submit. I am afraid that it does not go far enough. We have only seen that Amendment in writing this afternoon and the fact that it is to be proposed shows that in this respect the Bill is unsatisfactory. That Amendment will have to be very closely studied indeed by the House before accepting it. If you do not take care you will get into difficulties of which the House has no conception.
    Are the Government to have no contracts? Are the Government not going to make contracts? Is the Minister to go into an establishment as a sort of partner, and say, "I want no contract," and large orders are given for munitions. If contracts are set aside then the State is in the gravest danger of all sorts of mismanagement in the factory, and of munitions being produced at a gigantic price, and profits will be of a fictitious character, which the State will have to pay. Suppose you have no contracts and you take profits from those firms, what is to be done in regard to the men under their contracts? They have earned a certain amount of money, and are you going to say that you are going to take all that back. It is an extremely difficult situation, and you cannot solve it by the crude remedy of the

    2023
    Bill. I want the House to note the difficulty into which the Government has got. There are two Amendments already on the Paper modifying very much Clause 5 in the direction already indicated, and now there is to be another Amendment which I venture to state will also be found to be most unsatisfactory. I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for referring to that Amendment, but he will not mind my looking into it, for when it was read I saw there were one or two points it did not cover. I do not take it further than that, and if I have used too strong an expression in regard to the Amendment I withdraw it. To use the mildest language, the Amendment will require to be carefully examined by the House.
    I should like to make one remark on the general question. The picture which has been drawn of the extent of profits which have been made, I honestly believe to be pure romance. It is most unworthy that it should appear in any public journal as the ideal of what is going on in this country at the present time. In regard to the profits which are being made out of the War it is true that some businesses are making profits while others are not. The plain fact is that, on the whole, business is not prosperous. There are some businesses making a good deal of money, while other businesses are losing a great deal of money. Do you think that you should consider profits without considering losses? Will the Government say that if there be a profit in a controlled establishment they will take it, and if there is a loss in a controlled establishment they will not make it up? What sort of a partner is he taking the profits and does not make up the losses? It would be a case of heads I win and tails you lose. If there is a profit the Government take it; and if there is a loss they have nothing to say to it.
    The Member for the Attercliffe Division asked a question about two firms the other day. He referred to John Brown and Co. as having made £200,000 extra. Has the Government noticed this? What is the Government going to do? I inquired what labour got extra out of John Brown and Co. during the year. I find, to my astonishment, that 55,000 men were employed by the firm, and I calculate that labour got 8s. per week per man extra, or £20 each more on the average during that year. That means that labour got one million one hundred thousand pounds
    2024
    extra owing to the War out of that one firm. The shareholders got about one hundred and fifty thousand pounds, or, I think, 12½ per cent., whereas they often got 20. Remember that the same people very often own businesses in the country, some of which are prosperous and some of which sustain losses. If you take away the profits where they are made, what are you going to do about the losses? I think the House ought also to remember that no one has to contribute to the Income Tax under £160, and all these profits pay Income Tax and Death Duties. Those may be raised still further, and, if so, that is a just line for the State to take. Tax profits openly and fairly all round, if you will; but to pick invidiously and take certain businesses is a very difficult principle to establish. I do not mean to quarrel with the Government, because I notice that some of the large firms do not object to this rate. For instance, the chairman of John Brown, Limited, said that they are quite satisfied with an extra 20 per cent. over the average.
    Sir J. SIMON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not say "extra 20 per cent.," as that is likely to be misleading to the public. What he means, of course, is a fifth added to the profits which the firm otherwise would make.
    Mr. LOUGH: I spoke to a friend of mine the other day, and he said: "Look at what will happen, a dividend of 15 per cent. will be increased to 35 per cent." I knew better, and that the 15 per cent. dividend could only be increased to 16 or 17 per cent., and that a 10 per cent. dividend could only be increased to about 12 per cent. If the firms are satisfied with the arrangement, I have no complaint to make, except this, that other businesses which have no figures to show and which are in a difficult position and may serve the State well ought to be treated well. I am afraid the Clause, as in the Bill is not watertight, and I hope the Government may be able to make it fair to all parties—a result which I believe the representatives of labour would like just as much as the representatives of capital.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I do not propose to follow the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which I think would have been far better delivered on the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. LOUGH: I was not called upon.
    Mr. ANDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman not having been called upon has now given us a Second Reading speech. I do feel if we are going to get through with the Bill the fewer Second Reading speeches we have the better.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Will the hon. Member make some allowance for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman for the first time finds himself able to speak from the box?
    Mr. ANDERSON: The speech of the Home Secretary seemed to me very largely to defeat and demolish the original proposals of the Government on this question, and when he had finished there was very little left of the original proposals in regard to the question of the limitation of profits as put forward in the Bill. He made some most damaging criticisms, in which I fully share, of the very rough and ready arrangements made in this matter. Let me call the attention of the Committee to a leading article in the "Financier" which compared the present profits of the large armament firms with the profits they would get if you had taken the average of the two years before the War and added one-fifth to them. It works out in a most astonishing fashion, and it proves that if many of those large firms two years before the War were being fed by Government orders and were being worked to the full there would practically be no interference with the profits, and, on the other hand, the firm which was doing nothing at all practically for those two years, but which had made some profits since the War, would be liable to have the whole of that profit swept away. Take the firm of Armstrong. For the past year they made £801,000. Under the limitation they would have been entitled to make £832,000. Vickers, Sons, and Maxim made £1,019,000, and with the limitation they would be entitled to make £1,066,000. Kynochs made £152,000, and with the limitation they would have been allowed to make £189,000. The Birmingham Small Arms Company made £190,000 profit, and they would have been entitled to make £226,000. Then take the other side. Thorneycrofts last year made £107,000, but if this Bill had been in operation under the limitation they could only have made £26,000. I say there is need for a better and a fairer method of settling this matter, and I entirely agree that the principle ought not to be merely concerning armament firms, but should apply generally to all profits, and should not be
    2026
    worked in the ridiculously unfair manner put forward in the Bill.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: The difficulties the Government find themselves in are not limited to those set out by the Home Secretary. We were told that there was a sort of bargain, or quasi bargain, and that the Government were giving up something, and as a quid pro quo the firms ought to give up something, too. Assuming that, I ask what are you going to do with those firms with whom you entered into binding contracts as far back as January or February or last December? Is this participation of profit to begin from the date on which they are controlled establishments or not?
    Sir J. SIMON: That is so.
    Mr. HENDERSON: If you read the provision further on it states that you are to take the average from the last balance-sheets prior to the War. The last balance-sheet may be six months before the War, or there may be three months of the War period in it, and what are you going to do in that case? Take a company which makes up its balance-sheet to the 31st December last, or the 31st March of this year. The profits up to those dates may include many months of war time, and those companies may have made their distribution and paid a dividend to the shareholders, and are you going to touch those profits? This shows that you are not so familiar with this sort of thing as I am, with all your clevreness.
    Sir J. WALTON: It is the average of two years before the War.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Many of the balance-sheets are not determined until the 31st December or the 31st March, and do you absorb the profits made in the War period?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not think we can go on by question and answer, but this is a point which I am sure my hon. Friend will allow me to clear up. I do not think that the matter has been made quite clear to him yet. There are two distinct things to be done, one is the ascertaining of what is your standard figure and the other is ascertaining what is your divisible profit. The two things are quite different. The standard figure is got by looking at the past history of the concern. The past history of the concern is to be got by taking the average of the net profits in the

    2027
    two years which preceded the outbreak of war. If the year does not come to an end till after the 4th August of last year, that is not the year you take, but you take the year before that and the year before that again. There is no question of taking any of those profits, which are probably distributed. In fixing what is the maximum amount of divisible profits you take as the maximum the amount of the average of the profits of those two year preceding the War, plus one-fifth, subject to the adjustments which I indicated just now.
    Mr. HENDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not made it quite clear, at all events to me. There is an interim period between the commencement of the War and the taking of the ordinary balance-sheet. These firms cannot make balance-sheets every day, and the work of taking stock is tremendous. From August to March they may have made considerable profits, and are those profits to be reckoned in although the firms are not at present controlled?
    Sir J. SIMON: No, I said so just now.
    Mr. HENDERSON: The difficulties with regard to those who have not been making any profit have been pointed out, and there are other cases in which the firms may have been able to pay 3 or 4 per cent. preference dividend but nothing on the ordinary stock for perhaps ten years. They may now produce £1,000 profit and they would get nothing. There is yet another case. We know there are a great many engineering firms who from last December have contracted to supply shells to a very large extent. They have found that they required certain plant and buildings, and the Government have advanced them thousands of pounds. In one case £50,000 has been advanced. The Government have not taken the premises; they have not adopted the business; they have not taken it over; they are not responsible for the liabilities. They simply "control" the business, and the meaning of "control" is simply that they regulate any questions that may arise between the employés and the proprietors. That is practically all. They may see that things are properly delivered, kept up to time, and so forth, but the main function of control is to settle questions of dispute, if there are any. No doubt if any of these factories want any additional men they will be controlled before they get them. Suppose they spend £50,000 on plant and the War
    2028
    is over in twelve months, what are you going to do with that firm? How are you going to arrive in the meantime at the profit? The question bristles with difficulties. The simple plan would have been to have said nothing about it, and in your next Budget to have put a smart tax upon all profits of every kind in excess of the average of the last two or three years. My hon. Friend says that very likely that will be done. That would not be limited to armament firms, but would affect provision merchants, metal merchants, cloth manufacturers, chemical manufacturers, millers, and so forth.
    The simple plan would be to drop the present proposal altogether. But I suppose there is some bargain with the trade unions. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Is not the simple plan to drop this silly system, which will be very difficult to work? I suppose the Government will appoint a Committee. As soon as the Government get into trouble they appoint a Committee. They get into trouble again, they appoint another Committee. They appoint a Committee, and say, "Thank God, that is settled!" There is one other point which militates strongly against any special tax being put upon these people. These firms are giving up a great deal of their own business. They may make a good profit this year, but the moment the War ceases the reaction will come. There are staring them in the face years when they will have lessened work and depressed profits, and they have to make some sort of provision for that. All this tends to show that there is only one simple, honest, and straight-forward way of doing what ought to be done, namely, to put upon everybody such a tax as the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks he ought to get in addition to the ordinary tax on the ordinary profits. That would meet the case. There is also this to be said. You cannot offer men any inducement to do their best if you are going to mulct them of any special profits they may make by their energy and organisation. I submit that we ought to do away with this Clause altogether, and adopt the simple expedient of exacting in the ordinary Budget a good contribution beyond the ordinary taxes from all those who have made special profits.
    The CHAIRMAN: I suggest to the Committee that we might now come to the details of the Clause. It was an advantage that we should have a little wider discussion at the outset, but we ought not to go on in that way.
    Sir J. WALTON: The mainspring of this Munitions of War Bill is that an arrangement has been arrived at between the Government and the organised labour of the country. Organised labour on their part have undertaken in order to avoid strikes in all the works and trades of the country, to make no increased demands in respect of their labour. At the same time it was only reasonable that they should not be willing to agree to these conditions if, by reason of the increased efforts put forward by the workers, the employers were to reap enormously increased profits. That is the simple position. Though I see that the limitation of profits in controlled establishments is very difficult indeed of application, I think that under the amended provisions which will be introduced, it is practicable. Personally, I welcome this legislative limitation of profits in controlled establishments, because, to my mind, it gives an effective guarantee that, this principle will ultimately be extended to all the trades and manufactures of the country in regard to excess profits made during the War as compared with the profits made in the two years preceding the War I have tried to draw from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a statement that this is the policy that he will pursue, but naturally he does not desire to foreshadow the extra taxation proposals of the next Finance Bill.
    There is an overwhelming preponderance of opinion in the country that in no trade or industry ought the partners or shareholders to be able to enrich themselves personally owing to the War. I think that that is a principle which we can all accept, and I believe that the provisions of this Bill in relation to the limitation of profits are a beginning in that direction. The difficulty that one sees in applying that principle is that in the great majority of cases there are going to be converted into works for the production of munitions of war works which have been employed in other industries and have made different profits previously. Therefore, it appears somewhat difficult, owing to the absolute conversion of some of these business establishments, to apply that principle. But I think we have in the Bill the declaration of a sound principle and a sound policy—one that will, by the organised partnership between labour, capital, and the Government, best stimulate the increased production of munitions of war, which is so urgently needed, and
    2030
    help this nation in carrying to a triumphant issue the great struggle in which we are engaged.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in paragraph (1), to leave out the word "controlled" ["Any excess of the net profits of the controlled establishment."]
    This is merely a drafting Amendment. I think there ought to be some consistency in the way in which the expression "controlled establishment" is used. I would point out that in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) the word "controlled" is omitted, and I think it ought to be left out here.
    Dr. ADDISON: This paragraph refers to the profits of the controlled establishment, and I think it is necessary that the word should be retained here.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (1), to insert the words "and if the owner of any establishment shall wilfully fail so to pay any such excess he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour under this Act."
    This Amendment raises a very important question. I know it is not the best place to raise that question, which comes up, I think, on Clause 13.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better bring it up at the best place.
    Mr. KING: But there is another point which is very important. There is no provision for punishment for failure to comply with these provisions. For instance, a large sum of money might be involved in an offence, and a very inadequate penalty, by way of a fine, is all that could be imposed. I should like to have an answer on that point.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That question is dealt with in paragraph (6) and in Clause 11. I think we have amply safeguarded the point.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. King: At the end of paragraph (1), to add,
    "(2) Every person employed shall be entitled to at least one rest-day in each week:

    2031
    Provided that this provision may be suspended, either generally or as regards any particular establishment, by the Minister of Munitions."
    Mr. KING: This Amendment raises a very important point of principle, namely, the recognition of one rest-day in each week.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a point for the regulations.
    Mr. KING: Then I will not move it now.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in paragraph (2,) to leave out the word "change" ["any proposal for any change in the rate of wages"], and insert the word "reduction."
    8.0 P.M.
    The object of this Amendment is to prevent any reduction of wages. The word "change" in the Bill would prevent a reduction as well as an advance. In these times, considering the strenuous nature of the work in which these men are engaged, any proposal for a reduction of wages ought not to be entertained. With the object of preventing that I move the change in the words.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not suppose that there will be any reduction of wages suggested. It is conceivable; but if anything of the sort arises, it can be dealt with especially under the first three Clauses of the Act, and not under this one.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, in paragraph (2), after the word "establishment" ["employed in the establishment"], to insert the words "or of any persons engaged in the management or the direction of the establishment."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, in paragraph (2), after the word "establishment" ["or the direction of the establishment"], to insert the words "(other than a change for giving effect to any Government conditions as to fair-wages or to any agreement between the owner of the establishment and the workmen which was made before the twenty-third day of June, nineteen hundred and fifteen)"
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. R. MACDONALD: I beg to move, in paragraph (2), to leave out the words "and shall not be paid without his con-
    2032
    sent," in order to insert instead thereof, "who may withhold his consent within fourteen days of the date of the notice."
    The object of the Amendment is, briefly, that as the Bill stands all changes shall be approved by the Minister.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Member for Leicester will move his Amendment to include the words he has handed in to the Chairman, it will not be necessary for me to move my next Amendment.
    Mr. R. MACDONALD: I will move that, and will put it in that form. So long as the point is agreed to it will save the Minister a great deal of trouble, and enable things to move much more quickly. If the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the idea, I will not press the Amendment now, but if there is any doubt about it, it can be left over, considered, and put in on Report.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the best plan would be to insert the further words now, and we can consider the matter later.
    Mr. CAVE: The effect of this Amendment, as it is on the Paper, is to leave out the words "and shall not be made without his consent," but if we leave out those words, the Clause does not provide as to what happens if the consent is withheld. The proper plan would be not to leave out anything, but to insert the hon. Member's words, after the words "Minister of Munitions," and then provide on as proposed by the Minister of Munitions, that the change "shall not be made without his consent."
    Mr. R. MACDONALD: My point is this: There will be a great many changes. It is quite useless to ask the Minister of Munitions to give his consent, until, as my idea is, all changes should be reported. The Minister can object to those changes to which he does not agree. I want something further than merely to object to these changes. If my words are put in it will save an enormous amount of labour, and give the right hon. Gentleman exactly what he wants.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, in paragraph (2) at end, to insert the

    2033
    words, "If the owner of the establishment makes any such change, or attempts to make any such change, in contravention of this provision he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
    Mr. HODGE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Proposed Amendment, after the word "establishment" ["if the owner of the establishment"], to insert the words, "or any contractor or sub-contractor employed on labour therein."
    I understand the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept my Amendment to his Amendment, so that the sub-contractor or any contractor working in respect of any particular controlled establishment would come under these obligations as an undertaker.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept that Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, inserted.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in paragraph (2), to insert at the end, the words, "Provided that no change shall be approved which increases the recognised working hours before the establishment became a controlled establishment unless the additional hours are paid for at overtime rates."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I take it that the effect of this Amendment would be that it would be possible to increase the hours without giving any additional pay; but the Amendment is out of place. The Clause under discussion is concerned with a change of wages and not with a change of hours. My hon. Friend might look into the matter, and if he is of the same opinion as he is now I will consider it on Report. Perhaps he will come and see me before the Report stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in paragraph (2), to insert at the end the words: "Provided further that in considering any application for an advance of rates or wages the tribunal shall take into account any increase in the prices of necessaries which may have taken place since the beginning of the War, or since the previous advance of wages or rates was made."
    I am quite sure that there are no workmen who are not anxious to put forth their very best endeavours at a time like this.
    2034
    Only two things militate against that. They are a belief or knowledge that they are working, not for the State but for the profits of private individuals, and, secondly, that any addition that may be gained in overtime, or slightly increased wages, are taken away by a more than corresponding increase in the cost of living. The Bill proposes, with more or less success, to deal with the first of these difficulties clearly by the limitation of the profits of the employers. The Bill proposes to do nothing at all to deal with the second and, in some respects, the more important matter. Therefore, with the object of aiding the purpose of this Bill, I want these words inserted. They are not mandatory. They are a recommendation, and provide that in any application for an advance of wages those concerned should take into consideration any increase in the cost of living that may recently have taken place. I submit this Amendment to the Government with every confidence. I am quite sure that it has been an oversight on their part, and that they will be very grateful to me for having given me the opportunity of incorporating this in the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have a little doubt as to this Amendment being in its proper place.
    Dr. ADDISON: The effect of the Amendment, to my mind, would be rather to fetter the discretion of the tribunal than otherwise. It would obviously be one of the first considerations of any tribunal to consider the rise in the cost of necessaries of life, but, if you put terms of this kind in the Bill, you assume that other matters, which may be equally important, are not to be held as being so important by the tribunal which is considering the case. If you specially mention the cost of necessaries of life you will fetter the discretion of the tribunal in considering other things, which may be equally material, in coming to a fair judgment. The Amendment does not in any way assist the hon. Member in achieving the object which he and all of us have in view.
    Mr. HODGE: Might I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw this Amendment? The question of the extra cost of necessaries of life since the War commenced has been taken into account in every case that has come before an arbitration tribunal.
    Mr. CLYNES: If all that can be said against the Amendment has been said by the hon. Member on the Treasury Bench I would enjoin my hon. Friend not to withdraw this Amendment. I understood the only reason that could be adduced against it was that it might preclude the consideration of other reasons. I am afraid my hon. Friend has not had the experience we have had in negotiating wage claims and in meeting tribunals that have had to decide them. The consideration of these matters is too often limited to pure matters of business. They might be quite free to consider the wage claim on grounds of the worth of the work and the value of the service, and if this Amendment were inserted it would be an instruction to the tribunal also to take into account the moral element in regard to these wage claims. There is a further reason for inserting it, and it is this: when this Bill becomes an Act the masses of the workmen affected by the Act will have to be reconciled generally to its working, and if we could point to the inclusion of a human feature of this kind it would go far in convincing them of its fairness, and that the constant rise in the prices of the necessaries of life would be taken into account in considering their wage claims. I press, therefore, the acceptance of this Amendment, which cannot interfere with the general working of the Bill.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I would like to add my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. I really see no reason at all why it should not be accepted, and I think there are important reasons why it should. Any labour troubles that we have had in this country, as I think was pointed out by the President of the Board of Education the other night, have come very largely as the result of a rise in food prices. In the earlier stages of the War there were no labour troubles of any kind, and it was only when the working people began to feel the rise in wages that restiveness began to show itself. There is going to be compulsory arbitration, and the strike weapon is no longer available. We are all agreed there should be no strikes while the War lasts; at the same time we should see that this question of the rise in food prices is going to be taken into account in coming to these decisions. It does not in the least preclude other considerations, and I see no reason why it should not be accepted. I press its adoption therefore very strongly upon the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope my hon. Friends below the Gangway will not interpret my hon. Friend's remarks to mean that we object to the price of food being taken into account. My hon. Friends know very well that, by rule of law, if you mention one thing you exclude others. My hon. Friends have really been arguing on the three first Clauses of the Bill, that the Arbitration Tribunal should take into account the price of food when it comes to settle the question of wages. I say frankly I should have opposed it there on the same grounds. The object of this Clause is to prevent the Slate being robbed by means of a collusive, arrangement between managers, foremen, directors, shareholders, and workmen. The moment profits get beyond a certain figure, it is possible to have a collusive arrangement among them all by which wages are increased, and I should have thought the hon. Member for Blackburn would be the last person in the world to take part in a conspiracy of that kind to rob the State. This is not the sort of Socialism in which I should have suspected him of taking a part. This Clause is an attempt to get honest Socialism, and I am surprised—the first time we are trying a real experiment—to find him against us. It is very sad to see him on the side of a predatory arrangement. I appeal to him, in the highest interests of Socialism, to support us here, and so prevent attempts to destroy an experiment in a direction to which he has devoted his life. We are going a short way with him in the direction he wishes, and I hope he will not join with those who would defeat that object. We must not fall amongst thieves on our path to the new Jerusalem to which he has been trying to lead us. I beg him not to join in these attempts to kidnap us in our attempt to put into practical operation those doctrines which I have heard him so eloquently preach in this House.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman has given us a most entertaining speech, but I am not quite willing to accept his reasons. I am very sorry indeed that I am not able to withdraw my Amendment, and I consider it is so important that I must press it to a Division.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 11; Noes, 79.

    Division No. 3.]

    AYES.

    [8.25 p.m.

    Anderson, W. C.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    King, Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Clynes and Mr. T. Richardson

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Snowden, Philip

    NOES.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pearce, Robert (Starts, Leek)

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham.)

    Beate, Sir William Phipson

    Horne, Edgar

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pratt, J. W.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Radford, G. H.

    Brace, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bull, Sir William James

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Clough, William

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Shaw, Alexander

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    M'Kean, John

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Duke, Henry Edward

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Wadsworth, John

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Gretton, John

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

    Nield, Herbert

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Nuttall, Harry

    Hodge, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Gulland and Mr. G. Roberts

    Hohler, G. F.

    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I now be allowed to make an appeal to hon. Members to get along as fast as we possibly can, or we shall be here till very late in the morning. It will be a great convenience if we can send the Bill up to the House of Lords to-night, in order that it may receive the Royal Assent to-morrow. I hope hon. Members will allow us to get on a little more rapidly, for at this rate we shall not get through with the Bill before four or five o'clock in the morning. I think it will be recognised that I have done my best to meet every section of the House, and I believe I have substantially met every point.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I was responsible for suggesting that the Eleven o'clock Rule should be suspended, but I should be very sorry to keep hon. Gentlemen here too long.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I would like to understand a little more clearly what the right hon. Gentleman asks the Committee to do. Although we have a considerable number of Amendments on the Paper, I think that no complaint will be made that we have spoken at any length. I have no desire or intention to obstruct for a single moment, or to say one word more than is necessary; but if the Minister of Munitions asks us
    2038
    not to proceed with our Amendments, I am afraid that I, for one, cannot agree to that suggestion.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would not like it to be thought I suggested that there I had been any waste of time. I think the Committee has discussed the Bill in a very reasonable spirit. There are, however, several Amendments which are not of very great importance, and which I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to discuss. If the discussion were confined to Amendments of real importance, we should be able to save time. I do not suggest that anybody has wasted I the time of the Committee—that is the I last thing which I should suggest.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "shall" ["shall be suspended in the establishment"], to insert the words "by notice in writing effectively published throughout the establishment."
    The object of the Amendment is really to maintain the old tradition of the factory laws, so that when these new regulations are being introduced the workpeople shall know exactly what they are, so as to avoid as far as possible any breach of them. The purpose of the Amendment is to

    2039
    secure that they shall be published on the walls of the factory and thus made known to the workpeople concerned.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member will see that the point is covered by paragraph (7) of the Second Schedule. It is there proposed that notice shall be given, and the best way of giving notice, I think, might be left to regulations.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3), leave out the words "incites or encourages any employer or person employed," and insert therefor the words "induces or attempts to induce any other person (whether any particular person or generally)."—[Mr. King.]
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "custom" ["with such a rule, practice or custom"], to insert the words "or threatens, annoys, insults, or molests any other person on account of the non-compliance of any person therewith."
    I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. It really strengthens the Clause and is quite in line with the Amendment which the Government have already accepted. There are a good many cases which might occur and which are not really properly dealt with. There is the case, for instance, of the publication of an article or leaflet trying to induce compliance, or one might take the case of a man insulting another man's brother, wife, or some other relative because this man has refused to comply with the rules or practices. My Amendment would make the man who committed the assault guilty of an offence under this Act.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment, because it would not conduce to the speedy passage of the Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. SNOWDEN—who had upon the Paper two further Amendments to paragraph (3): In view of the appeal made by the Minister of Munitions, we will withdraw these Amendments.
    Further Amendments made: In Subsection (3), leave out the word "may" ["the Board of Trade may either determine the question themselves"], and insert the word "shall."
    After the word "expedient" ["if they think it expedient"] insert the words "or
    2040
    either party requires it."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), at the end, to add the words, "and any employer failing to carry out such undertaking in any particular shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. If any question arises whether this undertaking has been carried out that question shall be referred to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade shall refer the question for settlement in accordance with the provision contained in the First Schedule to this Act. The decision of the arbitration tribunal shall be conclusive for all purposes."
    There is just before this Sub-section a reference to the workpeople, and, if they break any part of the undertaking, they are to be deemed guilty of an offence under the Act. We want to make the penalty just as firm so far as the employer is concerned as it is in the case of the workpeople.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: On a point of Order. Does this come before the manuscript Amendment, which I have handed in?
    Mr. ANDERSON: I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment in favour of that of my hon. Friend.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move, in paragraph (4), at the end, to add the words, "and any owner or contractor or sub-contractor who breaks or attempts to break such an undertaking shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
    We think that there ought to be a penalty attached to any employer, contractor, or sub-contractor who may refuse to comply with the undertaking.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept the Amendment.
    Mr. WATT: I have an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect, and I think that my Amendment should have preference over that of the hon. Member, which is not on the Paper. In another respect, however, his Amendment is preferable to mine, because he brings in the sub-contractor and my Amendment does not. A penalty should be inflicted—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have accepted the Amendment.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in paragraph (5), to leave out the word "any" ["any person employed in the establishment"], and to insert instead thereof the words, "The employer and every."
    I think that this is an Amendment which the Government will be prepared to accept. I cannot imagine that it has been other than an oversight that it is not already in the Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept the Amendment.
    Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Words proposed inserted.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (5), to insert the words, "provided that such regulations shall first have been approved by Parliament."
    This Amendment has reference to the regulations which are to be made by the Minister of Munitions, and we think that they ought to be submitted to Parliament for its approval.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment, because its adoption might lead to delay. If Parliament did not happen to be sitting at the time it would be practically impossible to get its approval.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (5), after the word "If" ["If any person"] insert the words "the employer or."
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in the same paragraph, after the word "employed" ["persons so employed"], to insert the word "persistently."
    This is one of a series of drafting Amendments. I venture to think that, as drafted, this Section is too stiff. A workman might be guilty of an isolated infringement, not altogether intentional, and, under such circumstances he ought not to be liable to proceedings unless it could be proved against him that he had been persistently infringing the law.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. Its adoption would mean that it would be necessary to prove a series of refusals to comply, and it would upset the whole con-
    2042
    trolled establishment if we insisted upon, these words. I think that the Munitions Tribunal will afford sufficient protection.
    Mr. KING: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in the same paragraph, to leave out the word "regulations," and insert instead thereof the word "regulation." I think this is really important. The Section as now framed might prove highly dangerous, and it should be sufficient if a man were to refuse to comply with one regulation.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The alteration is quite unnecessary. The words are "any such regulations."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, to leave out the last paragraph of this Clause, which gives power to the Minister of Munitions to step in and seize the most profitable portion of the work, and to take possession of the profits, without making allowance for the less profitable departments, which are not taken over.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We might take over part of a business for munitions purposes, but that would not interfere with the private business. We do not want control of the private business; we only want control of that part which turns out munitions of war, and, unless we have these words in, it would be quite impossible for us to do that.
    Mr. WATT: Yes, but you do not provide for a proper division of profits.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how, if he only takes over part of an establishment, he is going to find out what the profits of that part are? No doubt he has considered that question, but I should like him to explain exactly how it is going to be done.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope the Committee will not insist on my doing that, and on our having a Debate on questions of book-keeping. I should say the process is quite simple.
    Mr. WATT: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Supplementary Provisions as to the Limitation of the Profits of a Controlled Establishment.)
    (1) The net profits of a controlled establishment shall be ascertained in accordance with the provisions of this Section and rules made thereunder and the amount of profits divisible under this Act shall be taken to be an amount exceeding by one-fifth the standard amount of profits.
    (2) The standard amount of profits for any period shall be taken to be the average of the amount of the net profits for the two corresponding periods completed next before the outbreak of the War.
    (3) If in any case it is represented to the Minister of Munitions that the net profits of all or any other establishments belonging to the same owner should be brought into account or that the average under this Section affords or may afford an unfair standard of comparison, the Minister may, if he thinks just, allow those net profits to be brought into account in accordance with the representation, or substitute for the average such an amount as the standard amount of profits as may be agreed upon with the owner of the establishment, or may, if he, thinks fit, refer the matter to be determined by a referee or board of referees appointed or designated by him for the purpose, and the decision of the referee or board shall be conclusive on the matter for all purposes.
    (4) The Minister of Munitions may make rules for carrying the provisions of this Section into effect.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "establishment" ["profits of a controlled establishment"] to insert the words, "after making full allowance for all wearing out and wasting assets, bad debts and contingencies."
    The Clause says that "the net profits of a controlled establishment shall be ascertained in accordance with the provisions of this Section." But the Section does not contain any provision that proper allowance shall be made for depreciation. We know on what basis depreciation is allowed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for Income Tax, but that is not the full depreciation. It is not the depreciation which a solvent trader ordinarily makes in his business. As this is an entirely novel procedure, by which a very large proportion of the surplus profits are to be taken by the Exchequer, I submit
    2044
    they should only be taken after the very fullest depreciation has been allowed to the trader. I think this will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions, and I hope he will see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment, and I will tell him why. Very careful and elaborate regulations have to be prepared on this subject. I hope they will be ready next week so that the House may be fully informed of them. These are matters for regulation rather than for the Bill itself. If we begin to lay down elaborate rules here as to what you are to take off or for what you are to make allowances, that is attempting to do something which is quite hopeless, because it is almost impossible for the House, under present conditions, to give the necessary time for the consideration of the matter. I agree that all these things should be taken into account. Depreciation is such an obvious thing that it is hardly necessary to mention it. It is one of the first things you consider when you are coming to a conclusion as to what the net profits are. It is all included in net profits. If you begin to enter into an elaborate and detailed explanation of what you are to take into account before you arrive at net profit, this is by no means an exhaustive description. The moment you put this in, by implication you rule out other things which you ought to take into account. It would be a very dangerous thing to insert these words.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Am I to understand that the fullest allowance will be made for all proper depreciation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Of course.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Because it is not done by the Inland Revenue for the purposes of Income Tax. If the right hon. Gentleman gives me the assurance that the fullest allowance will be made for that depreciation, which every prudent trader will make—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Then I am content, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. HOGGE: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will lay on the Table or bring before the House these Regulations in some such other way that the House may discuss them?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. T. RICHARDSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "ascertained" ["the net profits of a controlled establishment shall be ascertained"] to insert the words "by an auditor appointed by the Treasury."
    This is very important both from the taxpayers' point of view and the point of view of the Revenue, and it is also necessary in order to give to the public and the House of Commons confidence that we are getting the maximum and not the minimum, which is just possible, unless you take every precaution to secure what is due to the State and the Revenue under the proposals of this Bill. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Munitions respond to the request of my hon. Friend when he said that the Regulations would be submitted to the House of Commons next week in such a way that they can be discussed, because the terms of the Regulations are very vital to the real objective of this and other Clauses of the Bill. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way clear to accept this Amendment, because it is due to Parliament that they ought to provide for a public auditor, acting officially on behalf of the Government, to audit these accounts.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Treasury have a great interest in the profits, and therefore I am not at all sure that, if there were an auditor appointed, he should be appointed by the Treasury. The Minister of Munitions will have to look into all this.
    Mr. T. RICHARDSON: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that as my Amendment says "appointed by the Government," that does not answer it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Amendment says, "appointed by the Treasury." I have no doubt at all that we shall have to appoint Auditors for this purpose. That will be part of the machinery by which we shall carry it out. We contemplate the appointment of a very strong Board to look into this matter and to advise us as to the best machinery of dealing with it. This might be part of the machinery. I have no doubt it will be. We shall have, at least, two very able accountants who will be on the Board and who practically will represent the Government. They will advise us as to the best
    2046
    means of checking these accounts. Of course, it is very important that the accounts should be audited. We cannot merely accept the accounts that are presented by the firms; we must take our own means of checking them. But I am not sure that this is the best means of doing so. I would rather hear what this Board we are setting up may advise us to the best means of checking the accounts submitted, and I think my hon. Friend will agree with me.
    Mr. T. RICHARDSON: I think the importance of the Amendment has been very carefully considered, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "thereunder" ["and rules made thereunder"], to insert the words "by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue."
    9.0 P.M.
    This Amendment provides that the profits should be ascertained by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, instead of by the special Committee which the Home Secretary stated would be appointed, because the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are experts at this work. No Committee will have the data or material for dealing with the question of accounts which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue already have. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, they have the fullest particulars of every firm's accounts for a considerable series of years, and it will be very easy for them to make the necessary adjustment. They have all the data in the form of the returns for the last two years for the purpose of making the adjustment in respect of the contribution which is to be paid to the Treasury. This adjustment and this contribution can now be settled on the basis which has been settled upon in the Bill without any expense. If you appoint a separate Committee to do it, they will have to make endless inquiries. They will have to inquire what were the profits for the previous two years. I think I am right in saying they will not be able to refer to the files which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have, because those files are strictly private and cannot be used for any other purpose. Therefore, they will have to find out what were the profits of the firms for the previous two years on top of the usual inquiry in regard to Income Tax, and they will have to hold another

    2047
    inquiry to ascertain what the profits are for this year and every year while the War lasts. In these circumstances no one Committee can go over the accounts of the hundreds of firms in the country engaged in the production of munitions of war. It will be very much more economical and simpler if this work is left in the hands of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. We have quite enough committees already. The country is really oppressed with these committees. A different committee of some kind or another is being appointed for every purpose. What we want, as far as practicable, is to simplify our procedure and get matters settled in the cheapest and readiest form. As all the data and the materials are in the hands of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, they ought to be the persons to ascertain the extra profits which are to be contributed to the Exchequer.
    Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member appears to me to be inconsistent. A few moments ago he was suggesting that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, under the rules under which they work, do not make sufficient allowance for depreciation and other matters.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. Under the Act under which the Commisioners of Inland Revenue work, they do not make sufficient allowance for depreciation. That is why I ask that special powers should be given under the terms of this Act that they shall make full allowance for all proper depreciation. There is nothing inconsistent.
    Dr. ADDISON: That is the point I was putting. The hon. Member's point, if I understood him rightly, was that the conditions under which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue worked were not such as to enable them to make proper allowance for depreciation. That was his point a few moments ago. Now he appears to be suggesting that these very officers should nevertheless undertake the examination of profits. He appears to me, therefore, to be inconsistent. Of course the Commissioners of Inland Revenue make their estimate under the Statute on certain well-defined lines, whereas the whole point of our Amendments, and of the Clause itself, is that a considerable measure of elasticity must be allowed, so that allowance may be made for extra capital laid down for plant, and so on, and for the various other matters
    2048
    which have been referred to in this Debate. I suggest that the hon. Member should not ask us to place this burden upon officers who are already fully occupied in other important duties.
    Mr. WATT: I think this is a very wise Amendment. There is a body already instituted dealing with such matters, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and the hon. Member suggests that they should deal with this measure. Surely it is better that an established body should deal with it rather than that a new body should be set up! The hon. Member opposite is not inconsistent in his statement of the case. These Inland Revenue Commissioners have been cribbed, cabined, and confined by the Statute they administer. It does not follow that when they deal with the settlements under this Statute they will be so limited. They will be freer under this Statute than under the Statute they already administer. It will be better to accept a body already established than to set up a new institution, the members of which no doubt will be highly paid.
    Mr. HOGGE: The Minister of Munitions said a few minutes ago that it was the intention of the Government to lay on the Table of the House of Commons, in such a way that it could be discussed, the scheme for net profits. There is a large number of Amendments dealing with the question of the determination of these net profits. I feel perfectly certain that if the Home Secretary would assure the House that it would be possible to deal with the question on the occasion when these rules are laid on the Table, a great many of these Amendments might be withdrawn. At least I am assured so by hon. Friends around me.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. His suggestion is a useful one. It is our intention to move an Amendment which will secure that any rules which are made under this Act shall be laid on the Table in the way with which the House is familiar. That seems a proper thing to do. We could not do it in such a form as would delay the making and enforcing of such rules as we are proposing, but it will secure that the House of Commons has the opportunity of seeing what the rules are.
    Sir R. COOPER: The point raised here is an extremely important one. My hon. Friend is entirely wrong in moving the Amendment. The Minister of Munitions

    2049
    said a few minutes ago, with regard to a previous Amendment, that it would not be right for the Treasury to have an interest in dealing with the ascertainment of profits, and neither can it be right for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to be allowed, as they would under this Amendment, an exclusive right of determining what are the profits of the business of a firm which we are already penalising very badly. It is an impossible idea, and I shall oppose the Amendment absolutely.
    Sir WILLIAM BEALE: Is it possible or practicable for a Clause of an Act of Parliament relating to this subject to impose a new duty upon the Commissioners of Inland Revenue? The Home Secretary may recollect that the Railway Commissioners once absolutely refused to take upon themselves duties which were stuck into another Act of Parliament.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words, "exceeding by one-fifth."
    This Amendment would have the effect of appropriating all profits which are in excess of the standard profits, that is, based upon the average profits of the previous years. I cannot see any reason in the world why, if we act upon the principle that the State has a right to appropriate profits, we should be satisfied to take only one-fifth and leave the remainder to be appropriated by the individual.
    Sir J. SIMON: I hope the hon. Member will see that his concluding sentence, especially if it were by any accident repeated outside the House, would give a totally false impression of what our proposal is. He said he did not think it was right that the State should merely take one-fifth, and that the other four-fifths should be left to the private individual. There is nothing of that in the Bill, or anything in the least resembling it, and it surprised me that it should be thought by anyone of the hon. Member's great acuteness to be the provision in the Bill.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: If I said that I did not mean it.
    Sir J. SIMON: I thought it must be so. Of course, the provision is merely this, that you take a standard arrived at by experience before the War. Then comes the question—there is no question of guaranteeing profits—"is that going to
    2050
    be the maximum which anyone is to be allowed to have?" It seemed to us, as I hope it will seem to the Committee as a whole, that one could hardly say that should be the maximum. If they do not earn more profits they will not get more. There is no question of giving them profits they do not earn, and if they get more than the maximum which we allow they will not keep it. The overplus will go to the Exchequer. The whole question is, having ascertained by reference to past experience what they earned before the War, is that figure, neither more nor less, to be the maximum without any guarantee of their getting any profit at all. We thought, as we do not give any guarantee of their getting any profit, and as we are controlling the establishment, and take every means we can to press the production of munitions in such an establishment, and as such an enterprise in many cases will go in for extension of premises or special arrangements which will only have a temporary value for earning profits, we might at any rate say, "You may take as your maximum standard that which is arrived at by adding to the standard of historical profit, a fifth more." It would be a complete mistake to say that you add 20 per cent. That is easily understood to mean that whereas they have earned 5 per cent., they earn now 25 per cent. Nothing of the sort. What is meant is that if they previously made 5 per cent. they now as a maximum may have 6 per cent. That does not seem to me to be an extravagant proposition, and I hope the House will agree that we are acting fairly as between the employers and the State.
    Mr. R. MACDONALD: The Home Secretary advanced two reasons why my hon. Friend's Amendment should be resisted. The first was that they did not guarantee profits. I do not see what connection that argument has with the Amendment at all. What does it benefit a firm that has made no profit at all to be told that a firm which has made much more profit is getting its standard profits, plus one-fifth. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to suggest that the firms that had made extra profits were to be mulcted so as to benefit the firms that had been injured by his intervention, I could understand it. To simply say that because he does not guarantee profits to the firms, he is going to allow the fortunate firms to get their standard profit plus one-fifth, I think is not a very good argument.

    2051
    His second reason is that these firms that are to be controlled may have special premises and so on. That is all provided for. The Minister of Munitions under Sub-section (3) of Clause 5 is given power, and I suppose he will put it into operation, to take all these things into consideration, and when these things have been taken into consideration and fully allowed for, then they are going to get one-fifth profit over and above that. If those are the two best reasons he can give to justify his extra one-fifth I think it would be better to adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. WATT: This Amendment takes no account of the rise in the cost of living.
    Mr. R. D. HOLT: There is one point which has not been made quite clear. Will the controlled firm be liable to pay Income Tax on the four-fifths of excess profits diverted to the Government?
    Sir J. SIMON: That question was raised earlier in the afternoon by the hon. Member for Chippenham. I said that it was not a thing that I could deal with on this Bill. It is essentially a question for an amendment of the Income Tax Act. It is certainly not a thing we can provide for in this Bill. I think I shall not be exceeding my province, or doing anything which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would object to, if I say that I quite realise, and I think the whole Government will realise, that it would be an odd result if you tax a man on the total profits which he makes, and then proceed to take away from him, for the benefit of the Exchequer, some portion of the profit which had been so taxed. I do not want to anticipate the Budget statement, but that is a consideration of common sense which we shall all agree upon.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the last two years have been exceptionally good years for the armament firms?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not think so.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I think the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) has been covered by the discussion we have had.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: No; they want to reduce it. I want to increase it.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member desires to discuss the point, he may move his Amendment.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "one fifth" ["exceeding by one fifth the standard amount of profits"], and insert instead thereof the words "one third." With respect to what the Home Secretary has said about the profits only commencing to be reckoned from the day of taking over the control, if it only starts there I do not press this Amendment.
    Sir J. SIMONindicated assent.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. M'CURDY: I beg to move, in Subsection (2) to leave out the words "the average of the amount of the net profits for the two corresponding periods completed next before the outbreak of the War," and to insert instead thereof the words, "amount arrived at by ascertaining the percentage of profit on the turnover for the two corresponding periods completed next before the outbreak of War, and applying that percentage to the turnover of the period under review."
    I hope the Committee will see their way to accept this Amendment. I should not occupy the time of the Committee were it not that it has been brought to my notice, by telegrams from chambers of commerce and by interviews which I have had within the last few days, that these proposals of the Government in regard to controlled establishments are at present not understood in business circles and are, I regret to say, undoubtedly causing serious and widespread alarm which, if it were not checked, would tend in a large measure to defeat the very objects of this Bill. I will put before the Committee figures which have been furnished to me only to-day to show precisely what has been happening during the last twelve months in a class of business which may be affected by this Bill. I think that a great many of the things that have been said to-day about purely hypothetical cases and a great many of the arguments we have had on this Bill would hardly have been made if hon. Members had had in their minds, as I have had, a real concrete instance. It is an actual instance which is interesting not only by its bearing upon this Bill, but as an example of the energy and patriotism of which we hear very little but which is actually being manifested by contractors.

    2053
    This was an old-established firm which for seventy years has carried on an engineering business in which they made no war material of any kind. They volunteered to make munitions of war on the 5th of August, the day after the outbreak of war, and their offer was accepted on the 13th November. If we take the two years preceding the War the capital of the firm was £146,000 and its turnover was £142,000, representing a net profit of £18,550. Since the 13th November that firm has expended in special plant and buildings for the sole purpose of making fuses £121,000. That is not the total extent to which they increased their capital. They provided altogether an additional £320,000 of capital, raising their capital from £146,000 to £468,000, and they raised their turnover from £142,000 to £1,800,000. Their profit on the turnover of £142,000 was £18,550, and as a return for their patriotism they are promised in this Bill to be allowed to add 20 per cent. to that.
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that the hon. Member could have been here some hours ago, when I dealt with the point of which he is giving an illustration. I gave an explanation and promised an Amendment, which I think the Committee generally regarded as meeting the point.
    Mr. M'CURDY: I was here, and I welcomed the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and the assurance which he gave, but it is because I think that something more than the Amendment foreshadowed by him may be necessary that I venture to put this particular point. During the period for November the number of workpeople was increased from 500 to 2,000. That is a very striking example of the way in which the one-fifth profit, over and above the standard profit would work out, if there was no alteration. Therefore I would suggest that at the earliest possible stage the matter should be made clear by the acceptance of such an Amendment as that which I am now moving; and I would ask also that, by a statement on the part of the Minister for the time being responsible for this Bill, it should be made as clear as possible to the business world that in the case of controlled establishments, before any estimate of profits is made, allowance shall be made for the expenditure on special buildings and plant, running, as in the instance which I have given, to very large figures indeed—an expenditure which in
    2054
    this particular case will be practically valueless as soon as the War is over, because the result will be that, not merely the money will have been spent, but it will have been spent upon buildings and plant which will serve no economic purpose when this exceptional demand passes away.
    Before this Bill leaves the House of Commons we should have some statement, much clearer than anything which we have had yet, as to what is the policy of the Government with regard to controlled establishments. When we commenced the discussion this afternoon we were informed by the ruling of the Chair that the policy of the Government was not a matter of taxation. For my part, I never thought that it was. It was suggested by a right hon. Gentleman, speaking from the Front Opposition Bench, that the policy of the Government was to apply the policy of control, and to take over an establishment when, by reasons of employers and working men being unable to adjust their differences, the machinery of Part I. of the Act not being thought adequate to meet the case, it was necessary to take control of the establishment, in order to prevent the output of munitions being affected. That was the view of the position which I rather shared. The right hon. Gentleman suggested, on the contrary, that the taking over of an establishment, and the making of it a controlled establishment, might be anticipated in quite different circumstances, circumstances of closer co-operation with that establishment, and might be regarded as a compliment.
    Taking the example which I have given, which is typical of many private firms who have found, and are finding, large sums of money to extend their works for the provision of munitions, if the policy of the Government would allow an announcement to be made, that in the case of firms who have converted their business for the purpose of making munitions, in order to assist their country in this crisis, there is no intention to turn them into controlled establishments, so long as work is proceeding satisfactorily and contracts entered into with the Government are being performed, from the information in my possession I am quite sure that that is an announcement which would relieve a great deal of apprehension. The matter is one of importance, and I hope that between now and the time when this measure passes into law the right hon. Gentleman

    2055
    will give his consideration to the question of what further announcement may be made by the Government to remove the uneasiness which at present undoubtedly exists among firms who have spent large sums of money for these purposes, and now see the prospect of their business being suddenly taken out of their hands, and of their remuneration depending upon a tribunal, the composition of which is at present unknown, and of which no one can at present from a business point of view predicate upon what principle profits, depreciation and matters of that kind will be dealt with.
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend's Amendment raises the question whether the maximum amount of profit which would be left should, as under this scheme, be measured with reference to turnover, or should be measured in the way suggested in the Bill. I pointed out to the Committee this afternoon, and I think that hon. Members generally agreed, that if we adopt the method of the Bill, which I suggested we should do, we must remember that we shall have to adjust that rule to the particular circumstances of the particular case, and I read out to the Committee the Amendment which is to be moved on Clause 5, which provides expressly and explicitly for taking into account the comparative figures as to output. That is the very point which the hon Gentleman has put. I hope that he will feel, even though he does not think that it was done in the way he would suggest, that the object is the object which he has at heart, and that, so far as it goes, the suggested Amendment will be an improvement. For the rest, I do not think that under Clause 5 we can possibly change the whole principle of the Bill, which is involved in Clause 4, as already passed and which proceeds on the basis of profits as distinguished from turnover. And indeed, while I agree that turnover is a very important factor, it is not the only factor. It is not true, as a matter of business, that the proportionate relations between profit and turnover will remain the same whatever the size of the turnover. I hope that the hon. Member will agree that it is right to proceed on the basis of profit, making, however, the adjustment as to which I will move an Amendment in a few minutes.
    Mr. HOLT: I would point out to the Mover of the Amendment that the figures
    2056
    which he himself has given rather knock the bottom out of his contention. If a man's capital is increased three-fold, and the turnover thirteen-fold, that is no reason why he should get the thirteen-fold profit. Anybody who has been engaged in business is familiar with the fact that there is no necessary relation whatever between turnover and profit. In one transaction a man may pay another person to do something in order to carry it through, but in another transaction he does not pay some other person. Anybody who carries on business realises that there is no connection whatever between turnover and profit. But I do think the Committee should make it quite clear that, wherever a man can be shown to have spent large sums for the purpose of erecting plant to produce munitions of war, the whole expenditure on that plant ought to be recovered out of war profits before they are divided. All questions of expenditure on plant ought to be regarded as disbursements, because it is almost certain that the whole of the capital will be of no value whatever.
    Sir R. COOPER: I am quite sure that there is a very great deal of anxiety amongst these firms on the point that has been raised by my hon. Friend, although I would put it in a different form from that in which the hon. Gentleman has submitted it. Under Sub-section (3), the Minister of Munitions has extraordinary powers, and can almost do anything he likes. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the public affected by this Bill can feel secure that they are going to get reasonable and fair consideration in the spirit of the Bill, and not necessarily according to its exact wording, because I believe that never has a more loosely worded Bill been passed through this House than that which we have to finish to-night. I believe that it will be an extraordinarily loosely drafted measure, and I do wish to press upon the Attorney-General that an assurance should be given to business firms that the spirit of this Act will be followed out by the Ministers in dealing with matters under the measure. It is important that if a man increases his capital by increasing his plant to meet Government requirements, to the amount of £50,000 or a £100,000, he should know whether he is going to be allowed a fair return in respect of that outlay. I think there should be some assurance to the community that it will be dealt with in a fair and generous spirit.
    Sir J. SIMON: As to such an assurance, I do not feel any difficulty, but it can be better given on a later Amendment, and not upon this Amendment, which is about turnover.
    Mr. HENDERSON: The case put by my hon. Friend shows how difficult it is to work this matter out. No doubt this firm increased their turnover from £146,000 to £1,800,000, and if this 20 per cent. is to be paid all they would get out of the enormous increase of business would be £3,700, which would be monstrous.
    Mr. S. WALSH: Surely there must be some relation of profits to the increased capital amount.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I am speaking of the Bill as it stands and as we have to construe it. Another anomaly I wish the House to notice: Suppose the firm gets the percentage asked for in the Amendment, its profit would be £216,000, as against £18,500 before, but then it has put up new plant involving an expenditure of £300,000, and the whole of the £216,000, plus another £100,000 sunk in plant, would represent his profit, and he would not get any cash at all. That shows how impossible it is to fix any limit like 20 per cent. Until you allow the firm the difference between the plant for its ordinary business and the plant which it has put up for the special business, and which afterwards can be of little use to it, you will see at once that the whole of the expenditure and the £100,000 which has been sunk will represent its profit, and it would not get a penny piece given to it.
    Sir R. COOPER: I have just seen the Government Amendment, and it meets the hon. Gentleman's point, I am satisfied.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have myself an Amendment on the Paper as regards plant, and I hope the Government will meet the point. I wish the Government thoroughly to understand a further point. Supposing that this month you took over John Brown's business in Sheffield, and take control, the first thing you would have to do would be to take John Brown's stock, and it must be the same in every place you take over. If you are going to have any profits you must start with the stock at the time you take the business over, and finish according to the stock at the time you leave off. It seems to me that this Committee will upset the one-fifth altogether, and you must make adjustment
    2058
    under certain rules, in taking stock over and arriving at a reasonable view.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: What is the date when the profits are to be assessed—is it from the passing of the Bill or from the commencement of the War?
    Sir J. SIMON: From the time the establishment becomes controlled.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "two" ["two corresponding periods"], and insert instead thereof the word "four."
    I move this Amendment, and specially commend it to hon. Members who have shown a desire to do justice to certain commercial firms. If my proposal be accepted it will remove any injustice either to the State or to the firm concerned. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) mentioned this evening that there are certain firms which, for the last two years, have made no profit at all, while, on the other hand, during that period some of the big armament firms have had the time of their lives. Brown's, and Vickers, Sons and Maxim's, for instance, have made higher profits during that time than in any preceding years. In those cases to take only an average of the two years would be disadvantageous to the State. There are other firms, like Kynochs, which were not making a profit before the War, and the proposed method would inflict a very great hardship on them, and my proposal I submit would be fairer all round.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am sure the hon. Member will admit that those firms which are producing munitions are certainly entitled to treatment which, if it errs at all, should err on the side of generosity, because they are producing those things on which the life of the nation depends. Whatever we may do with respect to other classes of profits that have been spoken of in the Debate, it is quite evident we should not set out to treat worse than other people those firms which are producing the very things we most need. If, as the hon. Member has indicated, profits during the last two years have been larger, and that if we took the average for the four years the amount would be less, I think on the whole, seeing the special circumstances of the time, that justice would demand that to take the two years would be the fair way rather

    2059
    than go out of our way to reduce the average of the profits by bringing in the leaner years and thus bringing down the average. I do not think that would be quite a fair way to provide a basis for estimating the profits. With respect to those firms which have not made a profit before the duration of the War, the hon. Member has mentioned one, and we know of others similar circumstanced. We have deliberately designed an Amendment to come at the end of this Clause to meet the cases of that kind, which evidently would be treated hardly if they were simply to be treated upon the basis of the profits of the previous two years, which in those cases would be, of course, a minus quantity. That situation is deliberately met, and I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "corresponding periods," and insert instead thereof the words "financial years of the establishment."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "outbreak of the War," and insert instead thereof the words "passing of this Act."
    This Amendment falls in with the suggestion or promise made by my right hon. Friend that profits are to be reckoned from the time of the taking over of the business as a controlled business.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I may perhaps save the hon. Member some trouble by pointing out to him that this Amendment seems to do the opposite of what I understand to be in his mind.
    Dr. ADDISON: The effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member would be quite the reverse of what he intends to accomplish. Under it the whole of the period between the outbreak of the War and the passing of the Act would come into the determination of the fixing of the profits. The object of the Clause is to allow the controlled firm to add 20 per cent. to the profits of the pre-War period which is mentioned. The Amendment would in many cases handicap the firm by bringing in the amounts made between the outbreak of the War and the passing of the Act.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I think my hon. Friend does not quite grasp my point.
    2060
    Suppose the balance was taken out on the 31st March, by putting in the profits you would have a bigger year in calculating the average.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: We ought to be clear as to the real meaning of the words and to know which is the correct interpretation before we are asked to vote. As I understand the words proposed, if inserted they would bring into the calculation any income or profit which the owner or manufacturer has made up to the passing of the Act. A man engaged in making munitions of war up to the passing of the Act may have made more profit than he made two years previous to the War, and therefore if those profits were included the 20 per cent. which he is allowed would be larger. My view with regard to the limitation of profits is this: As far as I have met manufacturers and other people who have made profits they are only too glad to make any contribution they are called upon to make to the State, but they are of opinion that whatever taxes there are should fall fairly and equitably between all concerned. It is not a question of the principle as to whether profit makers should make a contribution. That is admitted by everybody—including those who make profits. But it seems to me that if the hon. Member for Hoxton is wrong in his interpretation of the words, as I believe he is, we ought not to vote on the Amendment until the point is cleared up.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I know several firms who put aside their own work as far back as December, January or February last. These people have made special contracts with the War Office for shrapnel and explosive shell at a certain price. They have been cut down to a particular price. Therefore the nation, as represented by the War Office, has had very opportunity to cut down these prices and make a fair, binding contract. If they had been told that the Government intended to annex whatever profit they made over a certain proportion, some of these firms would have refused to enter into the contracts. Therefore I submit that the provision should be limited to the passing of the Act, so as not to go back upon old contracts.
    10.0 P.M.
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend is really mistaken if he thinks that the effect of the Bill is to go back upon old contracts at all. It is not that in the least. The question of what profits are divisible under this Bill is

    2061
    a question which only begins to be answered from the date when the given establishment is controlled. Take the case of any establishment you like. Supposing it makes out its annual accounts to end at midsummer. Since the War began on 4th August, it follows that the two financial periods before the War began will be the annual period ending midsummer, 1914, and the annual period ending midsummer, 1913. Those two accounts will give you the standard of profit. Having got that standard, and added one-fifth to it, you know what is the maximum which the firm will retain under the head of divisible profit to which this Bill applies. The Bill only applies to limit the profits of the firm as from the date when the firm is controlled, and that cannot be until after the Bill is passed. Therefore, to take my hon. Friend's example, which I have no doubt is perfectly well founded in fact, if that firm made contracts last December, January, and February, the profits do not come into the calculation of divisible profits, because they were before the firm was a controlled firm, and they do not come into the standard of profit, because they come after the annual period. Therefore they have those profits, and keep them. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will agree that we may get on to the next Amendment.
    Mr. HENDERSON: You have made it very clear, if we could only read into the Bill the clear enunciation you have just made.
    Sir J. SIMON: The Bill is much clearer than I am.
    Mr. HENDERSON: A great many of these firms who have entered into contracts will be controlled. Therefore I want to be perfectly certain that these contracts will be out of the ambit of the calculation of the profits which the firms have to hand over.
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not want any misunderstanding. What I said was that any profits which they made between the time when the standard is worked out and the time when the firm is controlled do not come into the calculation. I am not saying that, if the contracts run over a period which runs into the period of control, there may not be some element of profit which comes in. But I think my statement was quite clear.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: As and when a business is taken over, will it be required to go over its accounts and take out a fresh balance-sheet, so as to have something to start from?
    Sir J. SIMON: No.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: At end of Sub-section (2) add the words "or a proportionate part thereof."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words, "In arriving at the net profits the value of any new buildings erected or plant laid down for the purposes of this Act shall be taken on the following basis: If the new buildings and plant are required for the ordinary business of the controlled establishment, then on a valuation as a going concern. But in the case where the controlled establishment does not require such buildings and plant, then on the estimated value at a sale by auction."
    A great deal of the plant will be of no earthly use to the controlled establishment once the shell and fuse business is stopped. All sorts of people, such as electrical engineers and others, who did not make these things at all before, have gone into this business, and put down plant. Some of that plant has been supplied by the Government, and where debentures have been issued by the company the Government have stipulated that this plant should not be subject to the debentures. After the War is over this plant will be of no earthly use to any person, and the consequence is that in the case of a great many there will be a great glut of this plant on the market. I can quite understand that unless some provision is made for dealing with the plant that has become super-abundant, and of no value to the firm or establishment, that this provision to meet the case is really necessary.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know whether the Committee have been informed that we propose to add certain words to the end of the Clause, which cover the point aimed at by my hon. Friend. If he thinks when he hears them that they are inadequate it will be quite open to him to move in the matter a little later.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I have not been able to see the words.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will read them: "And these rules shall provide for due consideration being given in carrying out the provisions of this Section in respect to any establishment and any special circumstances such an increase of output, provision of new machinery or plant, or alteration of capital, or other matters which require special consideration in relation to that particular establishment." That covers all these points. If my hon. Friend thinks it does not, he can, as I say, move in the matter later.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Very well.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "profits" ["the net profits of all or any other"], to insert the words "or losses." I apologise to the Committee for not having put my Amendment on the Paper. I gave notice of it to the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty about five o'clock this evening. The effect of it would be that if the Minister of Munitions thought it right to admit the net profits of any other establishment into the calculation, he also should have the opportunity of admitting the net losses. It is well known to every one that munitions of war are not always made as a whole particular article. A particular article is not always made in one establishment. Parts of it are made in one establishment and parts of it are made in another. It is quite possible that there may be a loss on one part of a machine and a profit on the other. If you are going to bring in the net profits I think you ought to bring in the net losses. The whole Clause is permissive. It is entirely in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman whether he brings this in or not, and it is, therefore, only giving him the option, if he thinks it just, to bring in the losses as well as the profits.
    Sir J. SIMON: In principle what the hon. Baronet suggests appears to me to be reasonable enough, but as the Clause is drafted it would be open to this objection, which I am sure the hon. Baronet would not wish, that you can bring in another establishment into the calculation only if it is represented to the Minister of Munitions that this should be done. Supposing the Clause ran: "if in any case it appears to the Minister of Munitions that it is right to do this …" I should agree with the hon. Baronet. It would then
    2064
    be for the proper authority to decide whether it was fair. So long as the Bill runs, "If in any case it is represented to the Minister of Munitions that another establishment should come in," then, of course, the hon. Baronet will see that advantage can be taken of that in every case where it suited the proprietors, and the Minister could not do it in cases where it suited him. I suggest that we do not make the change now. Let us vary the Clause on Report. It would then run, "If in any case it appears to the Minister of Munitions that the net profit, or losses, of all or any other establishment belonging to the same owner shall be brought into the account …" it can be done.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that that will be done on Report.
    Sir J. SIMON: Yes:
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "or" ["or may"], and insert the words "the Minister of Munitions"; after the word "fit" ["if he thinks fit"] insert the words, "and shall, if the owner of the establishment so requires."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), at end, to insert the words, "and these rules shall provide for due consideration being given in carrying out the provisions of this Section in respect to any establishment, of any special circumstances such as the increase of output, the provision of new machinery or plant, or the limitation of capital, or and other matters which require special consideration in relation to the particular establishment."
    Mr. HENDERSON: These words go a very long way to meet my case, but they do not apply to dealing with plant after the War is over, and the firm or business reverts to its original business. Some provision ought to be made as to what is to be done with that plant.
    Mr. LOUGH: I feel bound to thank my right hon. Friend for this very far-reaching Amendment. In spite of what my hon. Friend has just said as to what may happen at the end of the War in relation to the plant, there are words at the end of the Amendment which cover cases of that sort—"or any special circumstances." I really felt inclined to examine the Clause closely at first, but those words, "any special circumstances," satisfy me.
    Mr. HENDERSON: That may be all right in relation to ascertaining profits, but not in regard to the superabundant plant.
    Mr. LOUGH: It is clear that that point can be raised before the auditor and taken into consideration. That is the intention of the Minister of Munitions.
    Mr. DENNISS: So far as I have been able to take this Amendment in, it is restrictive. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire has been giving us illustrations of new buildings being taken into consideration, although some may be quite useless at the end of the War. He moved an Amendment, which he withdrew on the faith that this Amendment of the Government would cover that. I do not think it does. Will the Minister of Munitions kindly consider that? There is another point. Of course the success of the working of this Bill will largely depend upon the number of new factories which will rise up all over the country for the manufacture of munitions of war, which they have never made before. These will be firms which have been carrying on a totally different business from the making of munitions, and it will follow in most cases that in turning their business into munition factories they will be sacrificing their private business, and it will take them a long time after the War to get back their private business, and, therefore, they will suffer a large prospective loss of private business. If the right hon. Gentleman will see if he can put some words into this Amendment to meet that, it will give more confidence to those who are thinking of setting up factories. I would ask him to remember that, if there is any uncertainty as to what the position of these numerous manufacturers all over the country will be at the end of the War, you will not get them to set up new business of making munitions and sacrificing their private business. Therefore, you will be defeating you own end. It is in the interests of the Bill that I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider these two points.
    Mr. S. ROBERTS: I should like to support the hon. Member. Most of these large firms would put up expensive buildings which would not be included in these words. I think that is a point worthy of consideration.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I want to protest at this stage against the course the Government are taking in putting this Bill
    2066
    before the Committee on manuscript Amendments, because, after all, we are dealing with very large—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must deal with the Amendment.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: This Amendment is extremely complicated and far-reaching. One does not wish to hamper the Government in any way, but there can be no urgency about it. It is not in the nature of an emergency Clause. It is not going to be acted upon at once, and I think it would be of great benefit if these two Clauses could be taken out of the Bill at this stage for consideration at a later date.
    Proposed words inserted.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. DUKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a suggestion? It is said by business men in the House that there are a good many new firms who are likely to be affected whose businesses are not precisely aimed at by the provisions of the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman will observe the mode of the application of the standard of profits. The powers of the Minister of Munitions arise in case
    "the average under this Section affords or may afford an unfair standard of comparison."
    That is language which would not apply to a new business. There would not be any standard of comparison. I know the right hon. Gentleman desires to make the powers so comprehensive that there shall be no question of a hardship, and may I ask him whether he will consider between now and Report whether for standard of comparison he will use some such words as "basis of decision" or "basis of adjustment"? I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that my point might deal with a case which seems to have been omitted.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that point, but the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, I think, is covered by these words.
    Mr. DENNISS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the points I put to him on Report?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I really think that the best answer to the hon. Member's point is the other part of his speech, because he gave two or three cases which

    2067
    clearly show the danger of including a list of that kind. You are bound to take the buildings into account.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Voluntary Undertaking to Work for Minister of Munitions.)
    (1) If any workman in accordance with arrangements made by the Minister of Munitions with or on behalf of trade unions enters into an undertaking with the Minister of Munitions that he will work at any controlled establishment to which he may be assigned by the Minister, and be subject to the penalty imposed by this Act if he acts in contravention of or fails to comply with the undertaking, that workman shall if he acts in contravention of or fails to comply with his undertaking be guilty of an offence under this Act.
    (2) If any employer dissuades or attempts to dissuade a workman in his employment from entering into an undertaking under this Section, or retains or offers to retain in his employment any workman who has entered into such an undertaking after he has received notice from the Minister of Munitions that the workman is to work at some other establishment, that employer shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I understand that the voluntary workers are going to receive a subsistence allowance. I wish to know whether the unemployed workers will receive that same subsistence allowance?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That does not arise, because those who are sent by the Labour Exchanges have nothing to do with this Clause.
    Mr. WILSON: The voluntary workers have to go to the Town Hall, where they enlist the services of men skilled in certain work. I hope the Government will see that you do not send butchers and bakers and milkmen.
    Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Gentleman will see, if he looks at the Bill, that we specified the classes of workmen required, such as fitters, wheelwrights, and others.
    Mr. J. MASON: I would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with
    2068
    the point which I raised on a former occasion of a man employed in other essential industries being safeguarded against being tempted away by this Clause?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is purely a question of the conditions of enlistment, and once they are in the army we shall do our best to prevent them leaving other employment which is essential to the nation.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Prohibition of the Employment of Persons who have Left Work in Munition Factories.)
    (1) A person shall not give employment to a workman, whose last previous employment has been on or in connection with munitions work in any establishment of a class to which the provisions of this Section are applied by Order of the Minister of Munitions, unless he holds a certificate from his last employer that he left work with the consent of his employer or a certificate from the munitions tribunal that the consent has been unreasonably withheld, or unless a period of six weeks, or such other period as may be provided by Order of the Minister of Munitions as respects any class of establishment, has elapsed since he left his last previous employment.
    (2) If any workman complains to a munitions tribunal in accordance with rules made with respect to those tribunals that the consent of an employer has been unreasonably withheld that tribunal may, after examining into the case, if they think fit, grant a certificate which shall, for the purposes of this Section, have the same effect as a certificate from the employer.
    (3) If any person gives employment in contravention of the provisions of this Section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "person," to insert the words, "engaged in munition work."
    This Clause prohibits the employment of persons who have left work in munition factories. As it is drawn it may inflict great hardship. There seems to be no provision whatever for the fact that quite innocently a person may give employment to someone who has left work in a munition factory. I think the real

    2069
    intention is to prevent one munition factory taking the men away from another munition factory. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is more than that!"] It means that someone may try improperly to draw men away from factories where they are wanted by the Government. I therefore propose this Amendment to make it read: "engaged in munition work." If you choose to put in any other words, I do not mind, but I do think that something ought to be fitted in to protect perfectly innocent people. A man leaves a munition factory. A woman to whom he applies employs him for a couple of days as a gardener, and you fine her £50. Something is wanted to protect her.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If this Amendment were inserted, the Clause would be absolutely nugatory. It would mean that a man making a profit out of private work would be left to kidnap a munition worker, whereas another man engaged on munitions work would not be allowed to do so.
    Mr. LOUGH: I will not argue with my right hon. Friend, but I do not think that he has in the least met my case.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "whose last previous employment has been," and to insert instead thereof the words, "who has within the last previous six weeks, or such other period as may be provided by order of the Minister of Munitions as respects any class of establishment, been employed."
    The purport of the Sub-section, as I understand it, is to impose a prohibition upon the employer of a controlled factory so as to stop him employing a workman who has come from some other controlled factory. I venture to think that the Section does not quite carry that out.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept the Amendment.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: The object of the Amendment is to provide for the case, which I dare say might not happen, of a man leaving a munition factory and going to some other employment, say, for an intervening week or fortnight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Words proposed there inserted.
    Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "his last employer," and insert instead thereof the words "the employer by whom he was last so employed."
    Leave out the words "or unless a period of six weeks, or such other period as may be provided by Order of the Minister of Munitions as respects any class of establishment, has elapsed since he left his last previous employment."—[Mr. Hume-Williams.]
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
    "Provided that any workman who applies for a situation without informing the person or firm to whom he is applying that his last previous employment has been on or in connection with munitions work shall commit an offence under this Act."
    A workman may come away improperly from a munition factory, and I cannot help thinking that a person may innocently employ him. I, therefore, put in this proviso. Really the public do want some protection in this direction. Men may leave a factory and go to a perfectly innocent person, who commits an offence under the Act quite unintentionally. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, not only on the basis on its inherent justice, but also in view of the fact that he has not accepted an Amendment from me for a long time.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This rather changes the onus. The purport of this Clause was to cast the whole onus and responsibility upon the employer and to make him liable. In most of these cases it is the employer who is really responsible. I hope my right hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. I have certainly accepted a most serious Amendment for which he was responsible.
    Mr. LOUGH: My right hon. Friend knows I cannot press him.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HODGE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "workman" to insert the words "or his trade union representative."
    This would permit a man to remain at work while his trade union representative conducted his case.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2)
    (3) Where a Munitions Tribunal grant a certificate tinder the last foregoing Sub-section they may also direct the employer to pay to the workman such sum as compensation as they may think just, and the sum so ordered to be paid shall be a civil debt recoverable summarily."
    This, I think, seems to be plainly needed. A workman might have been quite unjustly treated, and he may have been thrown out of work and have no redress. I hope this will be accepted. It only gives additional powers to the tribunal.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The workman is still employed. The refusal is to allow him to leave his employment, and it is against that that he appeals. There is, therefore, no need for this Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HODGE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add,
    "Any person who is employed working in or about a controlled establishment on munitions work shall not discharge or suspend any such workman without the previous consent of the Munitions Tribunal."
    We think that when a man is forced to remain in a controlled establishment that he ought not to be dismissed.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is a rather dangerous Amendment. On the face of it it appears very plausible, but my hon. Friend, who knows a good deal about the industrial system of this country, knows that it would be absolutely subversive of the discipline of a yard or works. If a workman knew that whatever reason he gave he would have the right of appeal to the Munitions Tribunal, he would be tempted to defy them and generally make himself rather difficult. He might do that. There is no real danger of a workman being dismissed now, unless the case is overwhelming. There is a great difficulty in obtaining workmen. Employers are willing to put up with all sorts of things from workmen. I have had the descriptions from some employers of the things they had had to pass over and take no notice of. They pretend not to see them, because they know perfectly well that if they even said a disagreeable word to some of their workmen the result would be that the workmen would say, "off we go." There is no real danger of dismissing workmen
    2072
    at the present moment From this time until the end of the War the difficulty will be to get workmen. I cannot imagine any employer discharging a workman unless the case is overwhelming. Seeing that I have met my hon. Friend so fairly, I hope he will withdraw this Amendment.
    Mr. HODGE: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. T. WILSON: On a point of Order. I handed in a manuscript Amendment to the Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: I thought that was the one moved by the hon. Member for the Gorton Division (Mr. Hodge).
    Mr. T. WILSON: That is not so. Mine was an Amendment in line thirty-eight.
    The CHAIRMAN: They were all handed in in a bunch. I had already put the Question before the hon. Member rose. I am sorry I overlooked the Amendment. Perhaps he will bring it up on Report stage.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Application of Part II. to Docks Used by Admiralty.)
    This Part of this Act shall apply to any docks used by the Admiralty for any purposes connected with the War as it applies to establishments in which munitions work is carried on, with the substitution in relation to any such docks or persons employed in any such docks of the Admiralty for the Minister of Munitions.
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move, after the word "any" ["This Part of this Act shall apply to any docks"], to insert the words "work done for the Army or Navy in any or."
    This Clause certainly applies the provisions of the Bill to the Port of London Authority or to any other dock in the Kingdom.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Used by the Admiralty.
    Mr. LOUGH: Yes, I know. That seems seems a very large order. The London docks are used by the Admiralty, as are the docks at Southampton and Liverpool. The Clause might apply to all the provisions in the Bill as to division of profits and

    2073
    dismissal of workmen to these great port authorities. That is a very large thing to do, and I do not know whether we ought to pass it by. The Clause will then read, "This Part of the Act shall apply to any work done for the Army or Navy or any docks." I think some qualification ought to be put in.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend carries the matter too far. This is the application to Part II., and it would alter the whole scope of the Bill if he were to confine that application in the way he proposes.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Amendment of the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1915.)
    The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d) set out in Subsection (1) of Section 1 of the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1915, and shall be deemed to have been contained in that Act, namely:—
    (d) To regulate or restrict the carrying on of any work in any factory, workshop, or other premises, or the engagement or employment of any workman or all or any classes of workmen therein, or to remove the plant therefrom with a view to maintaining or increasing the production of munitions in other factories, workshops, or premises.
    Mr. E. JONES: I beg to move, after the word "work" ["the carrying on of any work"], to insert the words, "experiment or research."
    The object of this and subsequent Amendments is to give the Minister of Munitions the same powers over laboratories as he takes over factories and workshops.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think these Amendments are quite unnecessary. We do not want to commandeer universities and colleges. They have placed their laboratories at our disposal, and I cannot think of any case where we could have used these powers.
    Mr. E. JONES: The difficulty is that the authorities are quite willing in every case, but they are governed by Statutes and Orders in Council which will be in the way.
    2074
    I thought it would give him power to sweep away all these Statutes. If my right hon. Friend thinks it is completely covered I will not press it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: At end of Clause add the words, "or to regulate and control the supply of metals and material that may be required for any articles for use in War." [Sir C. Henry.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. KING: I should like to point out that this is an enormous development and enlargement of the Clause in the last Defence of the Realm Act that we have passed. It extends the provisions of the former enactment so that it applies to any work in any premises of any workman or any class of workman. I really do not see that it is necessary at all to have it in the Bill. I believe there are such ample powers given elsewhere that it seems a perfectly unnecessary provision and also an extraordinary enlargement of the powers of Ministers, and I think some explanation ought to be given of it.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Power to Require Information from Employers.)
    (1) The owner of any establishment in which persons are employed, if so required by the Minister of Munitions, shall give to the Minister such information, in such form and in such manner, as the Minister may require as to

    (a) the numbers and classes of persons employed or likely to be employed in the establishment from time to time;

    (b) the numbers and classes of machines at any such establishment;

    (c) the nature of the work on which any such persons are employed, or any such machines are engaged, from time to time;

    (d) any other matters with respect to which the Minister may desire information for the purpose of his powers and duties;

    and may arrange with any other Government Department for the collection of any such information.
    (2) If the owner of any establishment fails to comply with this Section he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) (d), after the word "and" ["and may arrange"], insert the words "the Minister."
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Penalty for False Statements, etc.)
    If any employer, or the owner of any establishment or any workman, for the purpose of evading any provision of this Act, makes any false statement or representation, or gives any false certificate, or furnishes any false information, or wears any badge in a manner calculated to deceive, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move, after the word "Act" ["evading any provision of this Act"], to insert the word "knowingly."
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. This Clause deals with the penalty for false statements, and applies both to the employer and the workman. It provides that if anyone makes a false statement or representation he shall be liable to penalties. I propose to insert the word "knowingly" because so many people do not know about this legislation and will not know all the facts about it and the penalties that may be incurred under it. I therefore provide that if anyone "knowingly" makes a false statement or representation he shall be liable.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The word "false" implies in law intention to deceive. That implies that it must be done knowingly. It is not merely a mistake; it must be an intention to deceive, and that is quite enough.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "or wears any badge in a manner calculated to deceive" ["furnishes any false information or wears any badge"].
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. KING: I do not think this Clause is at all a good one. I have a new Clause down which would be a very great improvement on this. It is a new Clause headed, "Penalty for making false statement." I do not know whether the Minister
    2076
    of Munitions has considered my Clause, but if he has and he tells me that he prefers his own, I will not say any more. I think if he is candid he will say he prefers mine.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Naturally I prefer my own Clause before the hon. Member's.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Payment of Members of Arbitration and Munitions Tribunals, etc.)
    There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to any person being a member of an arbitration tribunal, munitions tribunal, or board of referees under this Act, or being a referee under this Act, and to any other officers required in connection with any such tribunal or board, such remuneration and travelling or other expenses (including compensation for loss of time) as the Minister of Munitions or Board of Trade, as the case may be, with the sanction of the Treasury may determine.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Penalties.)
    (1) Any person guilty of an offence under this Act—

    (a) shall, if the offence is a contravention of or failure to comply with an award, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds for each day or part of a day during which the contravention or failure to comply continues, and, if the person guilty of the offence is an employer, for each man in respect of whom the contravention or failure takes place; and

    (b) shall, if the offence is a contravention of the provisions of this Act with respect to the prevention of lock-outs, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, in respect of each man locked out, for each day or part of a day during which the contravention continues; and

    (c) shall, if the offence is a contravention of the provisions of this Act with respect to the prohibition of strikes, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds for each day or part of a day during which the contravention continues; and

    2077

    (d) shall, if the offence is a contravention of or failure to comply with any regulations in a controlled establishment or any undertaking given by a workman under Part II. of this Act, be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding three pounds; and

    (e) shall, if the offence is a contravention of or failure to comply with any other provisions of this Act, be liable in respect of each offence on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

    (2) A fine for any offence, being a contravention of or failure to comply with any regulations in a controlled establishment or any undertaking given by a workman under Part II. of this Act, shall be recoverable only before the Munitions Tribunal established for the purpose under this Act.
    Mr. LOUGH: I beg to move, in Subsection (1) (a), to leave out the words "on summary conviction" ["be liable on summary conviction to a fine"].
    I think there is an Amendment to deal with this matter of summary conviction. This Clause deals with penalties.
    The CHAIRMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman excuse me: there is a manuscript Amendment handed in by the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge).
    Mr. T. WILSON: On behaf of my hon. Friend I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) (a), to leave out the word "summary."
    We do not wish Police Court jurisdiction called into operation in connection with the Act. We understand that the Munitions Tribunal will deal with these cases.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have just received a list of Government manuscript Amendments dealing with this point. It will perhaps save the Committee a good deal of trouble if I inform them what these Amendments are. They seem to cover all the Amendments on this Clause.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "on summary conviction."
    The Government desire, as far as possible, on this Clause to follow the suggestions made by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), and to have all these cases dealt with under what he describes as a "domestic court." The punishments set out in the several Sec-
    2078
    tions will remain exactly the same, but it is felt that the workers' objection would be very much softened down if he could feel that all the cases arising out of the several Sections were dealt with by the class of person whom we had already attempted to provide for the Munitions Court already in the Bill. We propose, therefore, to move a series of Amendments giving effect to this object. We propose to take out the words "on summary conviction" in four different places where they now appear, and we are going to set up, not one Munitions Court, but two. The Munitions Court that is already in the Bill will remain. That Munitions Court will only deal with a certain limited number of cases. We propose to set up another Munitions Court, and that Court will have power to deal with all cases of offences arising under the various Sections of the Act. We propose to take out the words "on summary conviction," not only from paragraph (a), but also from paragraphs (b), (c), and (e). In Sub-section (2) we propose to delete from the word "being" to the word "Act" ["Part II. of this Act"], and to insert words which will make the Section read, "A fine for any offence under this Act shall be recoverable only before the Munitions Tribunal established for the purpose under this Act." Then, at the end of the first paragraph of Clause 14, we propose to insert the following words: "And the Minister of Munitions may constitute two classes of Munitions Tribunals, the first class having jurisdiction to deal with all offences under this Act, the second class having jurisdiction to deal only with any contravention of or failure to comply with any regulation made applicable to a controlled establishment, or any undertaking given publicly by a workman under Part II. of this Act," Then, in Sub-section (3), after the word "tribunals," we propose to add the words "or either class of Munition Tribunals;" and the next Amendment is in Sub-section (4), after the word "tribunal" ["by a Munitions Tribunal"], to insert the words "for any offence within the jurisdiction of a tribunal of the second class." We feel quite satisfied that we are giving effect to the appeal that was made by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, and I think that this will find acceptance among my hon. Friends, because, though we leave the punishment the same we take all the cases right away from the Police Court, and that I understood to be the strong desire of my hon. Friends

    2079
    below the Gangway. As this was a sort of experiment and temporary measure we desire not to have the men taken before the magistrates and to feel possibly that they were not getting their cases considered always by men of a more sympathetic nature as they are now, if we have these two sets of Munitions Tribunals set up.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Will these tribunals set in private, or will they be open to the public, and the proceedings publicly reported?
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Will those two Courts be in the same district and composed of the same men, or two sets of men?
    Mr. DUKE: I am very glad His Majesty's Government have seen their way to have these local tribunals, both with regard to the raising of these delicate questions in Justice Courts, and with regard to the question of the mode in which we shall organise what you may call the disciplinary part of the Bill. As I understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said, you will have for the factories and workshops what will be practically domestic tribunals. It would be a great advantage in these matters, which ought to be little matters, and dealt with almost day by day, to have domestic rules for them. I cannot see any objection to the Amendment. It is also proposed to deal on a systematic plan with the whole of the administration throughout the country. It will not deal with questions of management in factories, but will deal with the relations of class to class—the class of employers to the class of workmen, and apply the whole scheme harmoniously throughout the country. I agree with the principle of what has been said, that the people to have the control of domestic affairs probably would not be best fitted to exercise the general supervision over what is going on in a large business. If you take Sheffield, Birmingham, or Tyneside, or any place where armaments are being provided, you might have in a limited area a little local board which would command the confidence of everybody, the members of it being well known. In a large district, like the whole of Tyneside, you may have very serious questions quite apart from discipline in factories, and you will want men who will command general respect in the district to man the Courts in the larger area. The
    2080
    difficulties which I foresaw in the working of the machinery of the Bill in factories have, I think, been removed.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: It is not the intention of the Minister of Munitions that the Courts shall sit in private. In answer to my hon. Friend (Mr. Jonathan Samuel), I should state that in the second class of Courts there will be a larger number than in the first class. Where we set up a first Court we do not intend to set up a second Court in the same district.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is it possible to provide for strikes, lock-outs, and matters of that kind?
    11.0 P.M.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The first Court will try every case, large and small. Hence we do not propose to set up the second class of Court in the area where the first class of Court has been established, because we think that that Court can do the whole of the work. There will probably be only ten or a dozen of these Courts, but there may be sixty or seventy of the second class.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I understand that each Court will have no power of imprisonment in default of payment of fines, but simply the power of fining.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The small Court will have no power to do other than impose a fine, the maximum of which is fixed at £3. The other Court will have power to punish as is set out in the Bill, only it will be what we call a Domestic Court and not a Police Court.
    Mr. T. WILSON: We are very glad the Government have introduced these Amendments. We believe that the Bill as amended will inspire a great deal more confidence in the minds of the workpeople than otherwise it would have done, and at the same time remove a considerable amount of bad feeling in connection with the administration of the Act. Therefore, so far as we are concerned, we are satisfied, except as to one point about which probably the Minister of Munitions may accept a new Clause.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I regard these Amendments as a very distinct improvement. These offences are emergency offences, and the less there is of taking them before the magistrates the better. My own view is that if you had much of that you would create difficulties instead of getting rid of

    2081
    them, and very often would arouse the bitterest feeling inside the factories. In the larger Court is there the right of imprisonment.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The power of imprisonment set out in the Clause remains in the larger Court, but we thought we were giving the workman the advantage by giving him a more sympathetic or Domestic Court.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Consequential Amendments, leaving out the words "on summary conviction," agreed to.
    Mr. HODGE: We would like the Minister of Munitions to accept an Amendment as to the penalty for making a false statement or in connection with the wearing of a badge.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That has been left out.
    Mr. HODGE: I do not think it covers it.
    The CHAIRMAN: We left out the words about wearing the badge in Clause 11.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2), to leave out the words "being a contravention of or failure to comply with any regulations in a controlled establishment or any undertaking given by a workman under Part II. of this Act," and insert instead thereof the words "under this Act."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. R. MACDONALD: I am sorry that I did not notice that you had overlooked an Amendment which I had handed in. I merely raise the point now in the form of a question, and ask whether in this series of penalties any penalty is included for a breach of Clause 4, Sub-section (4)?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: An Amendment covering that particular case has already been inserted at the instance of an hon. Friend below the Gangway.
    Mr. R. MACDONALD: I understand that an Amendment which you are to move later on, carrying on Part I., for the purpose of enforcing this, will be read in with the penalties?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: On the Second Reading the Home Secretary said that he would consider a point I then raised,
    2082
    namely, whether these fines could be imposed without the intervention of the Act of 1896?
    Sir J. SIMON: I know my hon. Friend takes a close interest in that branch of the law, and has played a very important part in it. The Truck Act is concerned only with attempts made by agreement between employers and workmen to deduct fines from wages. This has nothing to do with agreements between employers and workmen, but with fines imposed by a tribunal, and we provide that those fines can be deducted from wages.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Munitions Tribunals.)
    (1) The munitions tribunal shall be a person appointed for the purpose by the Minister of Munitions sitting with two or some other even number of assessors, one half being chosen by the Minister of Munitions from a panel constituted by the Minister of Munitions of persons representing employers and the other half being so chosen from a panel constituted by the Minister of Munitions of persons representing workmen.
    The Admiralty shall be substituted for the Minister of Munitions under this provision as the authority to appoint and choose members of a munitions tribunal to deal with offences by persons employed in any docks declared to be controlled establishments by the Admiralty.
    (2) The Minister of Munitions or the Admiralty shall constitute munitions tribunals as and when occasion requires.
    (3) Rules may be made for regulating the procedure of the munition tribunals so far as relates to their jurisdiction with respect to offences under this Act by a Secretary of State, and so far as relates to any other matters which are referred to them under this Act by the Minister of Munitions, and rules made by the Secretary of State under this provision may apply, with the necessary modifications, any of the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts which it appears expedient to apply.
    In the application of this provision to Scotland the Secretary for Scotland shall be substituted by the Secretary of State, and any provisions relating to the sheriff sitting summarily for the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, and in the application of this provision to Ireland the Lord Lieutenant shall be substituted for the Secretary of State.
    (4) A person employed or workman shall not be imprisoned in respect of the non-payment of a fine imposed by a munitions tribunal, but that tribunal may, without prejudice to any other available means of recovery, make an order requiring such deductions to be made on account of the fine from wages due to the person employed or workman as the tribunal think fit, and requiring the person by whom the wages are paid to account for any sums deducted in accordance with the order.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "person" ["a person appointed"], to insert the words, "who is a civilian other than a permanent Civil servant."
    We believe that permanent Civil servants ought to be kept out of these Courts. The Bill will be administered a great deal better if that is done, and those affected will have more confidence in the administration of the Act.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. It is quite an unnecessary reflection upon a noble body and an aspersion upon Government servants. I do not know that we have any Civil servants that wish to sit on these tribunals.
    Mr. HODGE: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept the words "who is a civilian." We do not want a naval or a military officer presiding over these tribunals; otherwise the fat will be in the fire.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am told that the legal definition of a "civilian" is a gentleman who is conversant with Roman Law.
    Mr. HODGE: You will have to go to Scotland for him.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Is that what my hon. Friend means? I assure him we have no intention of doing what he suggests.
    Mr. HODGE: The Admiralty might.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Or putting in force martial law. We are just as anxious as he is that these Courts should not be of the character that he apprehends.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is it intended that local magistrates shall be disqualified from being upon these tribunals?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. [A RIGHT HON. GENTLEMAN: "Yes."]
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Well, one Minister says "Yes," and another says "No."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am the Minister in charge, and I say "No."
    Mr. T. WILSON: I moved what I did with the object of making the Act work smoothly, for the workmen in the shipbuilding yards and engineering shops have a great suspicion of anyone who has been a public servant—in the Army or Navy. In regard to the suggestion of aspersions, the Act itself is an aspersion upon a great many more men than these.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), at end, to insert the words, "And the Minister of Munitions may constitute two classes of munitions tribunals, the first class having jurisdiction to deal with all offences under this Act, and the second class having jurisdiction to deal with any contravention or infraction of the by-laws or regulations made in controlled establishments, or any undertaking given to workmen under Part II. of this Act."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Amendment made; In Sub-section (3) leave out the words "the procedure of" ["regulating the procedure of"].—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Further Amendments made: In Sub-sections (3), after the word "tribunals" ["munitions tribunals so far as relates"], insert the words "of either class of tribunals."
    At end of Sub-section (3) insert the words "and any provision so applied shall apply to the munitions tribunals accordingly."
    In Sub-section (4), after the word "tribunal" ["a munitions tribunal, but that"], to insert the words "for an offence within the jurisdiction of the tribunal of the second class."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to move, after the word "tribunal" ["a munitions tribunal, but that"] to insert the words "for a first offence."
    The Sub-section provides that a person shall not be imprisoned in respect of the non-payment of a line imposed by a Munitions Tribunal. My Amendment is that that provision shall apply to a first offence. A workman may deliberately set

    2085
    himself against the Act, and I think in the case of repeated offences the tribunal should have the power of imprisonment in default of being able to recover the fine. I hope the power will not be required, but if may be required.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is a good deal in what the hon. Gentleman says, but there has been a substantial agreement established with the leaders of the various trades concerned, and I do not think I should have succeeded in obtaining that measure of agreement unless I had agreed to the insertion of this provision against imprisonment. I think we have gone a long way, and it is very much better, from every point of view, that it should be on an agreed principle. For that reason I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (4) leave out the words "wages due to" ["on account of the fine from wages due to the person "], and insert instead thereof the words "the wages of."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Mr. JOWETT: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), after the word "fit" ["as the tribunal think fit"], to insert the words "providing that no larger sum than five shillings may be deducted from any one week's wages."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should think a maximum of 5s. would be quite ineffective where a man was earning between £2, £3, or £4 a week. It might be considered only necessary to impose a penalty of 1s. for an offence. I think my hon. Friend must realise that that must be the case.
    Mr. R. MACDONALD: The intention of this Amendment is not necessarily to impose a fine of 5s.
    Mr. KING: I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Amendment which I have on the Paper which I think really meets the case even better than the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett). I suggest in my Amendment that the deduction from wages should not be at a higher rate than three-pence in the shilling. If a man was earning £4 a week he might very well pay £1 fine.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think this is a matter which the Munitions Tribunal could also determine. If it is put to them that the man is only earning 25s. or 30s. a week the tribunal would take that into account, but to impose a fine of 5s. on a man who is earning £4 or £5 as a maximum would not make very much impression. I think it is better that each case should be dealt with on its merits.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. WATT: How many different types of tribunals are going to be set up throughout the country and are they all going to be paid?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think there will be about sixty Courts of the first instance, and about nine or ten of the other.
    Mr. WATT: How many individuals?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There will be the President of the Court, a nominee of the workers and a nominee of the employer.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Application of Documentary Evidence Acts to Ministry of Munitions.)
    The Documentary Evidence Act, 1868, as amended by the Documentary Evidence Act, 1882, shall apply to the Minister of Munitions in like manner as if that Minister were mentioned in the first column of the Schedule to the first-mentioned Act, and as if that Minister, or a secretary in the Ministry or any person authorised by the Minister to act on his behalf, were mentioned in the second column of that Schedule, and as if the regulations referred to in those Acts included any document issued by the Minister.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Interpretation.)
    In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—

    (a) The expression "lock-out" means the closing of a place of employment, or the suspension of work, or the refusal by an employer to

    2087
    continue to employ any number of persons employed by him in consequence of a dispute, done with a view to compelling those persons, or to aid another employer in compelling persons employed by him, to accept terms or conditions of or affecting employment;

    (b) the expression "strike" means the cessation of work by a body of persons employed acting in combination, or a concerted refusal or a refusal under a common understanding of any number of persons employed to continue to work for an employer in consequence of a dispute, done as a means of compelling their employer or any body of persons employed, or to aid other workmen in compelling their employer or any body of persons employed, to accept or not to accept terms or conditions of or affecting employment.

    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move in paragraph (b), after the word "body" ["as a means of compelling their employer or any body of persons"] to insert the words "or any." I understand the right hon. Gentleman thinks it would be better to introduce these words in each of these cases.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph, (b) after the word "any" ["any body of persons employed, to accept or not to accept"] to insert the words "persons or."—[Mr. Duke.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Short Title.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Munitions of War Act, 1915.
    (2) This Act shall have effect only so long as the office of Minister of Munitions and the Ministry of Munitions exist.
    Amendment made: At end add the words, "Provided that Part I. of this Act shall continue to apply for a period of twelve months after the conclusion of the present War to any difference arising in relation to the performance by the owner of any establishment of his undertaking to carry out the provisons set out in the Second Schedule to this Act notwithstanding that the office of Minister of Munitions and the Ministry of Munitions have ceased to exist."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Regulations as to Badges.)
    (1) The Minister of Munitions may make rules authorising the wearing of badges or other distinctive marks by persons engaged on munitions work or other work for war purposes and as to the issue and return of any such badges or marks, and may by those rules prohibit the use, wearing or issue of any such badges or of any badges or marks indicating or suggesting that any person is engaged on munitions work or work for war purposes except as authorised by those rules.
    (2) If any person acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, any such rules, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. G. TERRELL: We ought to have some little explanation why this Clause is moved, because this is going to upset a great number of people. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows it, but some time past, in fact, after the outbreak of the War, a clamour was raised that badges should be issued by the War Office to workmen who are engaged on War Office work, and a great many employers brought pressure to bear on the War Office to issue badges to the men. Then the point was raised in this House on several occasions as to what classes of men were to be entitled to the badges, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in reply to a question which I put to him, described the main classes of material comprised in the term "munitions of war" as "guns, small arms and their respective natures of ammunition, swords, lances, aeroplanes and military motors." The badges were limited to firms supplying this equipment. That did not meet with the approval of many employers in the country and their workmen, who were engaged on other materials equally munitions of war. They made repeated applications to the War Office for badges. The War Office refused to grant badges, and therefore, to save any further trouble and difficulty, they manufactured their own badges and supplied them to their workmen. There was no harm in that, and

    2089
    there are thousands of workmen at present in the country who are wearing badges that have been supplied by private employers which bear the inscription that the men are engaged on War Office work and the name of the firm. If this new Clause is passed, then you will have those men very much up in arms, and a great feeling of resentment, which is wholly unnecessary, will be caused. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to realise that if he presses this Clause he will find that he is starting his new Ministry with a great feeling of prejudice against it, because a man who has worn a badge—worn it legally and lawfully—will very bitterly resent having to give it up. Under these circumstances, unless the right hon. Gentleman is at once prepared to enlarge the definition of the class entitled to wear badges, he had better, in the interests of peace, withdraw the Clause. He has not attempted to explain the Clause, but I am sure it will cause a great deal of trouble if he insists on its passing into law.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I consider this a very important Clause and certainly will not withdraw it. A great many men have been withdrawn from the engineering works of this country, and the production of munitions has been considerably crippled. The absence of some systematic method of giving badges to men is largely responsible for that. In addition to that a good many badges have been given by people on their own authority to persons who ought never to have received them. In some cases the badges have been discredited. These things ought to be not merely systematised, but placed on a perfectly regular official basis. There are workmen at the present moment engaged in war munitions works who are only receiving badges from their employers, and the sooner that is remedied the better. The sooner the power of issuing badges is taken away from everybody but the State the better. No doubt time will be given to arrange that men who have badges only from private firms shall have proper State badges substituted for them, but I venture to say that unless the badges are confined to persons who are authorised and have a real claim to wear them—unless that is done in a short time—there will be disorganisation which will result in harm both to recruiting and to munition work.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a firm at the present moment which is offering for sale
    2090
    war badges inscribed in the centre with the name of a firm?
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I hope time will be given before the Clause is put into operation, and some wider view adopted of the class of persons entitled to wear these badges than was given in answer to a question in this House. It seems only reasonable that these badges should be given to all men genuinely engaged on War Office work.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, we intend to do so.
    Mr. TERRELL: If that is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman I accept the Clause.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Rules to be Laid before Parliament.)
    Any rule made under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such rule is laid before it praying that the rule may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the rule and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    Mr. KING: The two new Clauses on the Paper standing in my name are consequential on an Amendment which unfortunately was not acepted, and I will not therefore bother the Committee with them.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Transfer of Powers.)
    As soon after the date of the passing of this Act as may be found expedient all powers at present exercised by the Ordnance Department of the War Office in respect to the supply of munitions of war shall be transferred to the new Ministry of Munitions.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Personally, I regard this proposal as imperative and urgently necessary in the highest interests of the State. Who is there who would be bold enough to-day to deny that the Ordnance Department, as at present constituted, has absolutely forfeited the confidence of the country? Who will deny that it has completely and abjectly broken down? By its absence of foresight, by its flouting of the manufacturers of the country, by its scandalous neglect of the most elementary steps in warfare, its management is now recognised as a national scandal, and its blunders innumerable have seriously endangered the security of the country. The shortage of rifles is a matter which is now public knowledge. There is no secrecy about it. We have only to see our men in training in different parts of the country to know what the state of affairs is. Some of us know how long they have been without rifles. With regard to shells and machine guns, we, alas, know too well how the Ordnance Department has completely failed; how, in spite of urgent demands from the Front as far back as last October, many of these requests remain unanswered at the present moment! It is well for this country to have a brave army, and I think we can confidently say that we have the bravest army in the world. But what is bravery if we do not equip our men with something like the same degree of ability as the enemy? What chance have our men with half the number of machine guns per battalion that the enemy have? It is not simply that the Ordnance Department have been unable to organise the necessary equipment, but that they have since the beginning of the War refused generous offers of assistance, and turned away the help of many firms and many men who might have saved the situation.
    I need not detain the Committee by giving cases. I will content myself with one. I know a Member of this House who at the beginning of the War held or controlled the largest stocks of an essential component of certain explosives, T.N.T. He took the responsibility of being willing to break his contracts in different parts of the world, and offered his supply to the Ordnance Department. He was turned down and refused. Eight months after, they were scouring the world for T.N.T. My proposal is that the powers of the Ordnance Department in regard to the
    2092
    supply of munitions should be handed over—lock, stock, and barrel—to the new Ministry we have just created. I am not here to lay blame on the Secretary of State for War. When the credit and discredit of the War come to be summed up it will probably be decided that he did his little bit. He undertook a Herculean task when he undertook to raise the great army of which we are so proud, and it was impossible to believe that he could have attended personally to all the various departments in connection with the War Office. It was essential that he should delegate part of his responsible work. The Ordnance Department let him down badly. They let the Army down and they let the country down at the same time. The person, in my opinion, chiefly responsible for this was Colonel von Donop. The powers he has hitherto exercised should be taken from him and handed over to the new Ministry, and another sphere of labour found for his abilities. The country will be satisfied with nothing less than that this should take place, and if the Government have not the courage to scrap a Colonel they have not the nerve to win the War. I am not in possession of Cabinet secrets, but it was announced in the public Press last October that the Government had decided that every effort should be made to assure the co-operation of large private firms throughout the country for the production of ammunition—any firms outside the armament ring. Why was this not done last October? Why did it remain undone six months afterwards? Who is responsible? Primarily, the Ordnance Department, next the Minister for War, and, most of all, the late Cabinet.
    Yet the decision of the Government with regard to the invitation to private firms to help us in the Government work that had to be immediately undertaken, were treated with contempt by the Ordnance Department, and but for that method of treatment thousands of men who are dead to-day would have been alive, and the War would have been much nearer termination. I have no confidence in the future successful equipment, of our Army unless my proposal is adopted. I do not believe even the Minister of Munitions, with all his energy, with all the resources, and with all the help which will be willingly given him will ever be able to make a full success of his Department unless his powers are full, unfettered, and un-

    2093
    challenged. If the object of this new Clause is not accepted what are the relations to be between the new Ministry of Munitions and the Ordnance Department? It will be a case of perpetual misunderstanding. At present the great manufacturers are puzzled to know where to go for their orders, and they are puzzled to know what is going to happen in the future to the parties which they have to be responsible to. The necessity for the smooth, quick, successful working and equipment of our Army demands that the right hon. Gentleman should have full and absolute control, and it should not be necessary for him to wait for all the labyrinth of Departments and Committees under the Ordnance Department.
    At present there are four or five authorities who have to be considered, and delay in many cases is unavoidable before any real decision can be taken with regard to the order for the necessary munitions of war. This House has been very patriotic in regard to the manner in which they have refrained from discussing these vital matters. In many cases I think that our patriotism has been mistaken for ignorance. I think the time is really due now when the veil should be withdrawn from the eyes of the nation and they should know that this Ordnance Department is responsible for the failure of the late Government and that it is responsible for all our real blunders in regard to the War. I ask the Government, is it not time to tell the country that they recognise this, and to alter the powers of that Department and to reconstruct the personnel, so that the country may have more confidence for the future? The history of this Ordnance Department has been failure in the past, chaos in the present, and hopelessness for the future, and the country demands an immediate radical transfer of its powers. The facts of the situation at the present moment are that it is necessary in the highest interests of the State that those powers should be so transferred. We demand that the new Ministry of Munitions shall assume all the powers of this Ordnance Department in regard to the supply of munitions, and that it should be robbed of every vestige of its authority in that regard.
    Sir CHARLES HENRY: I support the new Clause moved by the right hon. Gentleman. He has certainly not exaggerated the condition of affairs that have
    2094
    existed at the Ordnance Department of the War Office, but I do not think it advisable to enlarge upon that. I think the fact that it has been necessary to create this Ministry of Munitions is a proof that the affairs of the Ordnance Department were lamentably neglected. If this Clause is not accepted this Bill, in my opinion, is useless, and the object it desires to consummate will be stultified. Through the Ordnance Department we are in the position that has been described by my right hon. Friend, and I hope the Minister of Munitions will not hesitate to accept this Clause, and to take the full authority to deal with this important Department. In reply to a question I put to the right hon. Gentleman to-day, as to which Department will be responsible for supplying the metals and materials that we use in the War now that the Ministry of Munitions has been created, he told me that his Department would have the buying of these metals and materials. If he is going to take that important matter under his charge, I fail to see how any reason can be substantiated why he should not have full control of the Ordnance Department at the War Office. I feel confident that if he undertakes this, and if he is empowered to assume that authority, we shall see before very long a substantial improvement in the present aspect of affairs.
    Sir R. COOPER: With the exception of the reference to the Secretary of State for War I want to associate myself absolutely with every word that has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel). I have already on the Second Reading of this Bill, spoken quite strongly my views on this particular matter. Therefore, I am not going to occupy the time of the House this evening beyond expressing the absolute conviction that this Bill is useless, and that the Minister of Munitions is absolutely doomed to failure if he does not take these additional powers which we are pressing upon him this evening. Whatever it may mean there has got to be a new post found for the Master of Ordnance, and if for some reason the Committee cannot acept this new Clause then I feel ready to give my whole time up to agitation unless that step is taken. I make this suggestion with the sincere desire to see the right hon. Gentleman succeed in the most difficult task he has undertaken. I know from personal experience that enormous improvements are taking place in that Department, and I

    2095
    want to see that the man who has the energy, zeal, and determination to carry through that work must not be hampered by the very individuals who are absolutely responsible for the lamentable condition that the country has found itself in this summer as regards munitions.
    Sir CROYDON MARKS: Anyone who has had experience, as I have had, of the manner in which munitions of war are determined by the War Office must know that if this new Department is to go on successfully it must have complete control over the manner in which munitions are to be manufactured. If you are to have one Department, the War Office, controlling the manufacture at Woolwich and another Department under the control of the Minister of Munitions there will undoubtedly be overlapping and unquestionably chaos. There is at present in this country a large number of firms who could be well employed in, and have offered their services to the War Office for producing the very articles which we had submitted to us in this House the other day, namely, fuses. They have offered their services to produce these things without the slightest alteration in plant, but have never been asked to do anything. When they visited the War Office they have had to hang about the corridors and other places and they have never known which department to go to, and they complain that though they want to do this work they never can get an opportunity of doing it. Those who are concerned at the War Office with dealing with this know, perhaps, how to use the articles. They have had no experience in the manufacture of them. Consequently, though they know from experience what should be used, they have a great dislike to any other person making any suggestion if he does not happen to be in the Service or if he happens to be in any other arm of the Service.
    If a cavalry officer—I am speaking of what I know—happens to make a suggestion to the War Office, and submits something by way of improvement to the War Office it will not be adopted. If an officer submits something which he thinks is a great improvement and which is recommended by those who know something about it, when he goes to the War Office he gets no encouragement. He is turned down, and he is asked to make the article. If a private firm goes to the trouble and
    2096
    expense of making the improved article and submits it, then they will test it. If the War Office had the power, or the Minister of Munitions had the power, there should be a department to test these things not simply to receive the drawings and turn them down, but to test the things experimentally and to take the risk, as a private firm takes the risk at the present time when anything is offered to them. I have had ten years in Woolwich Arsenal, and was in the drawing office there, and when I was there I looked on—as most civil servants do—anything coming from outside as something which was a reflection on those of us who were inside. Consequently, when anything was proposed from outside, we looked upon it as a reflection on us. That is the attitude which I find to-day, after thirty years' experience of outside engineering, is still followed In connection with munitions, I might suggest that if a Government Department is establishing a system manufacturing munitions in private works, it will be utterly useless unless this Department has the same control over Government work. Therefore, I would suggest that we should make some serious proposal towards co-ordinating Government manufacture with private manufacture and letting the whole of the Department manufacturing be under the Minister of Munitions.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I have been waiting anxiously to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say in reply to the speeches which have been delivered. There is no doubt of the gravity and the great importance of the change which is suggested by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. It differs in one respect from many of the other important provision of this Bill, and I think I may say from all of them in this, that if it is accepted it will net be an emergency Clause during the continuance of the War, but it will be a permanent Clause.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: The Ministry of Munitions will cease probably at the end of the War. It is in the same category as the other Clauses, and the Ministry of Munitions will cease at the end of the War.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: The Clause is not worded in the same way as the other Clauses are. Is it only an emergency Clause? [An HON. MEMBER: "No more; it falls with the office."] If the indictment of the right hon. Gentleman and of hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on this

    2097
    matter is true, then I have to ask this question: This Bill must have been carefully considered by the Cabinet, of course, because it is the most important Bill we have had this Session, and the question to which, naturally, I want to ask for an answer is—and it is a question which I am sure everybody must be asking if all this is true, Why it not something of the purport of this Clause in the Bill before us? I think we must really ask for some explanation on that subject before we can possibly commit ourselves — certainly before I can commit myself—to any particular course in this matter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten us on this subject, and without any further delay.
    12.0 M.
    Mr. CROOKS: I would not have stayed in the House the whole of this night if I had not thought that the Master of Ordnance was going to be superseded by the Minister of Munitions. I was under the impression that it was going to be so. When I was a little lad, my father, who was a sailor, said to me, "Always obey orders even if you break owners." We have been obeying orders to the detriment of the Service. The Master of Ordnance is such a superior person that rather than lose his superiority he would allow the whole country to come to disaster. I have been in mortal terror as to the condition of things. The Master of Ordnance has a staff who dare not call their souls their own, and if any advice is given by any of them, he is told, "When we want you we will send for you." The consequence is that even genius hides its diminished head in front of this superior person. The fact is that though he has got a staff at the Arsenal and at Enfield which is better than any in the world, yet the result is, as it has always seemed to me, that you have forgotten that you have a Department of your own to which orders may be given. As to the output of the Arsenal, I declare publicly now, for the first time in the House, that you might increase that output by at least one-third. How is it that the superintendent of the Arsenal, whose capacity no one will deny, has to beg and pray for orders? When you talked the other day of commandeering works, and of making work compulsory, it seemed to me that you have the best object lesson at the Arsenal. You have got 40,000 men there at work—or rather more or less at work—but you may have 140,000 and still be unable, if you do not work the place
    2098
    and the machinery properly, to increase the output. What is wanted is not an ornament or a superior person, but a practical man. The Minister of Munitions ought to be able to get at least a dozen men in the country who would tell what the output of any machine was, and then why not go down and see whether it was doing what you expected. All the answer we get to questions is sterotyped. For years I have received regular excuses. Either "consideration is being given by the Department," or they are considering whether it is desirable to alter plant, or the supply of raw material is falling off somewhat. Just fancy that in war times, when the papers are full of the necessity of war material, and when there are constant pleas from the Front for more material, having to beg and pray for orders for your own Department. There must surely be something radically wrong when that is so. If this new Department is not going to help us, then God help us, for nobody else can. I do think we ought to accept this new Clause, and carry it as an expression of opinion as to what ought to be done with the Ordnance Department. I wonder how it is the contractor always comes up first. I heard a question about railway carriages being sent to Woolwich for inspection. The hon. Baronet who asked it was not far out. They did not send the waggon there but they sent a man to inspect it where it was. Here you have got a man who would be better employed in skilled work passing other people's manufacture. Human nature is much of a muchness.
    Talk of munitions has gone on almost every day this Session, and asking when they were having a full supply, and within a week of to-night a night gang was waiting for material three solid hours. I undertake to say that your munition workers are as keen and as enthusiastic as the men in the trenches. It is not war, it is murder. I cannot speak too strongly about it. What does it matter to me whether a man is an ornament or a distinguished soldier? What I want to know is can he do the job. I do not want to find him another job. If he cannot do the work let him get out of it. I am tired of trying to persuade people to take an active interest in this matter. We have tons of clerks who write books about things, but we want the men to do the job. Is it going to be the same as in the Peninsula War, and to

    2099
    leave Tommy to win the War for you, unless we have revolution in the supply of munitions which the men are asking and praying for? Has this born organiser arrived yet? Have we developed the genius and capacity to organise? Is it too much to ask that no great man should stand in the wya of the nation? He is one man to the nation. I have had some experience, as the Committee will agree. I have stumped the country since the War began, east to west and north to south. I have never heard a single word said against the War. The people say, "Go on and pull through. The liberties of the common people are at stake. This is not a Government war; it is not a capitalist war. It is a people's war. Our liberties are at stake. We have to look to you, and loyal we will be when you tell us what you want, but do not keep us idle, for God's sake."
    Mr. DUKE: The Committee will think that this matter has reached a state of very great gravity. The position in which we stand is that a Department and a public servant have been collectively and individually stigmatised with dereliction of duty which, in some countries and even in this country in some times, would have met with as condign punishment as is known to civilised people. I am sure that there are only two courses open to His Majesty's Government. There is the course of saying that these imputations which are made upon a Department, and upon a servant of the Department, are not true. That is one course. His Majesty's Government is faced with that responsibility, and if His Majesty's Govment does not discharge itself of that responsibility how is it going to stand with regard to the country, whose vital interests and very existence are at stake, at a time when those vital interests pivot upon the spot which is said to be the fatally weak spot?
    We have lived in a storm of disparagement and a wilderness of imputation during the last eight months, because it is quite eight months ago that it was being said by people here, familiar with the inside of public departments, "The War Office is not providing itself with munitions. The War Office gets offers of munitions and does not accept them." But now, to-night, here in the House of Commons, this is brought to a focus. A Department is stigmatised; a public official at the head of a branch of it is stigmatised, and His Majesty's Ministers are
    2100
    silent. We are plain people in this country in our dealings with such matters. It is open to any servant of the Crown, who has fallen into error even in such matters, to say to a most generous and forbearing country, "I have been wrong," but it is not possible, so it seems to me, that we should by implication assume that these charges made to-night, which are specific and personal, and which go to a whole Department—to the head of ft as well as its components, and to a division of the Department and a particular servant of the Crown—it is not possible that these charges should be left in the position in which they stand, to be passed judgment upon by the country as though there were no answer to them, and that we should let matters go on as if it did not concern us. Therefore, I say, the first thing it seems to me His Majesty's Government ought to do is to make up its mind and say to the House that these charges are not true. If His Majesty's Government is not going to say that these charges are not true; if it has not got an answer for whoever is responsible it must, as I conceive, make an explanation of the facts. If it cannot make such an explanation, if these direct departmental and personal accusations are true, judgment must be passed upon them, and the necessary result must follow. I rise because several Ministers of the Crown are here, and nobody, on behalf of the War Office against which this charge is directed, has offered either justification or extenuation.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: What is this Bill but a charge against the War Office?
    Mr. DUKE: I am not going to discuss that matter with the hon. Gentleman; it is much too serious a matter to be a mere question of dialectics. The Government must have considered this Question! This Amendment has been on the Notice Paper, and it must have been the subject of discussion. One might almost have conceived that the Government collectively would have considered such a matter. At any rate the responsibility rests upon them. What we want to know is how are they going to discharge themselves of it?
    Sir FREDERICK CAWLEY: The country has undoubtedly been alarmed, and what it wants to know is, Who is to blame? We know that at the beginning of the War we were short of machine guns, yet all this time has elapsed without remedy. The right hon. Gentleman in making his speech on the introduction of

    2101
    his Bill practically said that the Germans were holding the trenches with machine guns, whereas we had only two or three machine guns, and had to have 100 men to do the work that one machine gun would do. There is the question that thousands of our soldiers have been lost through lack of machine guns and lack of munitions, and the country wants to know who is to blame for all this We have had a very distinguished person at the head of the War Office. If the Minister for War had been in this House we should have had questions at him for months about this matter; but because he is in the House of Lords and not here, the man whom the country has a great opinion of, and on whom nobody seemed to throw the slightest blame, is the very man, who, in my opinion, ought to accept the responsibility. The Minister for War is the Minister for War. If there is any blame to be attached to anybody he must be the one to say why these munitions of war have been short. The country, however, will forgive that. But they ought to have some information as to who is to blame. They might forgive the past if they knew that the Minister of Munitions would in future be solely responsible. Everybody has confidence in the right hon. Gentleman. I have great confidence in his energy and in his judgment. Yet this Clause is not accepted, and what will the country think? The country will know then that the very men who are to blame for this bad business—this shortage of ammunition, this shortage of machine guns, this shortage of rifles—are still in authority. That is the position we shall be in if this Clause is rejected. The country thinks, and thinks rightly, that there has been gross carelessness, gross incompetence, and crass stupidity, and they do not want to be again placed in the very same hands as those which have made such a havoc of our interests. Unless the country does know that these men who are responsible for all this mess, as I may call it, which the country is in, and that somebody else will be responsible, and that these men will not interfere with them, the country will be dissatisfied, and there will be an agitation such as this House has not seen for some time.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not mind saying that this is a Debate for which neither my colleagues nor myself were quite prepared. I saw the Amendment on the Paper dealt with the transfer of certain duties to my Department, but I did not
    2102
    realise it would develop into a criticism of the past administration of the War Office. I think if that had been fully realised my hon. Friends who represent the War Office and myself would have been in a better position to give the necessary answer to the criticisms. If I may respectfully say so, I am not sure that an Amendment in Committee on a Bill is the best method of arraigning any particular Department. I agree that the House of Commons is entitled, and indeed it is the duty of the House of Commons, if it is dissatisfied with the administration of any particular Department, to demand the reason why there have been certain deficiencies of a serious character, but I respectfully suggest that the opportunity for doing that is cither by a motion or by means of a discussion in Committee of Supply.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Give us a day for it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When I introduced this Bill I carefully refrained from entering into any discussion about the past. I have some information about that—and I do not mind saying I have some views upon it—but I think it is much more important for the moment, than that we should have any discussion about the past, that we should guarantee that any mistakes that have been made in the past should not be repeated in the future. The past is gone and done for. It is irretrievably lost, and it would be doubly lost if the lesson is not learnt. And what is most important for us is that mistakes—inevitable mistakes of judgment—serious mistakes of judgment, under very trying and novel conditions should not be repeated. I have the advantage in starting now in knowing where those mistakes have occurred. I will not guarantee that if I were starting where they started nine or ten months ago I might not have made exactly the same mistakes, and I have got the advantage that I have in front of me what happened as the result of a certain course, and I naturally take the other.
    I am not in a position at the present moment to enter into the very grave questions that have been raised by my hon. Friends; they are questions which no doubt will have to be investigated, and the responsibility must be placed on the right shoulders where mistakes have been made; but I do not think an arraignment of that kind can fairly be initiated or prosecuted upon an Amendment in Committee upon a Bill.

    2103
    There is no opportunity for those who have been challenged to present their case, and it is obviously fair that they should have full notice of it, and that they should have an opportunity of stating what they have to say in reply. In addition to that, may I say another thing which is very important in the House of Commons? I am not sure that the facts could be given at the present moment. That is a very serious consideration for the Committee and the House to take into account. It would not be desirable to give the facts. A time will come when we can safely give the facts, and that will be the time to judge. It is almost impossible—it is quite impossible—for the House of Commons to judge until it has the facts—until it has the whole of the facts. It is only desirable that the facts should be presented to-day in so far as it is necessary to get powers from the House of Commons to prevent a repetition of the same conditions in future. That is one reason why we are introducing this Bill. My hon. Friends say, "We have no guarantee that we shall not have a repetition of the same unsatisfactory conditions unless you have a change in the control of the department which directly has to deal with the production of munitions If the administration of certain individuals has produced a certain condition of things, and if those individuals still control, what guarantee have we?" I think my hon. Friends may rest assured that the powers which have been given to me by Act of Parliament already are quite adequate, when developed, to prevent anything of that kind recurring. I think I may say that those powers are full, and they are powers which may be declared from time to time by Orders in Council. It is perfectly true that the Order in Council has to be interpreted with the consent of the Army Council. I could not at the present moment take over the whole of the duties of this particular Department. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I am going to give my reasons why. I have practically to devise and create a new Department. It is a Department which involves the expenditure of a gigantic sum of money. I have to build it up gradually, and it is very important that I should get the right men. Once you get the wrong men into a Department it is difficult to get rid of them, because there are all sorts of considerations which make it difficult. Therefore I prefer to build up my Department gradually, to
    2104
    choose my men, and after I have established the business side of the Department which I have taken over I can then proceed to ask the War Office for the further powers which the Act of Parliament enables me to take over.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I did not ask that this should be done at once, but as soon as the right hon. Gentleman may think it convenient.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have those powers under the Ministry of Munitions Bill, and it depends upon the Orders in Council, which may from time to time—
    Sir H. DALZIELinterjected a remark.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can promise my right hon. Friend that if there is any difficulty of that kind placed in the way of my discharging the powers and functions which the House of Commons has decided I should have full powers to discharge, I shall without any hesitation, and even without any consideration of etiquette, report the matter to the House of Commons, because I think the situation is much too grave. But I have no reason to apprehend that any difficulties of the kind will be placed in my way. I think that the moment the new Department is fairly at work, I have no reason to doubt that those functions will be handed over by the War Department. I hope after that explanation that the House of Commons will be satisfied that the Act of Parliament already confers full powers with regard to the very Department referred to by my hon. Friends, and I hope they will be satisfied with that. Should there be any further difficulties, I am perfectly certain that the Government and the House of Commons will be only too glad to deal with the matter because of the importance of those functions.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I venture to rise at once because of the very important statement which the Minister of Munitions has made. It is obvious, Mr. Whitley, that the House of Commons is almost unanimous in demanding that the control of the supplies of munitions in the future should be under the control of the right hon. Gentleman. I recognise the difficulty that he is in to-night in probably having this Debate unexpectedly brought before the House, but it has been obvious for a very long time that the Members of the House have been very anxious indeed about the whole situation, and at the first opportunity

    2105
    they have expressed their views fully and frankly. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says about the difficulty of dealing with all the facts on the present occasion, but I think that the House of Commons is entitled to two things. One is the assurance which I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has given us to-night that this Department will not be able to make the blunders in the future which I contend it has made; and the other is that at the proper time, when it can be done without any possibility of injury to the public interest we shall have a full and adequate inquiry into the blunders of the past.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: The gravity of the situation in which the Committee has suddenly found itself placed by the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) has certainly not been lessened in my judgment by the speech of the Minister of Munitions. He has not answered the question which I put to him at once: If this indictment were true, why was not the purport and effect of this Motion included in the Bill itself? What was the reply? The right hon. Gentleman told us that he was not prepared at present to deal with the position which has been raised by the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. He cannot say whether the attack upon the War Office is justified or whether it is not. True it is, he tells us, that he has some views upon the subject, but he has not done us the favour of acquainting us in this Committee what those views are, and, seeing the position which he occupies in the Committee this evening, that, I think, was the least which we could, have expected of him. He said something more. He said that mistakes in judgment have been committed, that those mistakes of judgment ought not to occur again, and that measures must be taken to prevent them. I do not know what the feeling of other Members in this Committee may be, but I was forcibly reminded of the attack which was made in public not long ago upon the great man to whom we owe so much at the present moment, Lord Kitchener, who has performed, in my judgment, an unequalled feat which could never have been accomplished probably by any other man or by any other country in the world but this country. Yet we hear these attacks made, and this indictment comes from one gentleman after another in the House of Commons to-night. Cannot they
    2106
    remember what has been done in spite of all mistakes of judgment and everything else? Cannot they remember that under the War Office, under Lord Kitchener, an Army of three million men has been raised within eight or nine months since this War began, a feat which I declare is unparalleled in the history of the world, and which, I repeat, no other Government and no other country but this could have accomplished. And if there have been mistakes, if there have been errors, if munitions have not been supplied with the rapidity with which some people think that they ought to have been supplied—
    Sir F. CAWLEY: Have they arms?
    Mr. CHAPLIN: Is this very wonderful in a country living under a Government which only the other day was anxious and ready to, and actually did, make great reductions in our armaments? When nothing was prepared or thought of beforehand and when it was pressed upon the attention of that Government over end over again, is it not ungenerous now, after all that has been done to repair those mistakes, to make the attack again where it is directed that has been made to-night, and that has not been resented? The individual man against whom it may have been made has not been defended as he ought to have been defended by the right hon. Gentleman. Had I been in his position I would say, "Who is your attack levelled at? Tell me plainly, and I will tell you whether I think it is justified or not." That is not the course that has been taken. We can therefore only assume, and we are driven to the suspicion, that this proposal was not included in the Bill because the Cabinet had decided that it ought not to be included in the Bill. That is the position in which we find ourselves to-night. We can get no information on that subject from the right hon. Gentleman. I consider the position so grave that I believe it my duty, and I am going to perform that duty, to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The CHAIRMAN: If I had anticipated the course of this Debate, I should have had a good deal of doubt as to whether the new Clause was relevant. I came to the conclusion that it was not out of Order, but the discussion raised on it has been on an administrative point proper to Committee of Supply. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has put the Motion before the Committee with the

    2107
    object of seeing what the Government has to say on the subject. The Question is, "That I report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Mr. ROCH: I think we find ourselves as the result of this Debate in a most extraordinary position. As regards the Motion to report Progress, I take it that the right hon. Gentleman has made that Motion in order to get some kind of further reply from the Government, and I take it he does not wish to delay the passage of this important Bill. I think the Government will realise the most extraordinary position the House has been placed in now. The gravest charges have been levelled against a public servant of the country, and not only against a public servant, but against a great Department and the head of that great Department, for both are involved. We find ourselves in this position, that we have had no reply from the Government as to these grave charges. While I agree that this Bill cannot be delayed, I think the Government must realise that the position cannot remain a it is now. Some answer must be given in justice and fair play to the Department and a public servant. The Government should promise here and now that some suitable opportunity will be given as early as possible in which this matter can be raised in a more satisfactory form and disposed of. The result of this Debate to-night is to create feelings of astonishment and consternation among those Members who have heard it, and it will create astonishment and consternation in the country tomorrow. At a time like this, if any suspicions are raised the Government cannot refuse to meet these charges and to make some kind of satisfactory statement at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Mr. CAVE: I must say that I do not think we could accept the Motion to report Progress, if for no other reason, because the whole House wants, and I believe the country wants, this Bill to become law at the earliest possible moment. It ought to pass this House to-night, and the Motion to report Progress is fatal to that conclusion being reached. My right hon. Friend's experience is far greater than mine, and I know, of course, that he only moved this Motion in order, if possible, to get a further statement from the Minister. I hope that the result will he that we shall dispose of this matter soon and get to the end of the Bill to-night. May I just say one or two
    2108
    words further? I should have thought, Mr. Whitley, with very great respect to you, that this Clause was not relevant to this Bill. We have already passed the Minister of Munitions Bill, which deals with transfers of powers, and I think that nobody who looked at the Order Paper could have dreamt that this kind of discussion would arise to-night. However that may be, it is nobody's fault. But the result is that nobody representing the War Office is here, or, at least, the Under-Secretary of State, is not here at the moment. He, of course, is the proper person to deal with an attack of this kind. There has been no defence of the Department or of the soldier who was attacked by name. That being so—I do not pretend to know the facts—I do not think it would be fair to accept the attacks upon him as established until we have had the matter thoroughly dealt with in this House, and for myself I reserve my opinion on the aspersions cast on the soldier named. It would not be fair to do otherwise. We have got from the Minister of Munitions the only answer he can give. The right hon. Gentleman obviously knows a great deal about it, and he has views of his own which are not likely to be otherwise than very strong views, and he has told us that if he thinks, as I believe he does think, that these powers ought to be transferred to his new Department, he will take the proper steps under the Act that Parliament has already passed to get the proper transfer made. He asks for some delay for reasons with which we all sympathise—that is, that he has undertaken a very great task and is carrying it through with as much energy as man can put into it. And if he says, "I want a little time before I transfer the whole of these important duties," it is only right that we in this House should accept that. And the right hon. Gentleman has also said "If I do not get what I want, I will come back to the House of Commons." Our answer is, "If you do come back to the House of Commons, the House of Commons will give you the powers." Therefore the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel), having performed what he thought was his duty to-night in moving this Motion, would be best consulting the interests, not only of the House of Commons, but the Government as a whole, if he does not insist upon his Clause.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I appeal to both right hon. Gentlemen who have

    2109
    Motions before the House to withdraw them—my right hon. Friend who has got the Amendment down on the Paper, and the right hon. Gentleman who has moved to report Progress. The Debate has been such as I had no cause to anticipate, having regard to the character of the Bill. It has introduced a great attack upon the administration on an Amendment to a Clause of an Act of Parliament. I was not sure that it was in order to move this Amendment—I did not take steps to consult the Chair on the subject—and therefore I certainly was not prepared for a great Debate on the subject. My right hon. Friend who represents the War Office has temporarily left me in charge. I think if anything of that kind is to be done it ought to be done after notice to the War Office whose business it is to give an account of their administration, and that it should not be put into any proceedings where I am responsible. I hope that in these circumstances my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) will see his way to withdraw his Amendment, because I can assure him—
    Sir JOHN SIMON: There is no War Office name on the Bill.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reminds me, there is no War Office name on the back of the Bill, and therefore they would not expect to be affected without notice of anything of that kind coming forward. I think it would be only fair to them and to the officials under their charge that notice should be given. I trust both the hon. Gentlemen's Motions will be withdrawn.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: No one in the whole Committee is more sensible than I am to the importance of finishing this Bill, and in my humble way I have done my best to promote it. We are only sitting here at this hour at my own suggestion that the Eleven o'Clock Rule should be suspended, but we have been confronted, without any exception, with the strangest position I ever remember in my whole experience in Parliament. I want a clear and definite understanding. I have asked for a definite understanding, and I repeat that if I understand that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) repudiates the attack made upon the Department, and that he rejects the proposal, at all events, to-night, of the right hon. Gentleman
    2110
    (Sir H. Dalziel), on that understanding I will withdraw my Motion to report Progress.
    Leave to withdraw Motion to report Progress not given.
    Sir H. CRAIK: It is perfectly evident that the position into which the Committee has now got is one of very great danger, not to this House only but to the country, and with all the respect I have for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), and the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), I must on this occasion dissociate myself very distinctly from the opinions they have expressed at a moment like this, and in a position of gravity like this. That the Government should have been pressed into a difficulty such as that with which they are faced at this moment is, in my opinion, very deeply to be regretted. What was the claim made by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) upon the Government Bench? That this grave accusation should be immediately answered in one way or the other; either pronounced true or not. I do not think we are in a position to discuss that. Everyone knows perfectly well that there have been doubts and difficulties raised throughout the country. Everyone knows these are matters of very serious consideration. The country has exercised a great restraint upon itself, not because it was perfectly satisfied by any means, but because it knew the moment had not come for judgment to be pronounced or the trial to be called. This is a question which must be discussed with gravity at some time. At some time we must find out who is responsible for any lapses or failures, if they exist. But that is not to say that the Government at this time of night, and on this Bill, is to be prepared with an answer, "Yes" or "No," to this grave accusation, such as is demanded by the two right hon. Members. We have refrained hitherto; let us refrain till the time comes, and do not let us have vague accusations which cannot be settled on an Amendment to a Bill which, as the Minister of Munitions points out, has not even the name of a member of the War Office on the back. Undoubtedly this Bill is a great movement in the direction in which the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), and those who have supported him, desire, that we should move. Undoubtedly a great deal of the responsibility

    2111
    which has fallen hitherto on the Department of the War Office should be transferred to the Minister of Munitions. We know that is done—
    The CHAIRMAN: We are really discussing the Clause. The Motion before the Committee now is to report Progress. Leave to withdraw that has been refused; it must, therefore, be either negatived or accepted.
    Sir H. CRAIK: It has been withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: I will put the Question: "That I report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question again put, "That the Clause be, by leave, withdrawn."
    Sir H. CRAIK: I have only one word more to say. We have almost passed this Bill, which undoubtedly goes a long way in the direction of taking away that responsibility as to the rightful exercise of which doubts have been expressed, and transferring it to the Minister of Munitions. Are we supporting him with that loyalty with which we are bound to support him by raising questions which cannot but produce the greatest friction and which will hamper his hands from the outset? I have for a very long time, perhaps, been one of those who have not placed the greatest confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, but I am confident now that we are placing this work in good hands, and if errors have been committed there is no better means of correcting them than by placing cordially and loyally in his hands that power he is prepared to exercise with all the vigour he possesses. I am not prepared in entrusting those powers to him to think he will be hampered in the charge of those powers by our going back on the past, by raking up questions of where we ought to put the blame, and raising tremendous issues which may hereafter have to be discussed and on which judgment may hereafter have to be pronounced, but for judgment upon which the time has not yet come.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I rise to ask leave to withdraw the proposal that stands in my name. In doing so let me say I make no apology whatever for bringing it forward. It is the duty of Ministers and Members to read the Notice Paper, and if they had done so they would have seen that this is a Motion which, I still contend, is per-
    2112
    fectly in order. It is not my fault. I accept the interpretation of the Clause given by the Minister of Munitions that he has the powers suggested in my Clause. That Clause goes further because it makes it practically obligatory. At the same time I accept his assurance, and I hope both the Government and the Cabinet will not have failed to-night to notice the opinion of this House, and I hope this discussion will be immediately effective.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That the Clause be withdrawn." Clause withdrawn.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is no question put. No one said "No."
    Sir R. COOPER: Yes we did.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am the best judge of that. One hon. Member stood up. That is not the correct way of declining leave to withdraw a Motion.
    Sir R. COOPER: On a point of Order. The hon. Member did say "No." I contend it is not a fair judgment on a matter like this.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must be the judge of that.
    Sir R. COOPER: It is not fair. I repeat, Sir, it is not fair.
    The CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
    Sir R. COOPER: Everybody knows it.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member challenges my conduct in the Chair, he must take the proper course to do so.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Powers of Companies to Carry on Munitions Work.)
    Any company, association, or body of persons shall have power, notwithstanding anything contained in any Act, order, or instrument by or under which it is constituted or regulated, to carry on munitions work during the present war.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. CAVE: After the very interesting discussion we have had, I am going to pour cold water on the Committee by moving this Clause, which I think will be accepted. The point is a simple one. It has been represented to me that there are many companies who are desirous of

    2113
    making munitions of war, but are prevented by the fact that their objects do not include the power to make munitions. It is true that they can get their powers extended, but only by the rather lengthy process of going to their shareholders and the Court and getting the Memorandum altered, a most expensive way. I know some companies have given up the idea of making munitions simply for this reason. I beg to move.
    Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. GRETTON: I do not think that anybody really understands what this Clause is. It appears to deal with a very important matter and that being so I certainly think it is one that ought to have been put down on the Amendment Paper so that we could have seen it in print. The Government themselves do not seem to be aware what the meaning of the Clause is, and I am certain there are few Members of the House who are any wiser than they are in regard to it, though a very clear and lucid speech was made by the right hon. and learned member for Kingston (Mr. Cave). I therefore suggest that the Clause be circulated to Members on both sides of the House and moved again when we come to the Report stage of the Bill. That will give members an opportunity of understanding what they are asked to decide.
    Sir J. SIMON: I hope I may be allowed to say a word in sympathy with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who thinks it is desirable to avoid the elaborate forms by which in some cases you would have to get leave from the Court to alter your powers in order to make munitions. The only doubt, in my mind, is whether the words proposed are not a little wide and ought not to be limited to some extent. If you are not going to get the leave of the Court to extend your powers you ought at least to get some authority from the Minister of Munitions, to show that if a company does undertake such work it does so because it is the wish of the Minister of Munitions. Failing that, it is possible that you might find shareholders objecting to the use of the company's capital for the purpose of munitions work supposing that the company had not hitherto made munitions and now took up their manufacture. If, however, my right hon. and learned Friend is prepared to put in
    2114
    words in the sense I have indicated, I think it would be a very acceptable Clause.
    Mr. CAVE: May I say that I think this is a little hard on me seeing that I drew the Clause in the manner prescribed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, requiring the consent of the Minister of Munitions, and I only modified it to meet the wishes of the official to whom I was referred in the matter. I can assure the Committee that I am quite prepared, if desired, to go back to my original proposal. In order to do so I will withdraw the Clause I have just moved, and move instead the Clause which I had prepared originally, or I will take any other course that the Government may in the circumstances think best.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Would it not be better to take this matter on the Report stage?
    Mr. LOUGH: The point I wish to put in respect to this Clause is that I do not think its insertion in the Bill is at all necessary. I should like to know what is to prevent any company or individual body of persons making munitions in this country now if it is their desire to do so, and they have the machinery for the purpose.
    An HON. MEMBER: Their Articles of Association.
    Mr. LOUGH: The Clause, as I understand, does not only refer to limited companies. I suggest that anybody can make munitions and that there is no necessity to go to the Court to get permission. For my own part I do not think the Committee could possibly treat seriously the suggestion that you must, as an alternative to going to the Court, go to the Minister of Munitions and get leave to do this. The point which the learned Home Secretary took was that subscribers might object to the use of the company's capital or to furnish new capital for the purpose. I would remind the Committee, however, that there are fools in this country ready to subscribe capital for any purpose whatever. It does not matter whether they choose to expend it in making munitions or in experimenting with munitions as in either case it would be a very useful thing. What I would say is that the Clause has been suddenly sprung upon the Committee and I do not think that we ought to take it seriously. The Home Secretary's sympathetic attitude towards the proposal of

    2115
    my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) shows how one lawyer can make progress with another lawyer. If I had brought forward an Amendment I have no doubt that I should not have been so successful. I suggest that this particular Clause should be dropped into the waste paper basket, and that we should report Progress.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can only express the hope that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough) who has been very helpful all through the evening will not throw us over at the last moment. This is a very useful Clause, and I think it was perhaps an oversight that something of the kind was not, in the first instance, inserted in the Bill. The Committee must remember that there are many companies which cannot make munitions of war because their memorandum of association limits their operations to the manufacture of certain articles. In that case if any shareholder went to the court he might get an injunction against them, because they were doing something that the country needed, and any judge would be bound under such circumstances to make the order, because the memorandum of association precluded them from doing this. The only object of the Clause moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to enable a company when it gets an order practically to override its memorandum of association and make munitions of war.
    Mr. GRETTON: Before we proceed, I think we should know which Clause it is that we are being asked to accept. There is a little confusion on the point, as two Clauses have been mentioned.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is the one that has been moved.
    Mr. GRETTON: The one that is being moved is to make the company go to the court. The Clause which it is proposed to substitute for it is that there should be a request by the Minister of Munitions that certain articles should be made.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member misunderstands the Clause. Let me read it again. It is the one which is moved by the right hon. and learned Member. The Clause is as follows:—
    "Any company, association, or body of persons shall have power, notwith-standing anything contained in any Act, Order, or Instrument under which it is
    2116
    constituted or regulated, to carry on munitions work during the present war."
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    SCHEDULE I.
    1.0 A.M.
    1. Any difference, matter or question to be referred for settlement in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule shall be referred to one of the three following arbitration tribunals:—

    (a) The Committee appointed by the First Lord of the Treasury known as the Committee on Production; or

    (b) A single arbitrator to be agreed upon by the parties or in default of agreement appointed by the Board of Trade: or

    (c) A court of arbitration consisting of an equal number of persons representing employers and persons representing workmen, with a chairman appointed by the Board of Trade.

    2. The tribunal to which the reference is made shall be determined by agreement between the parties to the difference or in default of such agreement by the Board of Trade.
    3. The Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply to any reference under the provisions of this Schedule.
    Mr. JOWETT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "Schedule" and insert instead thereof the word "Act." The word "Schedule," to which my Amendment refers, appears to be a mistake. To say that "any difference, matter or question to be referred for settlement in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule shall be referred to one of the three following arbitration tribunals," is wrong. There are no provisions, and my Amendment is that the word "Schedule" be replaced by the word "Act." It may be that I am wrong.
    Sir. J. SIMON: I think I understand what my hon. Friend means. He is referring to the Schedule, and it is on page 10 of the Bill, and as it is printed it runs:—"Any difference, matter, or question to be referred for settlement in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule shall be referred to one of the three following tribunals." The hon. Member thinks it really ought to be "in accordance with the

    2117
    provisions of this Act," but if he will look back he will see, in Clause 1, which is on page one of the Bill, at line 17, that the words are that the Board of Trade "may refer the matter for settlement either in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act," etc. That is what is being referred to.
    Mr. JOWETT: Thank you. I will withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That this be the First Schedule of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    SCHEDULE II.
    (1) Any departure during the War from the practice ruling in the workshops, shipyards, and other industries prior to the War, shall only be for the period of the War.
    (2) No change in practice made during the War shall be allowed to prejudice the position of the workmen in the owners' employment, or of their trade unions in regard to the resumption and maintenance after the War of any rules or customs existing prior to the War.
    (3) In any readjustment of staff which may have to be effected after the War, priority of employment will be given to workmen in the owners' employment at the beginning of the War who have been serving with the colours or who were in the owners' employment when the establishment became a controlled establishment.
    (4) Where the custom of a shop is changed during the War by the introduction of semi-skilled men to perform work hitherto performed by a class of workmen of higher skill, the rates paid shall be the usual rates of the district for that class of work.
    (5) The relaxation of existing demarcation restrictions or admission of semiskilled or female labour shall not affect adversely the rates customarily paid for the job. In cases where men who ordinarily do the work are adversely affected thereby, the necessary readjustments shall be made so that they can maintain their previous earnings.
    (6) A record of the nature of the departure from the conditions prevailing when the establishment became a controlled establishment shall be kept, and shall be open for inspection by the authorised representative of the Government.
    (7) Due notice shall be given to the workmen concerned wherever practicable of any changes of working conditions which it is desired to introduce as the result of the establishment becoming a controlled establishment, and opportunity for local consultation with workmen or their representatives shall be given if desired.
    (8) All differences with workmen engaged on Government work arising out of changes so introduced, or with regard to wages or conditions of employment arising out of the War, shall be settled in accordance with this Act without stoppage of work.
    (9) Nothing in this Schedule (except as provided by the fourth paragraph thereof) shall prejudice the position of employers or persons employed after the War.
    Mr. JOWETT: I beg to move in Subsection (2), after the word "War" ["prior to the War"], to insert the words "and any dispute as to whether the former rules and practices have been re-established shall be referred to the arbitration tribunal, who shall restore the former rules and practices by an award which shall be binding on the employer, who shall be liable to a penalty of one hundred pounds for each day during which he refuses to recognise this award."
    The reason for this Amendment is that there appears to be no security whatever that the rules and practices which are sought to be safeguarded in the Bill shall be re-established, and this Amendment briefly—I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee—is for the purpose of getting some kind of security that these rules and practices shall be maintained.
    Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I think the hon. Member was present when an Amendment was accepted by the Minister of Munitions. Keeping the machinery in Part I. of the Bill alive for twelve months after the termination of the War in order to use that machinery for restoring any of the rights or restrictions or customs that the Bill had necessitated the temporary abandonment of, and I think the hon. Member's point is fully covered by that Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. JOWETT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the word "men" ["semi-skilled men"], and to insert instead thereof the word "persons." It follows that women will be affected by this

    2119
    Bill and I think the word "persons" should be put in in place of the word "men."
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I think the Schedule must be taken as a whole. Sub-sections (4) and (5) were purposely constructed at the three days' conference at the Treasury. Section 4 was constructed to deal with the question of semiskilled men doing the work of skilled men, and Section 5 was constructed to enable women to be brought in, and wherever women were brought in they had to have the same piece rate as men, so that if they did the same amount of work they would obtain the same amount of earning, and I think it would be a mistake to alter the Schedule, having regard to the careful way in which the Clause was constructed.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I hope the explanation that has just been given will be accepted. I think it is highly important, in view of the fact that women are coming in, that there should be a safeguard of this kind, and I think it ought to be carried out honourably, that women doing the same piece-work as men should be entitled to the same wage for piece-work, and I hope that side by side with that, you will take into account the time wage for women. There is no question of equality here, and I hope there will not be sweated wages for time work, but that something like a decent minimum should be given them.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. T. WILSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), after the word "the" ["the rates paid"], to insert the words "time and piece."
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: We accept that.
    Words "time and piece" inserted.
    Mr. JOWETT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (6) after "be" ["shall be kept"], to leave out the word "kept" and insert instead thereof the words "made by the Minister of Munitions or a person appointed by him in consultation with the representatives of the trade unions and the employers." I think there should be some security for an association of the trades unions with the Minister of Munitions, in order to see that these particulars are kept, or otherwise, if it is left to the employers, the particulars probably will not be kept and the provisions will not be put into force.
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Government feel that they cannot accept this addition to the Schedule. We have to keep in mind that this Schedule has been operating since the 19th of March, and has been made a condition of Government contracts that have been given out since that date, and therefore the trade unionists when they met the Minister of Munitions a few days ago in conference, requested that the Schedule should be put in exactly as it was fixed up on the 19th of March, and there is only one slight alteration made. It is a question of interpretation rather than an alteration of principle, and that is the insertion of the word "piece" that we have just accepted. I therefore hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported, with Amendments.
    As amended, considered.
    Mr. GLYN JONES: I beg to move an Amendment to make good what is, I believe, recognised as an important I omission in Clause 1—that is, to add at the end of Sub-section (1) the words "and the decision of the Board of Trade as to whether a difference has been so I reported shall be conclusive for all purposes." It seems absolutely necessary that you should be able to fix that a difference has been reported, because by the next Clause a lock-out or strike becomes legal after the lapse of three weeks after the time that the dispute has been reported.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: At the end of Sub-section (2) leave out the words, "in contravention of this provision," and insert instead thereof the words, "without submitting the proposal for the change to the Minister of Munitions, or when the consent of the Minister has been withheld."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Clause 5, Sub-section (3), after the word "profits" ["net profits"], insert the words "or losses."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    In same Sub-section, after the word "comparison" insert the words "or affords no standard of comparison."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    In same Sub-section, after the word "profits" ["allow those net profits"] insert the words "or losses."
    Clause 14, Sub-section (3), leave out the words "under this provision."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    In same Sub-section, leave out the words "jurisdiction in respect of."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    In same Sub-section, after the word "Acts," insert the words, "or any provisions applicable to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    In same Sub-section, leave out the words, "and any provisions relating to the Sheriff sitting summarily for the Summary Jurisdiction Acts."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Mr. GRETTON: I attempted to make a few remarks on the Bill at an earlier stage, but unfortunately I have not had the opportunity by being called. I have an advantage in making my remarks now that the Bill is complete and has reached its final stage. This is a Bill on which very high hopes are set. It is well known that something has gone very wrong with regard to the munitions of war. I feel that I myself am precluded from discussing the matter very closely, owing to the fact that I have been in military training, have had considerable periods at the Front and in the trenches, and have had considerable means of obtaining information at first hand as to how matters stand. I will not go into these matters, for this reason:—it is not usual for an officer on service to make use outside, or in debates in this House, of special knowledge he obtains in the course of his service. But as it is a matter of common knowledge, and it has been admitted, that munitions have not been dealt with adequately hitherto, we reach the conclusion that there are persons and officials at the War Office who ought to be displaced, or, if they are not responsible, then that the whole of the late Government is responsible, and the right hon. Gentleman is also responsible, as a very prominent member of that Government. And the whole of this Bill is putting everything into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. All our hopes are set on him. We put all our eggs in this respect in one basket, and I think many Members of this House are not satisfied that this experiment is going to be a success. We may very well be jumping from the frying-pan into the fire, and it will be the fire with a vengeance at this stage of the
    2122
    War. The right hon. Gentleman has made many appointments to his Ministry, but those appointed have not been persons specially cognisant of the special requirements of this War, or with the manufacture and production of the requirements of this War. They are men in various branches of business. There is only one Member of the Ministry so far specially associated with these munitions of war of which the omission is so flagrant and urgent. I do not want to disparage these gentlemen. We admit they are men of eminence and attainments in other ways. The right hon. Gentleman has kept clear of the taint of expert advice except in the one case. We all devoutly hope that his experiments may succeed, but we have serious misgivings.
    I want to say one word on the economic side of the question—the powers he is taking in his Bill to withdraw workmen in all directions from employment in which they are now engaged. I am not talking of men who are eligible to fight and have not enlisted in the Army. I am talking of workpeople who are not eligible and who will have to be employed in other directions. He is able to withdraw them from many employments, and has a vast and autocratic power over industry in this country. He may exercise it in such a way as to destroy our financial power. Our financial power in paying for this War depends on what we can earn. If industries cannot be kept going we are not able to keep up our foreign trade, and he will destroy our power of earning money to pay for the taxation in this War. I do not think that side of the question has been very carefully or closely considered. We have been living in an atmosphere of hand to mouth. First one excitement and crisis, then another excitement and crisis. We have not realised the position. The Minister of Munitions has spoken of silver bullets. Money has been poured out like water, silver bullets have been poured out like rain. Our resources are not inexhaustible, and they can only be kept up if trade is kept up. These withdrawals for munitions work should not be made in a panic way, but so that industries may be maintained and the ability to get money to pay for taxation may not be destroyed. At this late hour I shall not prolong the Debate further. This Bill is a panic Bill. We all most devoutly hope it may succeed, but its whole failure or success will not depend on this Bill, but on the way in which the work of the provision of munitions is done by the right hon. Gentleman and his

    2123
    assistants, or the War Office, or Admiralty, or by those whose work it is, and the ability put into that task, and not by anything this House has done, or can do, or any provision it may put into the Bill.
    Mr. BOOTH: I wish to say I am glad the right hon. Gentleman did not allow himself to be drawn during the progress of this Bill into the controversy to which he was invited from the Front Opposition Bench. I think it is another example of how the Front Opposition Bench has not always been very serviceable to the House. The right hon. Gentleman has undertaken a very difficult task. He is entitled to ask for the sympathy of the House, and not to be asked to create difficulties for himself by plunging into controversies. That is not the wish of the nation, or of this House. The nation wishes that, as far as he is concerned, he shall devote himself to these new duties. The past is concerned only in so far as it throws light on the manufacture of these munitions for the future. From the point of view of a parliamentary controversy and a State trial of any persons, it is utterly useless. I hope he will succeed in his task, and I am sure the country will not forgive him if he uses this weapon too gingerly. We want him to be bold and resolute. We want no ornamental machine, but something which he will use every day of his life until we have beaten the Kaiser, and I hope we shall not embroil him in controversies.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: I do not wish to take up time, but the Debate on the Second Reading was cut short. Many of us who wished to speak were not allowed to do so, and if more time had been given it would have saved a good deal during the Committee stage of the Bill. We all wish the Minister of Munitions well, and we hope this measure and his exertions will prove a great success, and that as a result all labour difficulties will be smoothed over and we shall get a greater output of munitions of war. I have a feeling, however, that the Government have been on the wrong tack, and are still, to some extent, on the wrong tack. On the outbreak of war the Government ought to have told every able-bodied man in the country that the country was in danger and required every able-bodied man to do useful work for the country. If a man was not engaged in necessary useful civil work then it should have been made compulsory for him to join the
    2124
    Army. If that course had been taken I am perfectly sure it would have been to the greatest possible advantage, and that the present difficulties would not have arisen. I think the Secretary of State for War has done wonders, and deserves the greatest possible credit for the Army he has built up. He has not been able to pick his men. He has had under the voluntary system, to take what men were offered. He has had to take married men where, under a compulsory system, single men would have gone.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): That has nothing to do with it.
    Mr. HOGGE: As the Minister of Munitions has had to bear much criticism I want to thank him for the way in which he met those of us who saw him before the Amendments were put down, and for the concessions which avoided speeches to-day. I want further to say that I hope this Bill will be largely inoperative, because the more successful will be the response from the country. I do not believe the Minister of Munitions thinks he will have to put many of the powers given him into force to get the work out of the men which he wants. I think he will get it without the necessity of enforcing the Bill, but I think it is wise that he should have the power in the background. I hope he, and those who work with him, will continue the campaign so as to awaken and stimulate the spirit of the men to do everything necessary without putting anything in the Clauses of this Bill which would work at all hardly against them into operation.
    Sir R. COOPER: I hope this Bill will be passed, and that it will enable the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions to overcome the difficulties which he may yet find in front of him in the present very grave emergency. On the other hand, I suppose that greater powers are given to the right hon. Gentleman than have been given to any Minister in the House of Commons since the days of Cromwell. I may take for example the enormous power which he has got under the Clauses of the Bill with regard to the determination, rearrangement, and regulation of what are profits and what are not in the case of the different manufacturing concerns with which he is to be associated. On the other hand, I do feel that not enough powers are given to him in other directions. I am not going now to dilate on

    2125
    the new Clause that was moved by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel), although, naturally, I am sorry that it was not embodied. I wish, however, to take this opportunity of saying to the House that I have apologised privately to the Chairman of the Committee for the little episode earlier in the evening, which I much regret. But I did feel justified in what I said, because after the strong remarks I made, and my conviction with regard to that Clause, I did not like to see the Clause withdrawn without my being given an opportunity of retracting my position.
    Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think my sole object is to help him in every possible way, and I realised after his appeal to the House that that was the only answer we could give. I gladly gave it for this reason, that I am convinced that, if the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions and his colleagues only go the right way to do this, nothing can stop them in achieving the object which we all have in view. What I submit is that the right hon. Gentleman cannot mistake the right way with regard to certain permanent officials. He has learnt the unmistakable feelings of Members of the House of Commons on that matter, and I think that is quite enough. We do not want to debate the subject for some time to come. Indeed, I do not know that we should be able to do so, because before we can do so we want to have before us the necessary facts upon which to found the debate. In my opinion we do not at present want debate, but we want action, and I join with other hon. Members in wishing the Minister of Munitions God-speed in the work he is undertaking. It is a great work, and I for one believe that he is going to achieve the success which is necessary in the interests of the country, if only he is given a little time to start.
    Question, "That the Bill be read the third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  WAR LOAN (TRUSTEES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  WAR LOAN (TRUSTEES) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Borrow for the Purpose of Obtaining, under the War Loan Act, 1915, Conversion of Securities.)
    Any trustees who are holders of consolidated two-and-a-half per cent.
    2126
    annuities, two-and-three-quarters per cent. annuities, or two-and-a-half per cent. annuities, or three-and-a-half per cent. war stock or war bonds issued under the War Loan Act, 1914 (in this Act referred to as convertible securities), may borrow as provided by this Act such sums as may be requisite for the purpose of subscribing for such an amount of the loan issued under the War Loan Act, 1915, as will enable them to obtain securities issued under that Act in exchange for the convertible securities held by them; and any money so borrowed shall be applied in subscriptions to the loan under the War Loan Act, 1915.
    Any such sums may be borrowed on the security of the convertible securities held by the trustees, and the securities obtained by them by means of subscription to the loan under the War Loan Act, 1915.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLES: I hope the Government is not going to press through this important Bill at this hour of the night, because I think to do so would not be treating the Committee fairly. I do not know whether I am in order unless I move to report Progress, but, if I am, I should like to call to the recollection of hon. Members what took place two days ago. Here was a very important Bill brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing with trust funds, which I think the Committee will agree is a most delicate matter. I had always been taught to regard trust funds as a sort of Ark of the Covenant, but here we have a Bill giving powers to trustees which I can only say appears to me to be of a very far-reaching character. The point I wish to make in regard to the Bill is this. No sooner was the Bill explained than the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he wanted to get it through all its stages, then and there, without the House of Commons having ever seen the Bill at all.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): It was in print.
    Sir W. BYLES: It was in print, but it was not allowed to be issued to hon. Members. That is my complaint.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend is mistaken. It was.
    Sir W. BYLES: Excuse me, I happened to overhear a conversation between two attendants in the Vote Office. One of them said to the other, "On no account must that Bill be allowed to go out until

    2127
    it has been debated." That showed that it was the obvious intention of the Government not to allow us even to read the Bill through.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend is quite mistaken.
    Sir W. BYLES: At any rate the Bill had not been circulated, and we had no opportunity of getting copies of it. We could not get it by asking at the Vote Office. For the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get the Bill through all its stages was felt by hon. Members who were present at the time to be an improper thing. The moment the Bill was explained by the right hon. Gentleman, up jumped one lawyer after another in all parts of the House offering protests and expressing doubts.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to interrupt my hon. Friend because I have such a high admiration for him, but I should like to ask you what are we discussing. Is there a Clause before the Committee. If the first Clause is before the Committee I should like to know if it is in order to discuss extraneous matters, because I am very often called to order if I diverge in the slightest degree, and the same rule ought to apply to every Member of the House.
    Sir W. BYLES: I want no favour from the Chair. May I be allowed to report Progress?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I cannot accept the Motion, and I hope the hon. Member will not press the point, because I shall have to refuse, as the Standing Order was suspended for the specific purpose of the Bill.
    Sir W. BYLES: May I not be permitted to point out that this is a breach—
    The CHAIRMAN: I have allowed the hon. Member very considerable latitude already and I do not think he is requiting my indulgence by persisting in his remarks.
    Sir W. BYLES: I can assure you, Sir, that I will endeavour to keep myself strictly within the bounds of order.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move in the first paragraph, after the word "for" ["in exchange for"] to insert the words, "all
    2128
    or any of." This is the first of three Amendments I have put down to this Clause, and I think no objection will be taken to them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The effect of the Amendment I have just moved is to allow trustees to convert part of their securities instead of converting all of them.
    Mr. McKENNA: I agree to this Amendment.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move after the word "them" ["the convertible securities held by them"] to insert the words, "and for paying the expense of such borrowing."
    Mr. HOGGE: What does that mean?
    Mr. CAVE: It means that trustees may borrow money not only for the purpose of subscribing to the War Loan, but for paving the cost of borrowing money as well.
    Mr. McKENNA: I accept the Amendment.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. CAVE: I beg to move after "1915" ["shall be applied in subscriptions to the loan under the War Loan Act, 1915"] to insert the words, "and in payment of such expenses." This Amendment is purely consequential.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. D. MASON: I would like to put on record a protest against this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware that we had a discussion in the House when he made his preliminary observations in regard to it, and my hon. Friend opposite (Sir William Byles) was quite right when he said that the Bill was not then in our possession, because the First and Second Readings were taken simultaneously. I think, after seeing the Bill and recognising what it does, that one does feel that this House—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to the first Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Investment of Sums in Court.)
    It is hereby declared that any sum paid into any court, or otherwise under the control of any court, may, without prejudice to any other mode of investment, be invested in securities created under the War Loan Act, 1915; and any sums paid into court or otherwise under the control of the court before the passing of this Act may, in pursuance of any order of the court, or in accordance with rules of court, be realised and reinvested in those securities.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Indemnity.)
    A trustee shall not be liable for any loss resulting from any borrowing under this Act or from any subscription to or investment in the loan under the War Loan Act, 1915, or the sale of any securities for the purpose of any such subscription or investment or from the exercising of any option to convert securities under that Act; and trustees and other persons acting in a fiduciary character are hereby expressly authorised to exercise such powers of borrowing, subscription, investment, or conversion.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Application and Short Title.)
    (1) This Act shall not apply to any trustee under an implied or constructive trust.
    (2) This Act may be cited as the War Loan (Trustees) Act, 1915.
    Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move in Subsection (1), after the word "shall" ["This Act shall"] to insert the words "apply to any officer or department who holds funds on account of or for the benefit of any persons or class of persons as part of or in consequence of the duties of the department or office, but shall." It will then read on, "but shall not apply to any trustee under an implied or constructive trust." The Committee will remember that yesterday a number of questions were addressed to me as to the powers of particular persons as trustees. We have now put in a comprehensive Amendment, which would give the necessary powers to all the persons who were named. I have had a question addressed to me as to the meaning of why we should exclude a trustee under an implied or constructive trust. The reason is that such a trust would be for
    2130
    a specific purpose, and it would not be a proper proceeding to divert the funds from the particular purpose for which they were intended.
    Mr. D. MASON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests that this is to define more definitely these powers, but under the Trustee Act of 1893, for example, it states that they may invest in Government securities. This particular Bill is brought in for the purpose of giving these powers, and to suggest that we should also give powers for trustees to borrow seems to me quite opposed to the spirit of the original Trustee Act, because that Act was passed for the purpose of carefully guarding trustees' powers, and people who made their wills in 1894, after the Trustee Act of 1893, naturally made them in accordance with that Act, and I feel that we are here incurring a very grave responsibility. I know it is hopeless to protest against this particular Bill, but I feel that, apart from the advantages, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I think, allowed his mind to dwell upon too much, there is a great responsibility on this House in tampering with that Act and the definition of the powers of trustees under the Act of 1893. I will conclude by putting on record that protest, and I would say that if we wish these instruments to be guarded in the future, and if people, drawing up their wills now wish that their trustees shall not borrow, they will have to put in their wills in future some provision that they should be indemnified against any risks which a future House of Commons may pass interfering with the instrument under which their will has been drawn up.
    Mr. KING: I am sorry the hon. Knight the Member for Nottingham, the hon. Knight that belongs to the Liberal party, and who represents the schoolmasters, is not here.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have seen my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, and I have satisfied him.
    Mr. KING: Did you satisfy him about the funds of the superannuation of teachers—something like two millions of Consols? Are they all going to be duplicated by a large loan being raised upon them to invest in the War Loan, or is that fund going to be left intact?
    Mr. McKENNA: That question would not arise on this Amendment. He asked me whether the National Debt Commissioners,

    2131
    who hold that fund, would have power to convert the whole or any part of it under this Bill. I showed him this Amendment, and he was quite satisfied that that did give the National Debt Commissioners the powers which he wished them to have.
    Mr. KING: I think if the right hon. Gentleman had only got this Amendment out in time to put on the Paper we should have understood and clearly have seen the purport of it. It is very difficult to follow exactly and to think out the purport of an Amendment like this when it is not on the Paper. I hope that in future the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he brings very important Amendments like this forward, that will mean the investing of several millions of money, will do us the courtesy to allow us to see them beforehand.
    Mr. ROBERT PEARCE: I do not understand that the Amendment will enable the different offices and departments to apply for as much more War Loan as their funds amount to, and in that case the Amendment will be wholly inoperative and not useful at all in raising any money for the War Loan. With that observation, I would rather protest against the Amendment.
    Words proposed inserted.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the third time.—[Mr. McKenna.]
    Mr. KING: I would like to refer once again to the way in which this Bill has been brought forward. It is perfectly clear that since it was introduced it has undergone a good number of changes, and I will even say changes of a surreptitious kind, because at the very moment that it was being introduced here copies of the Bill were at the Vote Office and those copies were not distributed. In the last minute or two I have made inquiries in the Vote Office on that point, and I am assured there that though copies were there they were not distributed. I do not want to ask the reason why, that is clear enough, but on the Bill, as now distributed, are these words, "To be substituted for Bill previously delivered." I asked for a copy of the Bill as previously delivered and it was declined, and I was
    2132
    told that they were not to be given. Thus, although we are sent a copy of a Bill to be substituted for a Bill previously delivered, no Bill has been previously delivered at all. There is a mystery about this, and there is some explanation, but what the explanation is I do not know. I venture to think that it is this, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got a great deal more than he can do on hand, and that he has handed it over to some person who has not the same ability as himself, and that such person has made a great muddle of it. I am afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is certainly not to blame, wall get the credit for the failure.
    Sir W. BYLES: I beg to make a very serious and grave protest about the way business is being discharged here to-night. The construction of an Act of Parliament is a very serious operation and every one of us ought to feel our responsibility with regard to it, especially in regard to such an Act as this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the other day, tried to rush business through the House in all its stages without anybody seeing the Bill, and when every lawyer in the House got up and expressed great doubts about it and wanted to look into it, the right hon. Gentleman was pressed to give another day, and consented to do so. I ask him whether he considers this opportunity an adequate response to that pledge. I think that an important Bill like this can surely wait another day or two. I do not think it is treating the House respectfully or decently. I know perfectly well that the Government like nothing better than to see the back of the House of Commons, and to do all their business without the House criticising it at all. Many years ago my great friend, Mr. Forster, told me that he liked the House to sit very late because everybody went home, and he could get his business through. I am a Member of the House, and I claim the right to criticise. We are losing our liberties one by one, no doubt, and these are exceptional days, but I do object to our being entirely extinguished. Therefore I propose to take the course of calling your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that there are not forty Members present.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member persists in this, I am afraid I am bound to act on it.
    Hon. MEMBERS: Do not persist!
    Sir W. BYLES: I do not want to put a spoke in the Government's wheel. Now that I have been allowed to have my say I beg leave to withdraw, but I will repeat this one sentence: It is a very serious thing to make an Act of Parliament like this with only a score of Members present, and when the best and oldest men, and the lawyers, have gone home to bed. Men whom we know, and whom the right hon. Gentleman knows, have a great many objections to this Bill, and they cannot raise them now.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: It is only fair to say that yesterday, immediately after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked leave to introduce this Bill, I went to the Vote Office and obtained a copy of the Bill as first delivered. I had it in my hand when we were discussing this Bill. I know that other Members also had copies.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am sure the hon. Member did not mean it when he said that the best Members had gone home. We remained here to back him up, and I am prepared to listen to him another hour if he will withdraw that reflection.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  INDICTMENTS BILL— [Lords].
  Ordered that so much of the Lords Message [30th June] as communicates the Resolution, That it is expedient that the Indictments Bill [Lords] be referred to the Joint Committee appointed to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session, be now considered.
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved, "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  Whereupon, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at One minute before 2 a.m., Friday, 2nd July.

WAR.
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (BUSINESSES ACQUIRED).
  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (BUSINESSES ACQUIRED).
MUNITIONS.
  MANUFACTURE IN DUBLIN.
  MANUFACTURE IN DUBLIN.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (ATTESTATION FORM—MARRIAGE).
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (ATTESTATION FORM—MARRIAGE).
  PERMANENT ROLL OF HONOUR.
  PERMANENT ROLL OF HONOUR.
  INVALIDED SOLDIERS.
  INVALIDED SOLDIERS.
  MULLINGAR BARRACKS.
  MULLINGAR BARRACKS.
  REJECTED RECRUITS.
  REJECTED RECRUITS.
  WAR SUPPLIES FROM CANADA.
  WAR SUPPLIES FROM CANADA.
  ACTING-PAYMASTERS.
  ACTING-PAYMASTERS.
  WAR DEPOT (DUBLIN).
  WAR DEPOT (DUBLIN).
  WAR NEWS FOR CONVICTS.
  WAR NEWS FOR CONVICTS.
  WAR LOAN (INVESTMENTS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  WAR LOAN (INVESTMENTS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  UNSIZED COTTON PAPERS.
  UNSIZED COTTON PAPERS.
  FOOD SUPPLY.
  FOOD SUPPLY.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Railway Accidents (Fly-over and Fly-under Lines).
  Railway Accidents (Fly-over and Fly-under Lines).
  Unemployment Insurance Benefit.
  Unemployment Insurance Benefit.
  Vaccination.
  Vaccination.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL.
  RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS EXTENSIONS, &c.) BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection That the Lord Oranmore and Browne be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Doncaster (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry); read, and agreed to.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (CORNWALL, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
(UNOPPOSED ORDERS.)
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.

ARMY ACT AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Duke of Devonshire). (No. 119.)
PRIZE COURTS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord President (M. Crewe)). (No.120.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, Erc.
Colonies (Annual)

No. 844. Turks and Caicos Islands (Report for 1914);

No. 845. Wei-hai-Wei (Report for 1914);

No. 846. Seychelles (Report for 1914)

Greenwich Observatory—Report of the Astronomer Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Public Works (Ireland)—Treasury Minute, dated 23rd June, 1915, sanctioning the letting to Mr. William Ross of a plot of ground at Dalkey adjoining Dalkey Avenue, Kingstown Harbour; Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER. CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 72 and. 82 be suspended for the remainder of the Session.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

WAR LOAN EXTENSION BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, this Bill, to which I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading this afternoon, is one for authorising the issue of the New War Loan. It has passed through all its stages in another place, and being a purely financial measure perhaps your Lordships will allow me to content myself with formally moving the Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Committee negatived and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

MILK AND DAIRIES ACTS POSTPONE VENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 3a
Clause 1:
Postponement of Milk and Dairies Acts.
1. The Milk and Dairies Act, 1914 and the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act, 1914, shall, notwithstanding anything in those Acts, not come into operation until such date, not being later than the expiration of One year after the termination of the present war, as the Local Government Board and the Local Government Board for Scotland May respectively by order appoint.
Loan STRACHIE: I have an Amendment to Clause II of this Bill, after the worts "Local Government Board" where they first appear, to insert "with the concurrence of the Board of Agriculture." I had hoped that my noble friend in charge of the Bill would have accented this reasonable Amendment yesterday. The reason I think it is reasonable is that for all practical purposes action taken under the Act of 1914 is by Order, and the Board of Agriculture has to concur with the Local Government Board before the Orders can be made. The Board of Agriculture has an absolute veto upon the Orders, and in these circumstances it appeared to me extraordinary yesterday that the noble Lord was not ready to accept my Amendment and asked for further time for consideration. I naturally agreed to that course and have put the Amendment on the Paper for to-day. It seems to me that the advantages are obvious, and that there are no disadvantages at all in associating the Board of Agriculture with the Local Government Board in this matter. Agriculturists have confidence in the Board of Agriculture and would be much more satisfied, I am certain, if they knew that the Act of 1914 would not be put into operation at a particular time unless the Board of Agriculture concurred. I would remind my noble friend that before the Act of last year is put into operation it will be necessary to re-enact the Tuberculous Animals Act. The Board of Agriculture has suspended the Tuberculous Animals Order, and it is anticipated that it will not he brought into operation again for a considerable time, certainly not until after the termination of the war.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after ("Board") insert "with the concurrence of the Board of Agriculture").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD HYLTON: I regret that it is impossible for me to accept my noble friend's Amendment. This Bill is merely a Postponement Bill—it postpones the
182
coming into operation of the Milk and Dairies Act, 1914—and I am informed that it is contrary to precedent to insert an Amendment in such a measure interfering with the structure of the Bill.
Loup STRACHIE: After what the noble Lord has said, I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed.

THE TERRITORIAL FORCE.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of Army Form B 621 A, recruiting officers of the Territorial Force are expected to reject promising recruits who, while willing to accept the Imperial Service obligation in their own county units, are unwilling to run the risk of compulsory transfer to other units of which they know nothing; and whether it is intended to amalgamate into composite battalions Territorial Battalions with the Expeditionary Force that may fall under 400 in strength, although the second or third line of those battalions may be in a position to supply drafts properly trained and equipped.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, under ordinary conditions these matters would be considered by the Council of Territorial Associations and submitted by them to the Army Council, but as, owing to the war, the Council of Territorial Associations is widely scattered and there have been no opportunities of its members meeting I have been asked, as chairman of the Council, to bring forward these points, which are of considerable importance to the Territorial Force. I suppose that to-day the object of us all is to obtain a steady flow of recruits. As from time to time we have had instructions to check Territorial recruiting my experience has been that, while Territorial recruiting is checked, at the same time Regular recruiting is also checked. The circumstances which have given rise to my Question appear to me to prejudice recruiting, and in confirmation of that I may say this. Recently in the County of Bedfordshire a detachment of a Territorial battalion had a three weeks' recruiting march, and from conversation with the

183
officer commanding the detachment, and from the reports of the officers of other units, the chairman of the County Association of Bedfordshire is satisfied that the new Army Form E 624 is a serious detriment to recruiting. In my Question as it stands on the Paper there is a slight mistake. There are two Army Forms—namely, E 624 and E 621 A—to both of which I should like to refer. The official answer we received was that it was proposed to give the Army Council power to transfer a man from any arm in the service to any other arm, but that it was not intended that the powers should apply to Territorials. We are all aware that in the early stages of the Bill the Territorials were included, but when the Bill came up to your Lordships' House it referred only to the Regular Army. This Army Form suggests that there is a desire to obtain by a side wind what was directly excluded from the Act itself.
There are two classes dealt with by the two Forms. Under the one those already in the Force were to be asked to sign an undertaking to accept transfer. There is a disinclination to do so, and I hope the noble Lord who will reply will be able to assure us that those men who are already in the Territorial Force, who have been willing to accept Imperial Service obligation but are not inclined to accept transfer, will not be prejudiced in any way. The second deals with those who are now being asked to join, and in this Army Form the Imperial Service obligation and the consent to transfer are included in the same question. The impression has got about that a man has either to accept both conditions or none, and what we want to have made perfectly clear is that they will not be prejudiced by a refusal to accept transfer. My noble friend is an expert in the art of dry fly fishing, and he knows probably better than anybody that you can only catch a trout when it is rising, and that, if you once prick it, down it goes and you do not see it again. The class of recruit with which we are dealing to-day is very like the trout. You have to catch him on the rise, and to he very careful that you do not prick him in your efforts. I hope, therefore, that we shall have it made perfectly clear that County Associations may still continue to accept recruits if they agree to the Imperial Service obligation but, on account of their territorial sentiments, decline to accept the other.
The other part of my Question deals with composite battalions. I refer to that matter because of a letter which has been circulated in Glasgow. It is not, however, confined to Glasgow, and there is considerable feeling as to what is proposed to be done. I should like to ask whether it is intended to amalgamate into composite battalions Territorial battalions with the Expeditionary Force that may fall under 400 in strength, although the second or third line of those battalions may be in a position to supply drafts properly trained and equipped. Though the impression is no doubt not a general one and is not one that I hold myself, the impression is growing that there is an intention, by this process of exhaustion, gradually to extinguish the Territorial Force, and it is important that that impression should be allayed at once. When the second line of the Territorial Force was instituted it was with the object of providing drafts for the first, and no doubt the second line to-day is a very valuable force. The third line was then raised with the object of supplying drafts for both the first and the second lines. It seems to me that, instead of making these composite battalions, it would be perfectly simple to draft to the first line from the second line, which is efficient and equipped, and to make up the vacancies in the second line by drafts from the third line. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us what is the intention of the military authorities on that point.
On the question of a steady flow of recruits, which has to do a great deal with Territorial recruiting, I should like to say a word. In the early days there was a certain amount of conflict between Territorial and Regular recruiting, and I often heard the charge made that A was trying to pinch B's men. I am glad to say that we have got over that feeling now, and everything is working harmoniously. We all recognise now that when a man is once recruited he belongs neither to A nor to B but to the country, and that the country does not care very much what he joins as long as he joins something. Compare for a moment the difficulties of Territorial recruiting with Regular recruiting. The Regular recruiter has had great experience; he has complete machinery; he has the War Office at his back and a wide area to recruit over; above all, he has the splendid history of the British Army to work upon. The

185
Territorial recruiter, on the other hand, has had no experience; his machinery is incomplete; he has only the County Association to back him up; he has no records, but he is beginning to make them. I think we all rejoice in the fact that in one of the early despatches of Sir john French the work that the County Associations have done was generally recognised, and during every month that passes we hear further evidence, from those who are best able to judge, of the splendid work which the Territorial Force is doing at the Front. The one great asset of the Territorial Force is that it is territorial. I may possibly exaggerate the territorial sentiment, but no one has more reason to appreciate it than I have. We know, as each battalion is raised, officered, and, in peace time, trained in its own native county, that the inhabitants of the county have an intimate personal relationship with their own battalions, and that is of the utmost value in fostering the territorial sentiment.
There is one other point on which I should like to say a word. Recently an appeal was made for 300,000 additional men. The scheme, apparently, for raising these men is by special battalions and by appeals either to a class, to a locality, or in respect of a particular arm. My own opinion is that these sporadic attempts do not help to a steady flow of recruiting. Take, for instance, the last one that has been suggested. We are asked as to the advisability of starting a special battalion for farmers' sons. Supposing such a battalion is started, I should like to know whether we are to tell these farmers' sons that, even if they join a special battalion, they may be transferred to another; because I do not think as honest men we could ask them to join without telling them of the possible liability. While it is true that a great many farmers' sons have not joined up to the present time, no fewer than 150,000 men have been taken from the agricultural industry; and in many cases the farmers' sons are taking the place of the agricultural labour that has gone. Before we start any battalion of this kind I hope the Minister for Agriculture will be consulted, because we know that every effort is now being made to do what is possible to maintain and increase the produce of the country. Prior to embarking on these attempts we ought to know whether it is safe to further deplete the agricultural industry.
We had an illustration of the effect of this appeal for 300,000 men in a letter to The Times, in which it was stated that an agricultural labourer in Kent approaching 40 years of age, with a wife and seven children and with varicose veins, was accepted as a recruit although be had been previously rejected. Obviously he was not a first-class fighting man, and it does seem to me a thousand pities to take such a man, who no doubt was very useful at his own particular job, when there are hundreds of thousands of young unmarried men who have not come forward. It does not suggest very economical recruiting. We know that every endeavour is being made to encourage thrift in the individual. Mr. Bonar Law, at the Guildhall the other day, said that if the lesson of economy was to be driven home it must not be by precept but by example. May we hope that we shall have an example of thrift and economy in high quarters.
Then there is the question of the particular locality to which appeals are made. I speak feelingly about this, because Staffordshire has been extremely hardly used. In fact, so many cleavages have been made in the recruiting districts that Staffordshire has been compared to gruyere cheese. With regard to particular brigades, the county of Nottinghamshire sonic time ago was instructed to raise an Artillery brigade, nominally, I suppose, a Nottinghamshire brigade. In order to raise this brigade they were allowed to recruit over the whole of No. 6 District, to which Staffordshire belongs. That was bad enough, but there is worse to follow. Only the other day Major Meysey-Thompson informed me that he had been instructed to raise a Regular brigade in Staffordshire. What I wish to point out is this. In the North Midland Division, of which Staffordshire is a part, two out of the three brigades of Artillery are raised in Staffordshire, and now, with the second and third lines, we have practically six brigades of Artillery in Staffordshire alone. It seems hard that Nottingham should come and recruit for another brigade in Staffordshire, and that now there should be an attempt to raise yet another Staffordshire brigade. I suggest that with the number of different agencies that are being continually planted upon us there must be friction. Certainly the steady flow of recruiting which we want to see is not helped.
There are three classes of men whom we have to deal. In the first place, there is the man who is ready to do his duty regardless of who else does. It would have been better if many of these men had been left at their original work. In the second place, there is the man who says he will go if somebody else will. These men want different inducements and different methods employed. But if you get B to take the same view as A if you get them both, and you are so much to the good. In the third place, beyond and behind these there is an enormous number of men who do not care to do anything themselves, and who are perfectly willing to shelter themselves behind the sacrifices of other people. Those are the men at whom we want to get; those are the men on whom voluntary inducements have very little effect, and in my opinion it is on those men alone that we can depend for a steady flow of recruits. May I say this in conclusion. I fully realise that when everybody is working at high pressure mistakes are inevitable. But I do not want to find fault to-day. My object is the same as that of all of your Lordships and every one in the country—we wish to bring about a steady flow of recruits; and by more consultation with those engaged in the work and a better system I believe we shall be able to secure in the end all that we desire.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, the Secretary of State for War has desired me to express his regret at being unable to answer this Question in person, and. in the circumstances I trust that my noble friend will allow me to reply to it to the best of my ability. No one is likely to quarrel with the tone of my noble friend's remarks, and everybody is well aware of the invaluable services which he has rendered with regard to recruiting. But in making my reply, such as it is, I hope he will excuse me from dealing with the local portion of his complaint, which concerns Staffordshire, because if he desires information upon that particular point I am afraid I must ask him to give me notice. As my noble friend pointed out, there is in the Question as it appears on the Paper a slight error with regard to Army Forth E 624 A. That form applies only to serving officers and men of the Territorial Force. All recruit officers and men of the Territorial Force are required to sign the
188
new Army Form E 624, which has superseded the one referred to. Under this Form a man enlisting in the Territorial Force accepts liability to serve in any place outside the United Kingdom and also liability to be transferred to any other corps, if required, notwithstanding that the corps to which he is about to be transferred may be different from that in which he is serving. I may point out that at the present moment no Territorial soldier is enlisted for home service alone. That was the first point on which I think my noble friend desired to be enlightened.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: What I want to get perfectly clear is whether a man who accepts the Imperial Service obligation is also bound to accept the one for transfer.
LORD NEWTON: So far as my judgment goes, he is. With regard to the second portion of the noble Earl's Question, General French, as a temporary measure, felt compelled to associate, for the convenience of command and administration, certain Territorial Force units now serving with the Territorial Force until a sufficiency of reinforcements is forthcoming, but arrangements are being made whereby it may be possible to avoid this temporary grouping of depleted units, which was only intended to fill a gap until the third line is able to fulfil its function as a draft producer. The Territorial Force, as the noble Earl knows, is now divided into three lines, a large proportion of the first line of which is serving at the Front. The second line cannot be relied upon to produce reinforcements regularly, as it has its own duty with regard to home defence to perform and also to prepare for service oversea. As my noble friend observed towards the conclusion of his remarks, everybody realises that the circumstances are entirely exceptional, and that far greater demands are being made upon the Territorial Force than were ever anticipated. That being so, and that being generally recognised, it is not on the whole surprising that there should be a certain amount of friction. I might point out, for instance, if my memory serves me right, that it was never contemplated that reinforcements on a very large scale should be provided by the Territorial Force. But what I should like to assure my noble friend—and I think I am entitled to do so—is that the last

189
thing that Lord Kitchener desires is that the Territorial Force should consider that they have any grievance whatever; and in particular I feel absolutely justified in making the assertion that there is not the remotest intention on the part of anybody to destroy the county system upon which the Territorial Force is based. To SUM up, perhaps it is hardly necessary for me to repeat that this expedient is one of a purely temporary nature, and, as I think my noble friend will easily realise, it is in reality simply a question of recruiting. My noble friend has rendered, as I have already stated, great services with regard to recruiting, and his efforts have been surpassed only by the noble Earl opposite, Lord Derby, who may possibly have something to say on this particular subject. But the whole difficulty is, as I have said, really a question of recruiting, and it must be obvious to everybody that as soon as there is a sufficiency of recruits available these expedients, which are not of a satisfactory nature, will be abandoned.
THE EARL or DARTMOUTH: Men already serving are being asked to sign an undertaking to transfer. What I want made clear is that those men who are not willing to sign the undertaking to transfer will not be prejudiced on that account.
LORD NEWTON: So far as I am aware, they will not be prejudiced in any way.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I heartily support what the noble Earl has said on this subject. It is essential that nothing should be done to check recruiting for the Territorials. They have had very heavy losses, and at the present moment you can often get men for the Territorials when you cannot get them for the Regular Army. That is because there is that personal touch between the officers and the men which you cannot have under present circumstances in the Regulars. There is no doubt that in the last fortnight something has happened that has stopped recruiting for the Territorials to a very large extent. I do not know whether it is the same all over the country as it is in the particular area with which I am chiefly associated in West Lancashire. It is difficult to say what is the cause, Some people will tell you one thing, and seine another; but there is no doubt
190
that the drop has coincided with two things—first, the statement that the battalions the Front have been told that they are to be amalgamated; and, secondly. this Army Form under which recruits are not only required to sign for foreign service, which they are only too ready to undertake, but also to accept liability to be transferred from one battalion to another. We have had a large recruiting campaign in West Lancashire. We were averaging about 1,100 recruits per week; the figure has dropped to 250 per week since those two things were known. They may or may not have any relation to each other. Some say that the reduction is due to some of the speeches which have been made. I only point out that the circumstance does exist that with these two facts becoming known there has been a great drop in the number of recruits.
It is essential that there should be no amalgamation of first line battalions in the Expeditionary Force. I have had the advantage within the last few days of seeing some of these battalions at the Front and seeing also Sir John French, and I know that the order was only carried into execution in one case, and it has, as a matter of fact, been cancelled. I sincerely hope there can be no question of its being in any way brought up again. But if you do not amalgamate, there is one thing that you must do—you must send out drafts to your first line. The noble Lord who replied for the Government said that it was a question of recruiting for the third line. To a certain extent it is; but it is no use getting your third line up to full strength to feed the first line when the first line has already died of inanition. There is no use in providing food for a starving man and not giving it to him until he has died from starvation.
The second line was originally formed for the purpose of providing drafts for the first line. It had, I believe, in the first instance no other duties to perform. Therefore those of us who are associated with Territorial Associations never thought of forming a third line, because we could not see that it would be required. Since then, however, different duties have been placed on the second line. It now has not only to be looked upon as a defensive force, which, is quite right, but also to be maintained as a possible unit for service

191
abroad. That is all very well, but it is no use making your second line for service abroad and letting your first line which is at the Front die before it is relieved. Therefore I earnestly hope that some method may be adopted by which, at all events for the present, drafts can he taken from the second line to make good the wastage in the first line, making good the wastage in the second line from the third line, and at the same time letting us go on recruiting for the third line until such time as we are able to feed the first line with properly trained men. I hope that the noble Lord will impress upon the Field-Marshal the Secretary of State for War the necessity of keeping the first line at all events up to some sort of fighting strength, if not to the full strength at which it originally went out.
I admit that to a certain extent—in some cases to a large extent—the War Office has great difficulties. There is no doubt that many commanding officers formed the second line with a view of going out with their battalions. They think—and they have, perhaps, in some cases reason to think—that the second line unit which they have formed is better than the first line unit which has already gone out, and they want to keep their unit intact. It is a laudable wish, but I sincerely hope that it will not be given way to, but that what I have urged will be carried out—namely, that the first line shall receive an adequate amount of drafts from the second line until the third line has been properly trained to fulfil its function of finding these drafts.
The noble Earl deprecated the raising of special battalions. I am afraid I do not quite agree with him, if you look at it from the point of view that you have to get as many recruits for the Army as you possibly can. As long as you have voluntary service you must depend upon putting something attractive before the recruit, and there is not the slightest doubt, from my experience, that it is far easier to raise a new unit than to keep an old unit up to strength. Of course, if we had any question of national service that would naturally adjust itself; but I hope that, at all events while we are trying to bring the Territorial third line up to full strength, there will be no authorisation for special battalions to be formed, for undoubtedly that would draw off recruits whom we should otherwise obtain for the third line.
192
Having had a good ninny dealings with the War Office, especially with regard to Territorial matters, I think we ought to be extremely grateful for the way in which the War Office have met every objection we have put before them. Naturally I only speak for myself, but I am very grateful to them; and I hope we can rely upon the noble Lord opposite to help us in every way. I am sure, on the principle that the best gamekeeper is the reformed poacher, that we shall have in the noble Lord one who, at all events, knows our wants, and will at the same time see that the War Office orders and regulations are carried out.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, the noble Earl who initiated this discussion, in speaking of the proposal to raise special agricultural battalions, made a statement the accuracy of which I should like to ask Lord Newton or the President of the Board of Agriculture to confirm, because it has an important bearing on this question of raising special battalions from those interested in farming. Lord Dartmouth said that 150,000 recruits had been found for the Territorials and the new Armies from men engaged in agriculture. He obtained that information, I think, from an answer given by Mr. Acland in the House of Commons. The hon. Member said he based the statement on returns made by 9,000 farmers in England and Scotland. Well, 9,000 is a small proportion of the total number of farmers in the country, and it seems rather a small number on which to base somewhat sweeping deductions. I should like to know whether there is ground to believe that this large number of recruits has been found by the agricultural community, or whether Mr. Acland's deductions are based only on the information given to him by 9,000 farmers out of the whole number in England and Scotland, which is something between 200,000 and 250,000.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, if he intends to, I should like to endorse what has fallen from my noble friends as regards the question of the clubbing of battalions on the Continent or anywhere else. I have had experience of it, for already in this country, in the case of two Territorial regiments, a composite regiment has been formed. Obviously, difficulties at once

193
arose. Among other things, there was the question of shoulder badges. They were both county regiments but carried a different badge, and the question had to be decided which badge the composite battalion should bear. The War Office ruled that they were to bear one or other of the badges—I will not specify which—and that order was issued. But it has not been obeyed, because the men of the other battalion absolutely declined to change their shoulder badges. That is a small point, but it illustrates the difficulties of clubbing depleted battalions. Therefore I am profoundly relieved to hear from my noble friend Lord Derby that he is pretty sure, if there was any intention of compounding these regiments, that it has now been dropped.
I am afraid, notwithstanding all that has been said about the good feeling of the War Office to the county territorial system, there has been at the same time a tendency to encourage competition in the matter of recruiting. I will state a case within my own experience. Certain Territorial regiments in my county are short. I was pressed to raise another Regular regiment, and I pointed out that this would inevitably compete with the Territorial regiments which were short. Notwithstanding that, I was told to go on and I have gone on, and so far as I can learn the new regiment is more attractive than the units which had been raised before, and the latter are suffering in consequence of the raising of the new regiment. So far as the country is concerned, I hope it is all the better for it. I hope more men are being obtained. At the same time this practice is profoundly discouraging to the officers who came forward in the original instance to raise a unit and thought they were going to have a fair field for recruiting.
As to the suggestion regarding recruiting from farmers' sons, I have made inquiries in my own neighbourhood so far as I could—not through the whole county, for I have not had time to do that—and it does seem to me that the invitation has come at a most inappropriate moment, because whatever our county is, whatever the regular or the particular crops are, we are actually now beginning to get them. Whether it is fruit, or presently whether it is cereals, or after that whether it is hops, we are full up with work now for
194
the next two months at, least, and after what my noble friend the Minister for Agriculture said the other day I should think this letter can hardly have received the approval of the Board of Agriculture. I can say from my own experience, as I said the other night, that there is unquestionably a shortage of labour for agriculture, and the farmer's son in all probability is the best man to take the place of the stockman or of the wagoner, and those are the men who are absolutely essential for carrying on the industry. I therefore hope that there will be no, pressure at the present moment to respond to the invitation to raise farmers' battalions. I think if we were allowed to get on with the harvest there would be a far better chance of doing something as soon as the harvest, is over.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTUR AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, I rise to answer the agricultural question and nothing else. I do not know on what figures my hon. friend Mr. Acland relied when he gave the answer to which Lord Fortescue referred, but I should say that 50,000 is much under the number of recruits from the agricultural population of the country as a whole. I am not prepared to accept that figure as the limit.
EARL FORTESCUE: Mr. Aeland gave the figure quoted. He said that fifteen decimal something had gone to the Army and one decimal something had taken civil employment under the Government, making seventeen and a-half per cent. in all of labourers who had left agriculture for services connected with the war. I should doubt whether there are so many.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is a distinctly lower statement than I should have expected. Honestly I should not have thought anybody at this moment had the accurate information to give. I do not know whether it could be extracted by a minute examination of the enlistment forms since the war began, but I am quite sure that the War Office has not had time to examine the enlistment forms. Therefore I do not suppose there are any accurate statistics on the subject. As regards farmers' battalions, I do not think you can divide the agricultural community into watertight compartments.

195
You must take it as a whole—farmers, farmers' sons, and labourers together. Lord Kitchener has most distinctly undertaken that no effort shall be made by his recruiting officers to endeavour to get the essential skilled men of a farm to enlist—foremen, head stockmen, head wagoners, shepherds, or men of that kind. But if there is a head stockman on a farm and a farmer's son whom Lord Kitchener thinks ought to join the Colours, well, of course, Lord Kitchener is perfectly free to try and enlist him; and I ant sure farmers are the last people in England to say that their sons ought not to bear as much of the brunt of the national burden of the present moment as the labourers' sons. Therefore I would suggest that the whole of the agricultural community be considered as one whole. I quite agree that this is not the moment at which should like to see that additional call on the farming community which will certainly have to be made, and which ought to be made, after the harvest. My concern is, in the first place, that the harvest should be got in, and that after the harvest has been got in the men who are taken from the agricultural community should be those who can be spared, and not those who are essential in order that the country may produce all the food it can.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Can the noble Earl say whether there is any intention of issuing a new order with regard to the payment and conditions under which men are to go from the Army to help in the corn harvest?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The new regulations will be issued almost immediately.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, perhaps before this discussion closes I may be allowed to say a few words on the general question raised by my noble friend opposite. In the first place, let me say— and I am sure I shall have your Lordships' concurrence—that no one on either side of the House is likely to challenge the right either of my noble friend Lord Dartmouth or of my noble friend Lord Derby to raise these questions in this House. Lord Dartmouth speaks to us with all the authority which belongs to hint as chairman of the Council of Territorial Associations. Of Lord Derby's
196
services in his part of the. United Kingdom it is not necessary for me to speak, for they are well known to us all. Let me say this—and I say it with conviction—that I am quite sure the suggestions which have been made by my noble friends will be not only considered, but considered with the utmost desire to meet them and to give effect to them, by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal whose colleague I have the honour to be, and who is not able, unfortunately, to be here to-night.
With the general object which Lord Dartmouth had in view I am in entire concurrence. I interpret his speech as being directed to two objects. In the first place, he desires to protect the individual soldier from being transferred, against his will, from a unit which he has elected to join to another unit which he has not elected to join and in which he may not take the same close interest; in the next place, he desires to protect the unit from losing its identity by a process of amalgamation or pooling with part of another unit. That policy of maintaining a close connection both between the individual soldier and between the units and the different localities is to my mind, or should be at any rate, the bedrock of our military policy in this country. I do not think it is too much to say that it is the adoption of that policy which has given us the great number of recruits which we have been able to obtain during recent months and which has infused into our Army the extraordinary spirit of enthusiasm which non' pervades it, and which leads every village in England to take a keen interest in the performance of the troops connected with that particular part of the country. I noted with great satisfaction a phrase which fell from my noble friend Lord Dartmouth. I think it is a phrase which deserves to be remembered. He said that our Territorials had begun without any records but were rapidly making them. That was a very just compliment, and I am glad that my noble friend should have paid it.
To my mind any deliberate departure from the policy which I have endeavoured to sketch would not only involve a breach of faith but would be suicidal; I put it as strongly as that. There may have been departures, or apparent departures, from that policy, but I believe it will be found that if there have been any they have taken

197
place under stress of circumstances and because they were unavoidable. My noble friend dwelt in particular upon the unfairness of asking men who now accept the liability for Imperial Service to accept with it, and as part of the bargain, a liability to transfer. I am sure I do not misrepresent the policy of the War Office when I say that in our view that liability should only be enforced where it is absolutely necessary to enforce it. But I do think—and I believe my noble friend will not disagree with me—that you cannot entirely deprive the military authorities of this power of transfer. We must all be aware that there may arise emergencies when what has to be done is to win a battle or to win a campaign at any cost, and when everything mast be sacrificed to that one end. On those occasions—I think the phrase was also my noble friend's—the man must feel that he belongs not to this unit or to that unit but to his country. But, as I said just now, if this liability is to be imposed, it must be enforced with the utmost caution and with the utmost tact.
One word as to the other case which my noble friend had in view—the case where two Territorial battalions, or perhaps one should say what remains of two Territorial battalions, are amalgamated into one battalion. There may arise circumstances under which that would be the only course open to the military authorities. My noble friend suggests two alternatives. He says that this process of amalgamation ought not to take place if there are in the second or third line units of those battalions enough men to supply drafts properly armed and equipped. Let me take, in the lira place the possibility of supplying the necessary number of men from the second line unit. We know that until now that has been done. I am aware of a case quite recently where a Yeomanry regiment, about which I know something, a second line regiment, was called upon to supply a large draft to make up for heavy casualties incurred in the first line regiment.
THE EARL OF DERBY: A Yeomary regiment?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes. But the police of the Sar Office, as I understand it, to-day is that those second line units are no longer to be treated merely as reservoirs from which the first line units
198
are to be filled up, but that they should be filled with men who have assumed the Imperial Service liability and maintained as fighting units able at the proper time to take Their place in the field. Of course, if this has to be done it is quite obvious that you cannot also use them as reservoirs from which to take drafts for the assistance of the first line units.
Then I come to the third line units. The third line units have in many cases been only lately established. In a great many cases—again I am speaking from what I know of my own experience—they are still far from strong numerically. I think I am right in saying that for a time we were told to keep them on the lower establishment. They have quite lately been raised to the higher establishment, but I think it is clear that at this moment a great many of them cannot be in a position to supply heavy drafts for the relief of the first line units. Therefore in same cases—I do not put it higher than that—the only way out of the difficulty may be to amalgamate two weak battalions in order to make them into one battalion of sufficient strength. But again I say that this operation ought to be undertaken with the utmost caution. For example, in my view the hardship would be infinitely less if you took two weak battalions belonging to the same county regiment and put them together than if you took a weak battalion of one county regiment and filled it with the remains of a battalion belonging to quite another part of the United Kingdom. It is to be remembered that under a recent ruling of the War Office it has been decided that these third line units are to be looked upon for the future as the proper bodies from which to supply the needs both of the first and the second line units. My noble friend, of course, is aware that under the new arrangement the officers of the third line units are all home service officers.
THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY indicated dissent.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Oh, yes.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Not all the officers. The only officers of the third line units who are home service officers are the commanding officer, the adjutant, and the musketry officers. All the others are active service officers.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend knows these matters so thoroughly that I am quite ready to take it from him.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I think the noble Marquess opposite is correct.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Then I am afraid it must have been within the last forty-eight hours.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It is a quite recent decision, the idea being that the third line unit should be nothing but a training depôt for the other two units, and that the officers should be home service officers and therefore not liable to be taken away. My noble friend has dealt with the question of the proposal to institute battalions drawn from the farmer class. Speaking again of the part of England I know best, I am under the impression that there are not a great many farmers' sons of military age to be found on the farms with their parents, and that where you do find them their presence is very desirable in the interests of the farm and they can ill be spared. But so far as I know there is no desire to impose the policy of establishing battalions of that kind upon the different parts of the country. All that I am aware of is that we have received a circular asking us to express an opinion as to the possibility of resorting to this means of obtaining recruits, and that some of us have expressed our opinion with the utmost freedom.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, may I say a word with regard to transfer. The noble Marquess has said that I particularly object to the transfer of men from one unit to another. I do. But I quite realise that there may be necessity under which it must be done. The Government have the Act of Parliament empowering them to do that. But what I say is that, as long as you have to cajole recruits in, it is a great pity to meet them with a paper which they have to sign before they join accepting liability as soon as they are enrolled to be transferred to another unit. They all know that the power exists under the Act of Parliament. But I do not see any necessity for frightening them, as you undoubtedly do, by making them sign this paper when they come to enlist. That is my point.

ALIEN ENEMY MISSIONARIES IN INDIA.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had the following Notice on the Paper—
To call attention to the statement of the Secretary of State for India, that 442 enemy alien missionaries, mostly German, are at liberty in India, at their posts, on parole, on condition of good behaviour, and 70 are compulsorily residing ill specified places, and only 115 are interned; and to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government consider that such a state of things is desirable, and if not, what action they propose to take to safeguard the tranquility of India.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my excuse for drawing attention to this Question must be the rather startling statement that was made by the Secretary of State for India as regards alien enemies in that country. He said that he was unable to give figures as to the total number of enemy aliens interned or still at large in India, but in giving the figures as regards enemy alien missionaries, for the most part Germans, he said that there were 442 alien missionaries under very slight control —that is to say, they were allowed to remain at their posts on parole on condition that they continued of good behaviour. These men, of course, would be extremely anxious to do everything in their power not to come under the suspicion of the authorities. From the statement of the Secretary of State for India it would appear that the Government of India had rather the same view as regards aliens generally in India as the late Home Secretary, Mr. McKenna, had as regards aliens in this country—that they were most of them very harmless people, and there was no need to trouble about them. If that is the contention in regard to this country, I do not agree with that view; nor, I am sure, will many members of your Lordships' House. But as regards India it is a very serious state of things, because we know how mischievous rumours are likely to be spread in that country. We know the bitter feeling entertained by Germans, whether in that country, in any other of our Dependencies, or in this country. We know especially as regards these missionaries that they' are men who have been ready to sacrifice their own easy lives at home to go out to India for the good of their own country. They are men who have made great sacrifices already, and from the character of the German nation we know that they would think no sacrifice

201
was too great to make if they could do anything to damage our rule in India.
I am given to understand that the censorship in India is, if possible, stricter than in this country. We in this country know very little indeed of the state of India except from what we have in the way of private information; and the private information I have had is not at all reassuring as to the state of things existing there. And it does not tend to reassure those who take an interest in India to find that there are so many alien enemies in that country under so little control. In the answer given in another place the Secretary of State for India made no reference as to what had been done in the case of the wives and daughters of the missionaries who had been interned. Perhaps my noble friend the Under-Secretary may be able to tell the House whether, in cases where it is thought necessary to shut up missionaries, special care is taken with regard to their female relatives. We know that as touch harm may be done by women—perhaps even more, because they are under less suspicion. I need not refer the House to the history of espionage in Germany. It has been a tradition from the time of Frederick the Great and has been hereditary in that country. The system of having spies has been fostered and organised by Germany in a way of which we had no idea until this war broke out. We have suffered greatly from it, but I trust we shall not suffer more from it than we have already. And. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give some assurance to the House that something is being done in India to alter the present state of things which seems so inadequate —namely, the shutting up of such a small number of alien enemies as seems to be the case at present.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, if my reply is confined within very brief limits to the Question on the Paper, I hope my noble friend will understand that it is not because I do not fully appreciate the importance of the subject which he has raised. As regards the figures which the noble Lord has cited in his Question, they represented the position in April last. No later figures have as yet been received to show whether the figures given have undergone any modification. I may say that the Secretary of State has already announced in another place that lie has instructed the Government of India
202
to report by telegram in full on the present features of this situation. The report has not yet arrived, and therefore I am not in a position to make any announcement in the shape of a reply to my noble friend. He will understand I am sure, as other noble Lords will, that the Government of India and. the Local Governments have had this question of aliens carefully under their supervision ever since the outbreak of war. He will I have no doubt, with his knowledge of India, realise that the question presents peculiar difficulties there and therefore the adjustments of aliens in that country have to be dealt with with peculiar care and consideration. There are institutions in India which are staffed by Germans, German Jesuits, especially in Bombay and others parts of India, and. upon which portions of the community in large districts largely depend for their religion and for their education and their general social conditions, and also, I might add, in certain remote districts for their medical treatment. I only mention that to show that care and caution has had to be taken by the Govermnent in dealing with this matter, because any wholesale internment without some substituting arrangement would cause in India to a unique degree a great dislocation of social conditions. But with the advance of the war, and with undoubtedly the advance of German agency in all vulnerable parts of our Empire, there must be corresponding restrictions and corresponding care. Whilst, as I have said, I ant not in a position at this moment to give my noble friend any precise answer to the Question he has put, directly I am placed in such a position I shall do so. In the meanwhile I hope he will feel assured that attention is being given to this matter both in India and at home, and he mayfeel assured that nothing will be left undone to safeguard the tranquillity of India.
House adjourned during pleasure; and resumed by the DUKE of DEVONSHIRE.

MUNITIONS OF WAR BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and. to be read 2a Tomorrow (The Lord Privy Seal (E. Curzon of Kedleston.)) (No. 121.)

WAR LOAN (TRUSTEES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed and to be read 2a Tomorrow (The Lord Hylton). (No. 122.)
House adjourned at Two o'clock a.m., till half-past Ten o'clock.