Sitting of 7 July 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Chelmsford Corporation Gas Bill,
Lurgan Urban District Council Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Northwich Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Port-Glasgow Gas and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration deferred till Wednesday next.
South Staffordshire Water Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,—That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
Eastern Valleys (Monmouthshire) Joint Sewerage Board Bill [Lords],
Prescot Gas Bill [Lords],
Spennymoor and Tudhoe Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Regulations under which Grants to Schools for Mothers in England and Wales will be made by the Board of Education [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRAMWAY ORDERS.
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under The Tramways Act, 1870, during the Session of 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC., BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    SHEERNESS DOCKYARD (CRAFTMEN).
    Major WHELERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) why the yard craftmen employed at Sheerness are paid at a lower rate than men employed on private tugs seeing that both are doing similar work; and can he see his way to place both classes of men on the same basis as regards payment; and (2) whether he is aware that the payment of yard craftmen at Sheerness working 140 hours a week is stokers 4s. 3d. a day and seamen 4s. a day, exclusive of the war bonus; and seeing that the payment of men working on hired tugs is stokers 6s. a day and seamen 5s. a day, will he see that the wages of yard craftmen are raised to these rates?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): As the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, the conditions of service in Admiralty Yard Craft were very fully considered by a Committee some little time ago, and, as a result, various improvements in those conditions were announced in the replies to petitions issued in the earlier part of the present year, of which I will send the hon. and gallant Member a copy. I would point out that the rates of pay quoted are only the minimum rates of the respective scales, and, further, that no account is taken of the emergency increase granted in connection with the award of the Committee on production. I assume that the number of hours quoted refers to the number of hours the men are on board their vessels, but not necessarily actually at work, in which case I anticipate that they would compare favourably with those prevailing in the mercantile marine. I do not think that if the conditions of service in dockyard vessels are surveyed as a whole they would compare unfavourably

    345
    with those existing in the case of private employers, especially when such considerations as permanence of employment, prospect of establishment, and allowances for particular duties are taken into account.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question refers only to Sheerness and not to yard craftmen as a whole?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes. But the yard craftmen at Sheerness come under the general rule, the only exception being as to hours.
    Major WHELERfurther asked whether yard craftmen were entitled to an increase of 3d. a day from the 1st October last; and, if so, why the yard craftmen at Sheerness have only been paid from April?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Probably what the hon. and gallant Member has in mind is the matter dealt with in the answer which I gave to the Member for Plymouth on 29th April, when I stated that the improvements in wages and conditions of employment of yard craftmen set out in the answers to petitions were conditional upon the surrender of special privileges in certain cases. The privileges in question are certain advantages which were enjoyed by some of the yard craftmen in respect of sick leave with pay and medical attendance. No doubt any delay which may have occurred in some cases is owing to the hesitation of some of the men to accept the conditions regarding the surrender of special privileges previously enjoyed by them. Payment of the increased rates has already been made to those men who have accepted the conditions.

  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS (POTATOES).
  Mr. TICKLERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that recently large quantities of new unmatured potatoes have been purchased in Lincolnshire for the Admiralty at an average cost of £15 per ton, there being in the same districts thousands of tons of best table potatoes selling at 50s. per ton; and whether, in view of the economy which Cabinet Ministers are urging the public to practise, he will explain why these purchases have been made?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No such price as £15 per ton has been paid by the Admiralty for new potatoes. All supplies of
  346
  potatoes shipped in bulk to the Grand Fleet have been old potatoes, purchased at the very favourable prices obtainable on the open market, but at some of the ports round the coasts of the United Kingdom His Majesty's ships obtain their fresh vegetables under running contracts, which provide for the supply of new potatoes, to begin each year on the 1st July, and in some cases new potatoes have been supplied at the average prices in the contracts.

  KIAOCHAU (MILITARY OPERATIONS).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the joint nature of the military operations at Kiaochau, there is now any joint administration by the Japanese and British of the affairs of the port, or whether any British Consul or Vice-Consul has yet been appointed there?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, a British Vice-Consul was appointed to Kiaochau on 26th September, 1911, and still continues to represent British interests at that port.
  Mr. KING: Is it intended that the Japanese shall have permanent control over Kiaochau without any reference to our rights or position there?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think that hardly arises out of the question on the Paper.

  INOCULATION.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the source and nature of the anti-typhoid vaccine with which soldiers are liable to be inoculated under military discipline and of the artificial medium on which it is grown; and whether this information and the liability to the inoculation are made known to recruits before their enlistment?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I gave the hon. Member full information about the source and nature of the anti-typhoid vaccine on 10th June. This technical information would not be of much value to the prospective soldier and, as inoculation is voluntary, there is no reason why it should be given to him.

  DARDANELLES OPERATIONS.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will publish the telegrams and all other information received from the general commanding in Egypt as to the arrangements for the wounded brought from the Dardanelles to that country?
  Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to a speech I made on 23rd June, in answer to some questions put to me by the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by the publication of the telegrams referred to.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether, in view of the serious statements made in the Press regarding the wounded from the Dardanelles, the right hon. Gentleman will personally inquire into the whole matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: I made it my business to ascertain—and did in fact state to the House on the occasion I have referred to—what happened. I do not think anything further is required.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what was the date of the first landing at the Dardanelles and the date of the first arrival of the wounded at Alexandria, how-many wounded arrived within the first fortnight, and what were the arrangements at Alexandria for their reception?
  Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the dispatch from General Sir Ian Hamilton published to-day. The first arrival of the wounded at Alexandria took place on the morning of 29th April. I cannot give the numbers asked for in the third part of the question, but I can assure the House that the arrangements made for the reception of the wounded at Alexandria have been adequate in all respects.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman assure the House, on his own responsibility, that the arrangements were really adequate?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; I make that statement on my own responsibility.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the same thing with regard to the arrangements for transporting the wounded to Alexandria?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, I cannot; and I have stated so in the House.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how-many hospital ships are now engaged in the service between Alexandria and England, and the dates of their first voyages?
  Mr. TENNANT: Seven Army and three naval hospital ships are now employed between the Dardanelles, Alexandria, and the United Kingdom. The first voyages of four of these were in January and February, of four more in April and May, and of the remainder in June. There are also-three ships employed on what is called the ferry service. This has been in operation since May.

  LEAVE FROM THE FRONT.
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that some Territorials who have been serving at the Front in France for seven months have had no opportunity to visit their friends in this country during that time; and will he take any possible steps to enable them to do so?
  Mr. TENNANT: The question of leave from the Front, whether in the case of Regulars or Territorials, is a matter to be settled by the Field-Marshal Commander-in-Chief, and is obviously very closely dependent upon military exigencies. Within the limits possible, I am sure the Commander-in-Chief will give to the troops any relief that is practicable.

  NATIONAL RESERVE (BOUNTIES).
  Mr. WATTasked whether members of the National Reserve who were members on the 11th August last were entitled to the bounty of £5 for Home Service or £10 for Foreign Service; and did they, in point of fact, receive such sums?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): They were entitled if they had then undertaken the prescribed obligation and afterwards fulfilled it. As far as my information goes, they received the money.

  PURCHASE OF ARMY HORSES (IRELAND).
  Mr. KEATINGasked the average price paid in Ireland since the beginning of the War to the end of June for horses of

  349
  15, 15½, and 16 hands height; the reasons why the purchasing authorities in Ireland do not buy directly from the farmers; and will steps be taken to establish county committees in Ireland who will have power to supply horses and other war supplies directly to the Army and Navy?
  Mr. FORSTER: The information is not available in the form asked for by the hon. Member. The prices paid for the different classes of horses purchased in Ireland are as follows:—

  £

  £

  Officers' chargers

  …

  65

  to

  75

  Artillery horses

  …

  50

  to

  55

  Cavalry horses

  …

  45

  to

  50

  Cobs

  …

  35

  to

  40

  By the present system of purchase from recognised and reliable middlemen the State is saved the expense of finding and collecting suitable animals, and the War Office does not propose to make any change in the system. As regards hay, however, I am considering whether other arrangements should be made.

  TREATMENT OF WOUNDED.
  Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Under-Secretary for War (1) if he will obtain from the hospitals in this country a Return showing the number of cases of compound fractures and the number of such cases which have resulted in amputation being necessary; (2) if he will obtain from the hospitals in this country a Return showing what proportion of the patients treated have arrived there with septic wounds; and (3) if he will obtain, from the hospitals in this country a Return showing the number of cases of abdominal wounds, and the number of cases of such abdominal wounds which have proved fatal?
  Mr. TENNANT: I will answer this and the next two questions together. The information which my hon. Friend desires would lay upon the medical authorities a vast amount of work, and, inasmuch as they are now heavily taxed, I should be obliged if my hon. Friend would not press me to ask them to undertake the additional work involved.
  Mr. ROCH: Is there not a register in the hospitals of each individual case, and is it not merely a question of tabulating them in order to get the information asked for?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have no doubt there is a register in each hospital, but what my hon. Friend asks for is a return from each hospital, and that would involve much labour.
  Mr. KING: Are there not monthly or quarterly returns available up to a recent date?
  Mr. TENNANT: I cannot say whether that is so or not, but I should not think any register would contain the information the hon. Gentleman asks for—namely, how many of the patients treated arrived there with septic wounds.

  ARMY MEDICAL ADVISORY BOARD.
  Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the Army Medical Council appointed by Lord Haldane still exists; if so, who are now the members of it; and how many times it has met since the commencement of the War?
  Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend probably refers to the Army Medical Advisory Board instituted by Lord Midleton. I would refer him to the Army List, column 2494, where the names of the members are given. The Director-General of the Army Medical Services is in close touch with these gentlemen continually and they with him.
  Mr. ROCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, as to how many times this Board has met since the commencement of the War?
  Mr. TENNANT: They have no regular meetings, but they are in constant touch one with the other.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE (TRANSFER).
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that reluctance has been shown to sign Army Form E 624 A, with reference to the transfer of Territorials to other corps or units, because, though a guarantee is given for continuance on transfer of the same pay or allowances, no guarantee is given for retention of the same rank; and whether he will guarantee that rank will be retained?
  Mr. TENNANT: I cannot guarantee that in every case rank will be retained,

  351
  but I will consider the point raised by the hon. Member. I may point out, however, that if a man on transfer receives the same pay he would normally also retain the same rank. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that signature to this Army Form is purely voluntary.

  DENTAL SURGEONS.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what arrangements are made for dentistry for the troops; whether anything like an Army dental corps exists; whether the Government has its own laboratory for supplying dentures or whether it is paying the prices charged to the general public for dental materials; if so, whether the taxpayer is saddled with charges in excess of what the wholesale houses actually received from the dentists, who account directly to the Government; and whether due measures will be taken for the protection of the taxpayer in this behalf?
  Mr. TENNANT: In some places there are specially appointed dental surgeons who devote their whole time to the troops, in others the work is done by selected civilian dental surgeons on terms arranged between them and the local military authorities, subject to a limit laid down by the War Office. A number of whole-time dental surgeons have received commissions, but there is no Army Dental Corps and no need for one. The Government has no laboratory for supplying dentures, but in certain places, including France, there are dental mechanics' shops for making and repairing dentures. At other places dentures are supplied by civil dentists on terms arranged locally, subject to a maximum fixed on the advice of expert dentists. The Government is getting dentures at reasonable rates and the taxpayer is carefully protected.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that the Government are not paying for the materials obtained from the wholesale denture manufacturers prices which the individual member of the public is paying, whereby the taxpayer loses the advantage he should get from the wholesale character of these transactions?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have given the hon. Member the answer which has come from my Department. I have not personally
  352
  investigated the matter, but I can assure him that the answers to these questions—the hon. Gentleman realises that there are a great number of them—are most carefully prepared in the Department and the statement is that the Government is obtaining these, articles at a reasonable price and that the taxpayer is carefully protected.
  Mr. RAFFAN: Does the War Office still adhere to the policy of refusing, in all circumstances, to recognise the work of unregistered dentists, no matter how competent the man may be?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, I am afraid we must adhere to that decision.

  EXECUTION OF SOLDIERS (NOTIFICATION TO RELATIVES).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what communication is made to relatives of soldiers executed in pursuance of sentences of courts-martial and how soon after the death; if any are executed without sentence, what communication is made in their cases; and whether a record is kept of all such cases for reference after the War?
  Mr. TENNANT: The next-of-kin are informed of the facts. This communication is made through the Record Office concerned on receipt of the official report from the base. I do not know what the hon. Member means by "executed without sentence." There is no execution except on sentence of a court-martial properly reviewed and confirmed. The proceedings of courts-martial are put on record.

  UCKFIELD DISTRICT EMERGENCY COMMITTEE.
  Mr. COWANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a notice issued last week to all householders in certain inland parishes of East Sussex by the Uckfield District Emergency Committee, instructing the recipients to be prepared, in the event of invasion by Germany on the southern coast, when ordered so to do by the military authorities, to move in a certain direction, and specifying the articles which such persons are to take with them, and ordering the destruction, in such circumstances, of stock, pigs and forage; whether

  353
  his attention has been called to a further document, delivered by special constables after an interval of a few hours, to all residents in the same area, giving minute and individual instructions as to route and additional details as to food and other supplies to be carried by such refugees; whether no such notices have been issued to the inhabitants of similarly situated parishes in adjoining Parliamentary divisions; whether the Uckfield Emergency Committee has acted in this matter under the directions of the War Office or of the military authorities; and, if not, whether, having regard to the desirability of avoiding unnecessary alarm, he will take steps to restrain local emergency committees from taking such action unless and until ordered to do so by a competent superior authority?
  Mr. TENNANT: The issue of notices such as those referred to is not contrary to the instructions issued by the Home Office to emergency committees, and what has been done by the Uckfield District Emergency Committee has presumably been merely for the purpose of instructing the inhabitants as to their duties in the event of invasion. The responsibility of the military authorities is limited to assuring themselves that the proposed action would not interfere with military operations. I am not aware what action has been taken in the adjoining parishes. Every precaution is taken to prevent alarm being caused, by due preparation for action, which it might be desirable to take on emergency.
  Mr. COWAN: Docs the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the issue of notices of this alarming character is left entirely to the discretion of these emergency committees in out of the way parts of the country, and is it desirable that there should be no uniformity in such matters? I can speak from personal knowledge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
  Mr. TENNANT: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be so kind as to let me see a copy of the alarming document.
  Mr. COWAN: I will.

  SECOND ARMY (FREE RAILWAY PASSES).
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the
  354
  troops in the Second Army, of the New Armies, were recruited last September and have been under active service conditions ever since, during which time they have been quartered in the South of England; whether the majority of the men belong to Lancashire and other parts of the North of England, many of them being married men, and have had no opportunity of visiting their families except seven days' leave at Christmas; whether orders have been issued that, preparatory to going on foreign service, these men shall be given week-end leave and no more for the purpose of bidding good-bye to their families, but that they shall pay their own railway fare; whether he is aware that the fare from Salisbury to Lancashire and Yorkshire is a sum beyond the means of many of these men to spare out of their pay; and whether he will undertake that all who obtain leave before going abroad shall be enabled to visit their homes free of cost?
  Mr. FORSTER: Arrangements are made for giving leave to soldiers in anticipation of their being detailed for drafts, as far as the exigencies of the Service permit; but my hon. Friend will understand that in the circumstances such leave must necessarily be brief. The question of giving a free railway pass once in every six months to soldiers on leave is under consideration.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that a great many of these men gave up very remunerative positions when they joined the Army, and that, as their leave must be very short, it would be a great hardship to them if they were precluded from seeing their relatives before going abroad?
  Mr. FORSTER: As I said, the question of giving extra free passes is being considered now.

  MEAT SUPPLIES FOR TROOPS.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a practice exists by which Army meat contractors are permitted to avail themselves in emergencies of the Government meat supplies when Territorial and local camps are in need of meat; whether last February or thereabouts the contractor supplying the Honourable Artillery Company, when in camp at Rainham, tendered to

  355
  them a number of Monte Video cow fore-quarters of beef which were discovered to be in a putrid condition, and which were accepted by the battalion and buried in a trench; whether it was afterwards discovered that these were supplied from Government stock; whether the War Office was called upon to pay full value for the same; and why, in view of the sums spent on meat inspection, they were accepted at all from any source whatever?
  Mr. FORSTER: The practice referred to in the first part of the question does not exist. As regards the second part, the incident to which my hon. Friend presumably refers occurred last year. The camp at Rainham was not supplied by a contractor, but by the Army Service Corps from Purfleet. The meat was sound when it left Purfleet, no blame attaches to the Army Service Corps inspectors, and it was properly paid for by the War Department. The action of the battalion in making away with meat before it had been condemned or even examined by a Board of Inquiry was highly irregular and has been suitably noticed.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is almost a daily occurrence for the vans of potted meat contractors and canned beef contractors, reputed to be holding Imperial and local Army contracts, to be loaded at Smithfield Market with salvaged and trimmed portions of United States and other classes of chilled beef; whether this beef, though actually sound at the moment of delivery in Smithfield, was yet so far gone in many cases that it would actually deteriorate with twenty-four hours and become putrid; and whether, in view of the unsatisfactory condition of Army meat inspection, he will notify the local authorities of the districts where all firms potting and canning meat for the Army have works and ask them to instruct their certified inspectors to keep a special observation on such work?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question. But even if true, they would have no bearing on the soundness of meat potted or canned for the use of the Army, since all such meat is inspected on the contractors' premises by inspectors under the Local Government Board, and in addition the goods are examined before delivery is accepted.

  ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH (WRITERS' PAY).
  Mr. CROOKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) whether, in view of the fact that increases of pay, dating back to last December, have been granted to practically all employés in the ordnance factories at Woolwich and Enfield, he can now state if a similar increase is to be granted to the writers employed there; and (2) when a reply may be expected to the application made by the National Union of Clerks, on behalf of the writers at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, for a war bonus; and whether, in the event of the application being granted, the concession will be retrospective to the date of the application being made?
  Mr. FORSTER: The increases so far given have not applied to clerical staff. The question of an increase to writers raises very complicated questions affecting clerical labour in many Government Departments and is under consideration.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association at Bromley Public Hall, Bow Road, have written a letter to a soldier's wife who has eight children under fifteen years of age informing the woman that her daughter had been found in a dirty condition by the nurse at school and threatening to write to the War Office on the matter, and indicating that the separation allowance would doubtless be affected in consequence; whether allowances are affected by the state of cleanliness of the dependant's children; and whether letters of this character have the sanction of the War Office?
  Mr. FORSTER: I have no knowledge of the circumstances, and the War Office has not sanctioned such action. Cleanliness of children is not a matter affecting separation allowances unless there is neglect amounting to cruelty, when the question might arise.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a reservist who emigrated to a foreign country with the permission of the Secretary of State for War, and who has returned to active service during the

  357
  present War, is entitled to his pension for the time he was residing in a foreign country?
  Mr. FORSTER: I think the hon. Member is referring to reserve pay. Under the Regulations such a reservist, if absent with leave for not more than twelve months, is entitled to receive his reserve pay for the period of his absence.
  Mr. RENDALLasked why the 4s. 6d. per day, being part of his pay allotted by F. H. Bennett, No. 078,068, Motor Transport, Army Service Corps, stationed at Stockcross, Newbury, to his mother has not been paid to her yet; why Mrs. Bennett's letters to the officer commanding at Grove Park, Lee, dated 16th June, and to the Paymaster-General, dated 24th June, have not been answered or acknowledged; and when Mrs. Bennett will receive the money due to her?
  Mr. FORSTER: I find on inquiry that payment was made on 28th June with effect from 16th April. The delay appears to have been due to an oversight, which is regretted.
  Sir W. BYLES: Has my hon. Friend experience or evidence of there having been many oversights of the same kind?
  Mr. FORSTER: When there is such a large number of cases to be dealt with it is surprising how few cases of this kind have occurred. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in spite of the tremendous strain which is thrown upon paymasters and their officers, every effort is made to avoid oversight.
  Sir W. BYLES: I am sure that my hon. Friend will make every effort, and I hope that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

  WAR LOAN.

    POST OFFICE AND TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that small investors are deterred from investing their savings in the new War Loan by reason of the apprehension that they may not be able to realise their Investment before 1945 in any period of financial stress; and whether he is able to offer any reassurance with regard to the position of the small investor in such circumstances?
    Mr. POLLOCKasked what facilities will be given, through the Post Office or
    358
    otherwise, for the sale of small amounts of War Loan stock or bonds of small value?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I am glad to have an opportunity of removing misapprehension on this point. War Loan bought through the Post Office or a Trustee Savings bank may be sold at any time through the Post Office or the Savings Bank at the market price of the day on which the transaction takes place.
    Mr. POLLOCKasked whether arrangements have been or will be made to facilitate the conversion of a sum of less than £100 of Consols into the War Loan?
    Mr. McKENNA: A subscriber for £100 of the new War Loan has the right to convert £75 Consols or any smaller amount. Arrangements are under consideration whereby subscribers through the Post Office for smaller amounts of new War Loan than £100 will be given rights to convert Consols standing in their names in proportion to the amount of their holdings in the new Loan.
    Mr. W. THORNE: If all the money invested in Consols was converted into War Loan, what loss would it be to the nation?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can hardly expect that sum to be done offhand.
    Mr. THORNE: Roughly, would it be £100,000,000?
    Mr. McKENNA: Oh no! I should say the figure of £100,000,000 is ten or twenty times an exaggerated sum.
    Mr. THORNE: I do not think.
    Mr. McKENNA: Well, I do.
    Mr. POLLOCKasked how it will be possible for purchasers of scrip vouchers of small amount who are not able to purchase up to £5, or who need to realise the vouchers already purchased before 1st December, 1915, to obtain their money?
    Mr. McKENNA: Scrip vouchers will be accepted at any time by the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks as the equivalent of cash for the purpose of deposits. These deposits can then be withdrawn in the usual way.
    Sir GODFREY BARING: Will the right hon. Gentleman embody all this valuable information he has given in pamphlets sent to the post offices so as to be accessible to the public?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I think that is quite an excellent idea. I will communicate with the Postmaster-General on the subject.

    ARMY INVESTMENTS.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he has made arrangements by means of which officers and men serving at the front may have the opportunity of investing in the new War Loan?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Arrangements have been made by which non-commissioned officers and men serving at the front in France or in the Dardanelles can invest in the new War Loan from the balance of pay standing to their credit, either in the form of scrip vouchers of 5s., 10s., or £1, or in the form of stock certificates of £5 and multiples of £5. A leaflet explaining the method is being distributed to the troops. Whilst the men are at the front the scrip vouchers or stock certificates will be taken care of by the General Post Office. I understand that commissioned officers are investing through the ordinary channels of Army agents or bankers. Arrangements are also being made to enable the men of the fleet to invest in the new War Loan.

  EXPORT OF MALT.
  Mr. GRETTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will consider the advisability of stopping all export of malt from this date until the barley available from the forthcoming harvest has been accurately ascertained?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The export of malt is at present severely restricted, but I am unable to give such an undertaking as is suggested.
  Mr. GRETTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the exports of malt, in spite of the restriction, are more than twice as large as they were during the year before the War?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes; countries like Holland have had all their malt supplies from Germany cut off, and, provided we are certain none of the malt we are sending them is getting through to Germany, it is not unreasonable to allow it to go.
  Mr. GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that the export of
  360
  beer from these neutral countries into Germany is equivalent to exports of malt, as malt is required to make beer?
  Mr. ACLAND: That is one of the questions which are constantly under consideration.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of stopping the manufacture of malt with a view to conserving the food of the people?

  WHEAT IMPORTS.
  Sir JOHN HARMOOD-BANNERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will furnish a return of the profits made on the purchases and imports of wheat from the Argentine during the last six months; and whether it is intended to continue purchases of wheat from that quarter?
  Mr. ACLAND: No complete account of the transactions referred to by the hon. Member can yet be given. The corn trade associations were informed on the 13th April last that the Government had ceased to buy wheat.

  STEAMSHIP "LUSITANIA" (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any compensation is to be paid to the survivors of the "Lusitania" for their property and effects which went down with the vessel; whether he has had any correspondence with the Cunard Company on the subject; and whether the Government are prepared to advance any compensation money to the survivors with a view to its recoverey from the German Government after the War?
  Mr. McKENNA: His Majesty's Government cannot undertake to grant compensation from public funds to persons who suffer loss at sea owing to the action of the King's enemies, but claims may be registered with the Claims Bureau at the Foreign Office.

  ENEMY AIR RAIDS.

    STATE INSURANCE SCHEME.
    Mr. JOWETTasked what is the intention of the Government in regard to the extent to which the Government will accept responsibility for damage caused by enemy air raids?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on this subject yesterday.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked whether representations have been made by many of the Metropolitan borough councils to the effect that, in view of the risk of damage to public and private buildings, in consequence of the War, which is not covered by ordinary insurance policy, it is desirable that the Government should be requested to consider the question of arranging a system of voluntary State insurance against such risks; and, if so, whether consideration has been given to those representations, and with what result?
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to pay the cost of damage by aircraft to hospitals belonging to the Order of St. John or the British Red Cross Society, or any others in which wounded soldiers are received?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Representations of the nature referred to have been received, and I hope to be able to make a statement very shortly on the establishment of a State scheme of insurance against aircraft damage.

    GERMAN POSTMASTERS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General how many German postmasters and sub-postmasters have up to date been removed from their offices as objects of suspicion; and how many postmasters or sub-postmasters of German origin still remain in the public service?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Two sub-postmasters of German nationality were removed from office shortly after the outbreak of war, in accordance with the general policy laid down by my predecessor—not on account of any definite suspicion against them—and one sub-postmistress who, though herself a natural-born British subject, had lost her British nationality by marrying a German, was, as a measure of precaution, removed from office for the duration of the War. Two sub-postmasters of German birth, but naturalised British subjects, were also relieved of office. There are at present in the Post Office service thirteen sub-postmasters of German birth who have been
    362
    naturalised as British subjects and twenty-nine sub-postmasters who are themselves natural-born British subjects but whose parents, or one or other of them, were German or Austrian. There are no postmasters or sub-postmasters of German or Austrian nationality in the service.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Have any of these remaining German postmasters or sub-postmasters access to telegrams and other information passing through their post offices?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are none remaining who are of German nationality. Wherever there is reason to fear that a sub-postmaster of German origin may have access to confidential information he would be removed to another office.
    Mr. COWAN: Would not the better plan be to remove all postmasters of enemy alien origin?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That would give rise to a number of very hard cases in the case of persons who have come here in their childhood and perhaps had thirty or forty years' service.

    MESSRS. AUGENER, LIMITED.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Board of Trade if the inspector, appointed by him, of Augener, Limited, has made inquiries as to the transfer of 20,000 shares by Mr. Wilhelm Strecker during the War; and whether such transfer was for cash on sale or merely a colourable removal of the shares from the name of the said Strecker?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board of Trade are informed by the transferees of the 20,000 shares of Augener, Limited, previously held by Mr. Wilhelm Strecker, that no cash was paid at the time of the transfer, but that promissory notes payable six months after the end of the War were given as security for the purchase money. The present holders of the shares state that the transaction was a genuine purchase, that they hold the shares in their own right and not as nominee for any other person, and that no one has any right to call upon them to retransfer the shares.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman himself think that on the very facts he has put before us this is not a colourable transaction?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In this matter I must act under advice, and I am advised that it is not a colourable transaction.

    FROZEN BEEF (INSURANCE AGAINST DAMAGE).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on almost all cargoes of frozen beef there is an insurance claim allowed for damage during transit; whether in the cases in which the Government have taken over the whole of one particular mark or brand out of a boat the Government have had the benefit of any insurance claim allowed; whether in cases in which cargoes have been considerably damaged the fact has been notified to the Government and the amount of the insurance allowed ascertained before the purchases were effected; whether he is aware that it is the market custom to sell salvaged beef at less than the market rate; whether the Government have had to pay full contract value for such salvage beef as they have taken delivery of; and whether, in view of the fact that the firm of Perfect and Company are underwriters' representatives on beef insurance, and therefore directly interested in facilitating the acceptance of damaged beef by the Government, he will terminate this arrangement in the public interest?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In reply to the first part of the question, I have to inform my hon. Friend that when meat is bought c.i.f. the usual insurances are taken out by the sellers, but that when meat is bought f.o.b. it is not insured on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I understand that claims for damage were not as general as he suggests. With regard to the second part, in all cases in which meat bought c.i.f. has arrived damaged the damaged meat is rejected and returned to the sellers, by whom no claim is then made for its value, and in cases in which the meat was bought f.o.b. any damaged meat is sold on the market for what it will fetch. In view of that practice, the third part of the question does not arise. With regard to the fourth part, I am aware of the custom referred to. The fifth part of the question does not affect meat bought c.i.f., and with regard to meat bought f.o.b the cost is paid to the Australasian Governments, who bought the meat on behalf of His Majesty's Government and inspected it before it was put on board.
    364
    With regard to the last part of the question, I have to refer my hon. Friend to the Secretary of State for War, by whom Messrs. Perfect and Company are employed, but I am satisfied as to their independence in the work they perform.

    MUNITIONS.

      RECRUITING OF WORKERS.
      Mr. HOGGEasked whether, as a result of the seven days' experiment in recruiting munition workers on a voluntary basis, the Government propose to take any-other means, whether by legislation or otherwise, to deal with this problem?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It it not possible, at present, to state how far the demands of the munition factories throughout the country for labour will be met by the men who have volunteered for munition work, inasmuch as further inquiry is needed to ascertain what proportion of these can be moved from their present employment. As stated, in answer to a previous question, it is hoped to meet the demand from this source—from men released from the Colours, from men brought from Canada by the Board of Trade, and from other sources.

      MANUFACTURES' LISTS.
      Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether the system of lists which has long been in vogue in the War Office and Admiralty has been adopted by his Department, whereby manufacturers of war material have to get on to the Department's lists, and only then are allowed to tender; if he has abandoned this system; and will he say whether the Munitions Department is as open to listen to sellers as large business firms in this country?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must necessarily keep lists of firms known to be equipped for the manufacture of the special articles for which they are noted. I will, however, readily consider all applications from other competent manufacturers, and all applications or offers to supply will invariably be dealt with on their merits.
      Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is businesslike when munitions are wanted to be over particular as to those who offer the goods to him?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by "over particular." We must be assured that we can get the goods, and that they are goods of the right quality. That is very important. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are going on an extensive scale outside the munitions list of the War Office. Of course we must be certain that the articles delivered will be of the right quality, otherwise they will be more disastrous to us than to the enemy.
      Mr. WATT: Is not the question of delivery a future question? Would not that be looked after when the delivery actually takes place?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Does the hon. Member mean inspection?
      Mr. WATT: Yes.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There are difficulties of inspection. Some firms might promise to deliver shells, but we know they could not carry out their obligations. We are getting some offers of a prodigious character.

      EXPORT OF METALS.
      Mr. J. M. HENDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he will take the necessary steps to stop the export of lead, spelter, antimony, nickel, and other metals necessary for the manufacture of munitions of war; and whether he will at once take steps to stop all gambling in such metals on the metal exchanges?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The necessary steps have been taken to stop the export of lead, spelter, antimony, and nickel and other metals necessary for the manufacture of munitions of war. The four metals named cannot be exported except to places in the British Empire. As regards the last part of the question, I am not clear what steps the hon. Member contemplates, but it is hoped so to control the markets that gambling is reduced to a minimum.
      Mr. HENDERSON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are time bargains, contangos, and backwardations and gambling contracts, and that the market would welcome a stop being put to these gamblings in these metals just as gambling was stopped on the Stock Exchange?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
      Mr. HENDERSON: I can assure him the market would welcome it.

    WAR OFFICE BADGES.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Government intend to issue War Office badges to all men genuinely engaged on War Office work?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am considering the whole question of badges in consultation with the Admiralty and Army Council and I propose to make a statement on the subject very shortly.

    SALE OF FOOD AND DISTILLED SPIRITS.
    Mr. PRATTasked the Minister of Munitions what steps have been taken in Scotland by the Board of Control to make provision for the supply of food and refreshment for the workers engaged in shipyards and munition factories, and to restrict the sale of distilled spirits in the districts where such shipyards and munition factories are situate?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am informed that the Central Control Board are visiting Scotland this week in order to consider what action it may be desirable to take. I understand that the Board are devoting special attention to the establishment of facilities for the supply of food and refreshments where a need is shown, and generally to measures of positive reform as distinct from merely restrictive action.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the fact that the Board of Control has delimited ten areas in England and none in Scotland is proof of the fact that Scotland is much more sober?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid my hon. Friend must not draw that conclusion.

    PRISON AS ARMS FACTORY.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether His Majesty's Government has under consideration the propriety of equipping one prison as an arms factory to which volunteers from other prisons could be drafted, subject to necessary conditions as to their fitness for the work?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I must refer the hon. Gentleman to my

    367
    answer to him on the 23rd June, and to the explanation I gave him in Debate on that day. Prison labour is already being employed to the best advantage in connection with war supplies.

    MESSRS. LYONS AND COMPANY.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary whether it was the Press Censor who prevented Press comment on the conviction of Messrs. Lyons and Company, for having sold for Army use meat unfit for human food; and, now that the company has abandoned its appeal, whether free comment on the facts of the case will be allowed?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am informed that no comments on this case have been censored by the Press Bureau. It is the usual and proper practice of the Press in this country to abstain from comment on a case which is sub judice, and, as Messrs. Lyons gave notice of appeal immediately after the conviction, all responsible newspapers would naturally abstain from comment until the appeal was decided.

    WOMEN JURORS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Attorney-General if, in order to release men jurors during the War, he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to allow women to act as jurors, as suggested by the deputy-coroner for West Lancashire?
    Sir J. SIMON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. No such difficulty in finding jurors has arisen as would justify the Government in proposing legislation on what would be a somewhat contentious subject.

    ALIEN ENEMIES (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. PRATTasked the Secretary for Scotland how many meetings of the Advisory Committee for Scotland dealing with the internment and repatriation of alien enemies have been held; and how many cases have been dealt with, and with what results?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): Nine meetings of the Committee have been
    368
    held. Five hundred and ten cases have been dealt with. Exemption has been refused in fifty-one cases for deportation and in forty-two cases for internment and granted in 299 cases for deportation and 118 cases for internment. It must be borne in mind in the case of Scotland that by the end of October last all the male enemy aliens from seventeen to forty-five years of age had already been interned with few exceptions, so that the Committee has had to deal chiefly with women, children and elderly men.

    COAL EXPORT LICENCES (LOTHIANS).
    Mr. PRATTasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that owing to the delay in the issue of licences to export several collieries in the Lothians were recently laid idle; and whether he can take any steps to expedite the issue of licences in the future?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): Applications for licences for the export of coal are considered by the Coal Exports Committee, and so far as I am aware there is no avoidable delay in the issue of licences. If the hon. Member will send me particulars of the cases to which he refers so that the applications can be traced, I will cause inquiries to be made and communicate with him on the subject.

    GERMAN GOLD.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the stipendiary magistrate who presided at the Petty Sessions at Cahirciveen, when the police inspector was allowed to accuse witnesses of having received German gold, was himself an ex-policeman; in view of the purpose and effect of the accusation, whether the inspector has been required to substantiate it; and will he say under what law or rule police inspectors in Ireland are allowed to make accusations of that character which they are unable to substantiate?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The resident magistrate who presided at the Petty Sessions at Cahirciveen on the occasion referred to was formerly a district inspector in the Royal Irish Constabulary. The answer to

    369
    the second part of the question is in the negative. As I have already stated, in framing the questions put by him in cross-examination of witnesses for the defence, the district inspector who was in charge of the prosecution was guided by information in his possession, and he was entitled, on the basis of that information, to put such questions to the witnesses as were likely, in his opinion, to throw light on their credibility.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question with reference to this officer being called upon to substantiate his charges?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. I am not called upon.
    Mr. GINNELL: I mean the officer referred to in the question. Has he been called upon to substantiate his charge?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the correct and normal method of administering justice?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly. He had information before him which, in his opinion, justified him in putting the question.
    Mr. GINNELL: He had none.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of persons banished from Ireland and from particular parts of Ireland, respectively, on political grounds since the War began, and the number of each of those classes against whom an order of exclusion is now in force; and, the persons so punished not having been tried for or accused of any offence, whether he will grant a Return of them with particulars of charge and evidence in each case?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Up to the present time fifteen persons have been served with orders under Article 14 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations prohibiting them from residing in or entering certain specified areas within Ireland itself. With regard to the last three parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on the 29th ultimo. One person on whom an order was served has since been tried for offences under the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
    Mr. LYNCH: Would any harm accrue if all these orders were rescinded?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member has a somewhat crude notion of the administration of justice.
    Mr. LYNCH: Would it not conduce to better administration, if these men are so formidable, so to conduct his administration as to have them on his side and not against him?
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of hanging them?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I will consider it and reject it.

    EMIGRATION FROM IRELAND.
    Sir J. HARMOOD - BANNERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will furnish a Return of the number of emigrants from Ireland per month during the last six months and a comparison with similar Return for the period under 1914?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The number of emigrants, natives of Ireland, who left Irish ports during the first six months of this year was 4,061 as against 12,909 in the corresponding period of last year.
    The following table gives the figures month by month in the two periods:—

    Month.

    Number of Emigrants.

    Year 1914.

    Year 1915.

    January

    497

    366

    February

    734

    319

    March

    1,426

    404

    April

    5,144

    824

    May

    3,648

    1,025

    June

    1,460

    1,123

    Total for six months

    12,909

    4,061

    SADDLERS IN ROYAL DOCKYARDS (WAGES).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the position of saddlers employed in His Majesty's dockyards; whether he is aware that while smiths, carpenters, wheel-

    371
    wrights, and labourers were all advanced on the 21st October, 1914, no advance was made in the case of the saddlers, whose wages still remain at 28s., exclusive of the War bonus; whether he can say on what ground the exception was made; and will he consider the amendment of the rates in the case of the saddlers so as to remove the present inequality?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no class of workmen rated as saddlers in His Majesty's dockyards. If, as I assume, the hon. Member refers to leather hose makers, I can only say, as I indicated in the reply which I gave to him on 10th March, that the case of this class was fully considered prior to the issue of the replies to petitions at the beginning of the present year. As I pointed out, until 1908 these men were classified as skilled labourers. In that year it was approved to put them in a separate class on the then maximum rate for skilled labourers, namely, 28s. a week, for hired men. Later, special rates up to 30s. were approved, and in 1912 the maximum special rate was made 31s. As the hon. Member indicates in his question, they have since received the emergency increase granted in connection with the award of the Committee on Production, and it is not contemplated to make any further advance.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply that these men should be satisfied with a change in name and position that carries with it no rise in pay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I mentioned the rises in the skilled labour case because the leather hose maker follows it.

    VISITS OF RELATIVES TO SICK AND WOUNDED.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether paragraph 4 of the regulations on visits of relations to sick and wounded officers and men issued to the Press on 29th May, which lays down that only one relative in the case of each parent will be allowed to enter the zone of the armies would prevent a father and mother from both visiting a dangerously-wounded son at a hospital in Boulogne and elsewhere; and, if so, if he will take steps to have this regulation withdrawn or modified?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It has been found possible hitherto to allow a limited number of persons to visit France for this purpose, and if it were to be made the rule that two persons might go in the case of each patient it might become necessary to restrict the number of cases in which visits are allowed. But this question is now under review.

    ARTILLERY (REDUCTION OF BATTERIES).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, seeing the experience of the present War has shown that the number of field guns and howitzers of each division of the original Expeditionary Force was insufficient, he will say why the number of field guns and howitzers have been reduced in every division of the New Armies raised by the Secretary of State for War; whether the reason is due to the lack of ammunition and not of guns; and whether the Secretary of State for War will defer sending the new divisions to the Front until the number of guns in each brigade is brought up to at least the number provided for the original Expeditionary Force?
    Mr. TENNANT: Any alteration which has taken place in the organisation of the Artillery has not been due either to lack of ammunition or of guns, but has been adopted with a view to improving the fire control of the battery commander. It is highly inexpedient to discuss the details of the armament or organisation of our forces in the field, and still more inexpedient to say anything which would disclose the dates upon which new divisions are likely to be sent to the front.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have not stated in the question how many guns have been reduced in each division? Is it not a fact that the reduced number of guns, provided that ammunition is available, will not be able to fire the same amount as the increased number?
    Mr. TENNANT: Stated in the manner in which my hon. Friend has stated it, the proposition is incontestable. But I would remind the House that this question as regards-four-gun or six-gun batteries is a very old one and has been a controversy raging between military authorities long

    373
    before the outbreak of this War. It is not true to suppose if you reduce the batteries from six guns to four guns that to that extent you reduce the number of shots fired or the efficiency of the batteries.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman has himself given the information to the enemy now.

    HAY SUPPLY (COMMANDEERING).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether hay is being commandeered in South Gloucestershire at £3 10s. a ton; whether he is aware that this sum is thought in the district to be less than the cost of production; and what remedy a farmer has if he thinks the price offered for commandeered hay is less than he can obtain elsewhere?
    Mr. FORSTER: No hay has been, requisitioned from farmers in Gloucestershire, but in one case nearly 8 tons on railway trucks were requisitioned from a dealer. The price offered by the district purchasing officer for this consignment of hay was 77s. 6d. per ton on rail. Purchases are usually made by voluntary arrangements at a price fixed by the local purchasing committee. If the farmer objects to this price his hay can be requisitioned and the price fixed under the provisions of the Army Act by the County Court judge. In view of the disinclination of farmers to use this method, two appeal committees, one for the North and the other for the South of England, have been set up. An agriculturist, a hay merchant, and a senior purchasing officer serve on these committees. There still remains the remedy in the County Court.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar cases have arisen in Nottinghamshire, where farmers have had to supply hay at a distance of 4½ miles from their farms at 70s. a ton when the market price is £5?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman ought to give notice of that question. The hon. Member cannot know all about these places.

    COAL (PRICES).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that further increased dislocation
    374
    has resulted in the coal trade owing to his delay in making any definite statement on the question of whether the Government intends to fix maxima prices in the coal trade, and that the London public are not buying coal, in the hope that prices will be regulated; whether he has any information that, unless stocks of coal are laid down through the summer months in London, a coal famine will result if hard weather or fog prevails next winter; whether the stocks at the depots are small owing to the merchants not knowing the intention of the Government; and whether he will accept the recommendation made to him by a number of private Members of this House and forthwith fix maxima prices?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Returns furnished by London coal merchants show that at the end of May the amount of coal at London depots was greater than a year ago. Particulars for the end of June are not yet available. With reference to the remainder of the question, I hope to be in a position to make a statement to the House very shortly. Matters of great importance to the coal trade and consumers have had to be dealt with by the Government during the past few weeks, which have unavoidably delayed the steps in contemplation for dealing with prices.
    Mr. CROOKS: Will there be any attempt whatever made to make these people disgorge their unholy profits?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: On that subject I must refer my hon. Friend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. CROOKS: This is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman. The Board of Trade are responsible for the whole mix-up.

    Canton (Lease of Shameen).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the terms on which the lease of the Shameen, at Canton, is held by the British Government, or indicate in what form this document is accessible to the public?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The lease of the Shameen, at Canton, was granted to His Majesty's Government in 1861, to be held in perpetuity by them for such uses and purposes as they should see fit, in consideration of the payment of a yearly rental. The

    375
    Chinese Government resigned all rights, title and claims to the said lot of land so long as the rent was duly paid. As regards the second part of the hon. Member's question, I regret to be unable to refer him to any publication giving the terms of the lease in question, but the gist of it is as quoted above. I shall be happy to show him a copy of the lease if he cares to see it.

    Breaking of Monsoon.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received news of the breaking of the monsoon from India; and whether, in that event, he will state the nature of his reports?
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the monsoon prospects of India and state how the late wheat crop compares with that of the last few years?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The monsoon has broken throughout India somewhat later than the normal, and is not yet fully established in North-West India. There are no special circumstances that give rise to apprehension, but the hon. Member knows that prediction in such a matter is hazardous. The weekly report of the Government of India is communicated to the papers as received. The total wheat crop for this year is estimated at 10,269,000 tons, compared with 8,358,000 tons for 1913–14, 9,715,000 for 1912–13, and 9,924,500 for 1911–12.

    Merchant Ships (Sanitary Defects).
    Mr. WINGasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the annual report of the acting medical officer to the Newport (Mon.) port sanitary authority to the effect that the proportion of vessels visiting Newport having sanitary defects during 1914 was higher than in any previous year; that forecastles in new ships are curtailed in size in order to provide extra large hatches for loading and unloading; and that, as the forecastles are too small for all the sailors and firemen, the forepeaks have been used for crew spaces, although the lighting and ventilation of these do not conform with Board of Trade requirements; and will he state what he proposes to do to carry out the rules and regulations of the Department in the cases complained of?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board of Trade have not yet received a copy of this report, but when a copy reaches the Department the statements made in the report will be carefully examined. I may, however, point out that the Board of Trade requirements for the crew spaces of vessels were revised and made more stringent in February, 1914, and I feel confident that the Board of Trade surveyors have not passed the crew spaces of any ships unless they have complied with those requirements and the statutory regulations.

    Post Offices.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General whether the Department has in any case in this country, at the instance of a landlord, insisted on the use as a sub-post office of a cottage condemned by the local sanitary authority, when a good house suitably situated was offered for the purpose?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not aware of any case of the kind in Great Britain or Ireland.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions if there is to be any change in the business of this week?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: To-day we shall begin with the Committee stage of the Pensions Bill; then take the Money Resolution of the National Registration Bill, and the Committee stage of that Bill.
  To-morrow, instead of taking Supply, we shall take the Report of the Money Resolution and continue the Committee stage of the National Registration Bill, and will suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule for this Bill.
  Mr. DENMAN: Is it proposed to take the Third Reading of the National Registration Bill to-morrow?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We will see how we get on.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Would it not be very much better to sit on Friday, instead of suspending the rule to-morrow night? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that, on the whole, the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule is a very salutary thing. We had to do it last Thursday.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman suspend the time table on the Resolution dealing with the Registration Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is quite unnecessary.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC., BILL.
  Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 6th July.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC., BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Functions of Statutory Committee.)
    (1) The functions of the statutory Committee shall be:—

    (a) to decide any question of fact on the determination of which the amount of a pension or grant payable out of public funds to a dependant, other than a widow or child, may depend;

    382

    (b) to frame a scale of supplementary grants in cases where owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case, the pension or grant or separation allowance payable out of public funds seems to the committee to be inadequate;

    (c) out of funds at their disposal, to supplement pensions and grants and separation allowances payable out of public funds, so, however, that no such supplementary grant shall be made except in accordance with such scale as aforesaid;

    (d) out of funds at their disposal, to make grants in cases where no separation allowances or pensions are payable out of public funds;

    (e) to decide, in any particular case, whether any pension or grant or separation allowance has, under the regulations subject to which it was granted, become forfeited;

    (f) to decide, as between two or more claimants to any pension or grant or separation allowance, which, if any, of the claimants is entitled thereto;

    (g) to determine any other questions in relation to pensions or grants or separation allowances which may be referred to the committee by the Admiralty or Army Council;

    (h) to administer any funds which may be placed at the disposal of the committee by the corporation or by local committees or by any society or other organisation having funds applicable to the making of grants of the nature of those which the committee are authorised to make, or otherwise;

    (i) to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the service, including provision for their health, training, and employment.

    (2) The statutory Committee may refer to any local committee for their consideration and advice any question pending before the statutory Committee, and may request any local committee to collect and furnish them with any information they may require with respect to any matter, and may delegate to any local committee the distribution within their area of any grants made by the statutory Committee, and may pay of contribute towards the payment of the expenses incurred by the local committee in respect of any of the matters aforesaid.
    (3) Paragraphs (8), (9), (10), and (11) of the First Schedule to the Patriotic Fund Reorganisation Act, 1903 (relating to funds, accounts and audit) shall apply in respect of the statutory Committee in like manner as they apply in respect of the Corporation.
    (4) The statutory Committee shall in I each year make a report of their proceedings which shall be included in the annual, report made by the Corporation to His Majesty.
    Amendment proposed [6th July]: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (i), after the word "health" ["health, training, and employment"], to insert the word "housing."—[Mr. Hogge.]
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'housing' be there inserted." Debate resumed.
    Mr. HOGGE: I made my speech on this yesterday, and therefore I need not repeat the points which I made then, except that I want to add this further sentence. I understand that there is some confusion of thought with regard to the insertion of the word "housing" as to whether we are creating two housing authorities and whether the question of housing is entirely a Local Government Board matter. I do not mean by the insertion of the word "housing" to give to this Committee any power over the erection of houses. If is obviously a Local Government Board duty to determine whether houses should be erected for certain areas and that they should be properly planned and sanitary, and so on. This is simply to enable the Committee to make provision for these particular cases.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. ROCH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the end of paragraph (i), to insert the words "and for other purposes which, in the opinion of the statutory Committee, may conduce to the attainment of such object." The object of the Amendment is to give the widest possible discretion to the statutory Committee in framing a scheme.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The words proposed contain a very wide interpretation of the purposes of the Clause, and in many cases objects might be included which are already ruled out. I should not like to add to them.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I would point out that the words of the Amendment limit the scope of the provision in a very clear way. The words are "and for other purposes which, in the opinion of the statutory Committee, may conduce to the attainment of such object." If the Amendment had been in a general form "for other purposes," there would have been some validity in the right hon. Gentleman's reply. By the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the matter is left entirely to the statutory Committee, and he need have no fear as to widening its powers. The words which are proposed by my hon. Friend are limited by reference to the discretion of the statutory Committee, and I think the right hon. Gentleman would be right in accepting them, and I strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his statement.
    Mr. ROCH: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter. I think he will agree that the powers and duties of this new statutory Committee are extremely novel and extremely difficult to work out. What I am afraid of is that even under the powers that they have got, unless those powers are extended in some manner or in the way I have suggested, there will crop up in the work, in future, things this Committee would like to do, and which it will be precluded from doing. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that any fear which he may have in regard to widening the powers of this Committee may be dismissed because those powers will be effectively controlled by the Treasury Grant, which I understand will be given. It will be useless for this Committee to embark on wild-cat schemes unless they have money to carry them out, and therefore there will be a complete check upon the Committee, if they exercise their powers in a manner which does not command approval, in the fact that they will receive no financial help to carry out their intentions.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have very carefully considered the arguments in favour of an enlargement of the powers of the Committee. It is quite true that the statutory Committee would to a large extent have their powers limited by the money at their disposal, but I would remind the Committee that there may be an Amending Bill some day, when we have seen how this Bill works, and larger powers may be given when larger financial resources are placed at the Committee's disposal.
    Mr. HOGGE: It is perfectly true that probably we shall require to have an Amending Bill in the future, but that is a very clear and cogent reason why we should have this particular Bill, which we are passing now, so constructed as to avoid any necessity for amendment. We are creating the statutory Committee, and we are giving it great powers. I raised the point on the last Amendment, but I received no reply. This Amendment meets my point, and I hope my right hon. Friend may continue the courtesy which he extended to us yesterday, and give us sufficient reasons from the Front Bench why the element of housing has been cut down. This Amendment which is before us would invest this statutory Committee with power for other purposes, and obviously part of the purposes would be housing, and the Amendment, therefore, deals with the question which I raise. Let me give my right hon. Friend a case in point. The country had been startled before the outbreak of War by finding that soldiers, the very men about whom we talk so much while engaged in this War, found themselves in the workhouse after serving their country. My right hon. Friend will agree that this has been one of the scandles of the past. It has been possible for a man who has been serving his country to find himself in the workhouse afterwards. I pointed out to my right hon. Friend what the amount of the allowance was, and how, while it was sufficient in itself, it might not be substantial enough, in an isolated case, to put a man in the position in which he ought to be put. If my right hon. Friend will give the powers sought to be given by this Amendment, and put it within the discretion of the Committee to deal with a case of that kind, then obviously it at least provides an opportunity for the Committee to do something, whether it does it or not. Nobody would be able to ask, then, why the Committee had not done a thing, because their reply would be that they were unable to do it as they had not money enough. I submit that the powers proposed should be given, and so obviate what my right hon. Friend knows perfectly well has been a great public scandal with regard to the treatment of soldiers in the past.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I would like to join in the appeal of my right hon. Friend on this point, because it does seem to me of the utmost importance that we should give consideration, at this stage, to the
    386
    interests of a most deserving class, whose needs are sought to be met by this particular Bill. It is certainly a very serious proposal to make to this Committee that we should be prepared to recognise that there may be serious defects in this legislative proposal, and that we shall probably have at some future day a Bill introduced with the object of amending this legislation. It seems to me that this Committee ought not to lightly pass by the danger of very great defects because the Committee has power, on some future occasion, to remedy those defects which have caused suffering owing to the fact of their existence. After all, the concern of this Committee is to see that the most serious cases of need are properly met under the provisions of this Bill, and some of us do feel very sincerely that there is danger in the drafting of the Bill as it now stands and that the needs of the most deserving cases might not be met by its particular proposals. Assuming that the fear of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher) were realised, assuming that by enlarging the discretionary powers of this statutory Committee it might find itself short of the necessary funds, the Government in that case, when the shortage arises out of the endeavour to meet the real needs of those who have suffered, would have an overwhelming case with which to come to this House and ask for larger funds to be placed at their disposal. I do most earnestly appeal to the Government to consider in a more reasonable spirit than has yet been shown the case that we have advanced for this particular Amendment.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to support the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the advisability of adopting this Amendment. Surely there can be no harm in inserting powers in this particular Subsection to deal with the subject. We are told that there may be later legislation, and that we should wait until that, but are we not here now to deal with the matter and to make the legislation in connection with it as perfect as possible? I hope the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that hon. Members are desirous that this Amendment should be accepted, will display the magnanimity which has hitherto characterised him in connection with this Bill.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: The argument against this Amendment seems to be that it would be very unwise to have the objects which could be dealt with so wide that owing to the shortness of money the Committee

    387
    might not be able to cover all the objects specified by the Bill. Let us consider the matter from the opposite point of view. Suppose there was a very large response and a very considerable amount of money, then it might be that a good deal of the money might be wasted on objects specified in the Act, whereas otherwise the money might have been used in a much better way by giving the statutory Committee a wider range of choice in objects.
    Mr. PRATT: I rise to add my voice to those already raised in favour of this Amendment. I think there is a great deal of disappointment in the country, and it has found expression in the Press, and from amongst those who speak for the working classes, that the powers that have been given to deal with disabled officers and men are far too narrow and not sympathetic enough. A point to which I wish to draw attention especially is this: In the Committee presided over by Sir George Murray one recommendation was that the Committee which undertook the care of disabled officers and men after their return should have the power, if necessary, to secure proper housing for all those suffering from tubercular disease. Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that there is quite a difficulty in this matter, especially in regard to those who are not under the National Insurance Act. That is only one of the many points under the head of housing. I have had the valuable experience of sitting on a great corporation for many years, and I remember well how, that in dealing with this question of consumptives, we found that it was absolutely in regard to the greater part of the problem a question of housing.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member appears to have misconceived the Amendment before the Committee. The Amendment proposing to insert the word "housing" was negatived by the Committee, and we cannot go back on that.
    Mr. PRATT: On the point of Order. Do I understand that even if this Amendment were carried with the words, "and for other purposes," that that would not include housing?
    The CHAIRMAN: So far as housing is concerned, we have distinctly declined to include the word in this Bill, and if I had anticipated that the purpose of this Amendment was to go back on that decision, I would not have called it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is not my hon. Friend entitled to consider that point if it is left to the discretion of the statutory Committee to apply the money "for other purposes which, in the opinion of the statutory Committee, may conduce to the attainments of such objects." That does not make it mandatory to deal with housing, but leaves a discretion to the Committee, and from that point of view is my hon. Friend not in order?
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. The proposal was that it should be one of the included possible subjects in a previous Amendment which was negatived, and we cannot go back on that.
    Mr. PRATT: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. We are asked here to give powers including provision for the health of these disabled officers and men. I would be grateful if you would state if those powers would be sufficient to enable the statutory Committee or sub-committee to deal with such a proposal as is made by Sir George Murray's Committee, namely, that some consideration should be taken of the housing of those who are the victims of tubercular disease?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: So far as I can judge, the Bill makes provision for the care of disabled officers and men, and that, I think, would give the Committee discretion to deal with such cases as those in which the hon. Member takes a special interest, cases of tuberculosis amongst the officers and men, and also in cases of partial paralysis where it might be necessary to house them in institutions or in houses. The words "care of" will undoubtedly give full power to deal with cases of that sort.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3). I do so in order to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman a statement as to what the powers referred to are.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: This is machinery which is always put in to safeguard any such funds as will be at the disposal of the Committee, and he can take it from me that it is necessary machinery.
    Mr. HOGGE: Supposing, as we hope may be the case, that public funds will be available for the purpose of this Bill, what, then, about the matter? I understand that in connection with the Royal Patriotic

    389
    Fund, since the reorganisation, if there is public money a certain system of audit is adopted.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The audit of the funds of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, whether subscribed or otherwise, is a very strict Treasury audit, and I think it would be ample for the funds of this body.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in Subsection (4), after the word "proceedings," to insert the words "to both Houses of Parliament."
    I do so in order to make perfectly sure that the report of the proceedings shall be laid before Parliament as an ordinary Parliamentary Paper.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: It is already provided that the Report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation is sent to His Majesty, and is then laid before both Houses. That is the procedure we propose to follow in this case.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRINGLE: At what period of the year is it the practice of the Royal Patriotic Corporation to issue its report. Will the same practice be followed in the future? My reason for asking is that it is extremely important that this report should be issued while Parliament is sitting, and before the Vote is likely to come before the Committee of the House.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The annual meeting of the Corporation is very much governed by the fact that we have to fix the date to meet the convenience of certain members. It is usually held in May, but this body will have its annual meeting rather earlier, in order that it may be quite certain that Parliament should have a full and ample opportunity of considering the matter.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add:—?
    "(5) For the purpose of enabling the statutory Committee to discharge their functions, the Admiralty, the War Office, and any body of persons administering trusts, whether public or private, for the benefit of officers, sailors, marines, and soldiers, their widows, children, or dependants shall, on request, supply the statutory Committee with such particulars as
    390
    they may require with regard to any payments made by them to any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant, and no supplementary grant shall be made until such particulars have been obtained."
    This Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler), in whose absence I move it, because it seems to me that when enormous powers are being given to this statutory Committee it is essential that full information as to what is being done from other funds in any particular case should be communicated to all concerned. I am not sure that the Amendment is exactly in the form in which I would have drafted it, but, in order to elicit an expression of opinion from the Minister in charge of the Bill, I wish to ask whether he would be willing that all such information as is set out in the Amendment should be communicated to the people concerned?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I would like to accept the underlying principle of this Amendment, but I certainly could not accept the words "and no supplementary grant shall be made until such particulars have been obtained." It might be necessary to make a supplementary grant in a very urgent case and we should not wait for these particulars. Moreover, the Amendment is mandatory on any body of persons administering trusts, "whether public or private," for the benefit of officers, sailors, marines, and soldiers, their widows, children or dependants. I am not sure whether we could make it mandatory on those who are administering private trusts. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will on Report bring up words to carry out the general principle of the Amendment, cutting out the words to which I have referred.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I would like to point out that the supplementary grants which are being made now through certain associations, amounting probably to £2,000,000, or at any rate considerably over £1,000,000, have been given without any consideration at all by any such Committee. If the local committees who have been paying these grants to the recipients are to be hampered by having to receive information from the statutory Committee before they make the grants, there will be prolonged delay. Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not consider that part of the Amendment at all.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have still some doubt whether this Clause is the right place for dealing with this point. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, when considering the matter, he should have that looked into. It might be better to bring up the proposal as a separate Clause.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I hope my right hon. Friend will consider whether he cannot deal with private trusts, because it is very important that persons who are acting under this Bill should have cognisance of all the help received by the people with whom they are seeking to deal.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. HOGGE: You have indicated, Mr. Whitley, that this would be the proper opportunity to raise what is perhaps one of the largest questions so far considered in connection with the Bill. I have already spoken on so many Amendments that I do not propose to go over the arguments which I have already used. I believe that all Members, including those who are in charge of the Bill, are convinced in their own minds that the scheme cannot be adequately carried out unless we have a distinct promise and understanding that public money will be available if the income from charitable sources is not sufficient to cover all that conies within the four corners of the Bill. Before we part with this Clause, we want a distinct pledge on that point from a Member of the Cabinet. The only such Member present is the President of the Local Government Board, of whose sympathies with regard to the provision of funds for this purpose we are all aware. If he, as representing the Cabinet, can at once assure the Committee that that is the intention, then we shall be content not to continue the discussion.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I quite recognise the spirit in which the hon. Member has spoken, and I fully recognise the great importance of the question we are now discussing. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated yesterday, I believe quite clearly, that while he hoped and believed—and he has information on this subject not possessed by all of us—that there would be sufficient funds provided from charitable sources, he would undertake on the part of the
    392
    Government that, if those funds were not forthcoming, he would ask Parliament to provide them. I think we are bound to-leave the matter where he left it, because, after all, he is responsible for the finances of the country. We all know as a matter of common knowledge how tremendous is the burden which he has to bear, and how immense are the financial liabilities which this country has now to undertake. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is in deadly earnest over this Bill and profoundly impressed by the need for it, is as anxious as anybody can be that adequate and prompt provision should be made for those who suffer in this War or their relatives, and I am confident that he means that this Bill shall not fail for want of funds. He thinks he has good reason to believe that funds will be obtainable from sources other than the public Exchequer, but at the same time he has given the House and the country a distinct assurance that if his hopes are disappointed Parliament shall be asked to find the money.
    After all, this only applies to a, comparatively speaking, small proportion of the work which this Board will have to do at once. The pensions payable to these, people are already provided by Parliament. It is only in regard to the difference between them and certain other payments that this extra money will be required. I confess, as an old hand in passing legislation through this House, I do not like the practice of passing a Bill on the understanding that its holes are to be filled up at some future time by an amending Bill. Yet I think my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill was fully justified in what he said just now. We are on new ground. Hon. Members who have taken an active interest in this matter and contributed largely to the Debate will admit that the knowledge of individuals is limited, and that we must look for some information in the future. I hope, therefore, the Committee will be satisfied with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and will understand that the Government are in earnest, and that if the money is not available from other sources it shall be provided, so that want of money will not hamper the work of the Corporation.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I understood from the right hon. Gentleman yesterday that in regard to widows and certain other persons this Committee would have power to allocate money

    393
    towards their pensions. I should like to ask whether the Committee will have the same power in the ease of disabled soldiers, officers, and men?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: That is undoubtedly within the powers given to the statutory Committee.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Functions of Local Committees.)
    The functions of local committees shall be—

    (a) to inquire into any case referred to them by the statutory Committee, and to report to the statutory Committee their advice and recommendations with respect thereto;

    (b) to collect and furnish to the statutory Committee such information as may be required by the statutory Committee with respect to any matter;

    (c) to distribute any supplementary grants made by the statutory Committee, the distribution of which has been delegated to the local committee;

    (d) out of any funds at their disposal for the purpose, to make contributions towards the funds administered by the statutory Committee, to increase pensions, grants, and separation allowances and to make grants where no pensions, grants, or superannuation allowances are otherwise payable;

    (e) to solicit and receive from the public contributions towards any such purposes as aforesaid;

    (f) to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment.

    The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. Raffan: At the end of the Clause, after the words "The functions of local committees shall be," to insert the words, "to inquire into all applications for pensions, grants, or separation allowances (other than separation allowances for wives and children of soldiers and sailors) made by persons resident within the area of the local committees, and to make recommendations to the statutory Committee thereon."
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member
    394
    for Leigh (Mr. Raffan) is, I think, covered by what the Committee has already decided.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask in what way?
    The CHAIRMAN: We have decided that the Committee is to deal only with supplementary grants and allowances, and the hon. Member's Amendment seems to mo to go back on that decision.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I am in your hands, but I take it that I would be in order in moving an Amendment providing that the local committees shall deal with all applications for pensions, and not merely with such applications as are referred to the statutory Committee?
    Sir R. ADKINS: May I ask for the convenience of the Committee whether your ruling applies also to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel), to provide that one of the functions of the local committees shall be to report to the War Office and the Admiralty any claim made by a person entitled to separation allowance, dependant's allowance, or motherless children's allowance, and also in cases when payment is delayed? If the substance of the proposal of the hon. Member for Leigh can be raised on that Amendment, we need not argue in reference to the point of Order.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: On a point of Order. I may say that I submitted my Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he said that it would come within the purview of the intention of the Pensions Committee, so as to extend the power of the local committee in the direction indicated. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with the principle when we were discussing this matter previously. Dependants' allowances at the present time are decided by the old age pensions committee. If my Amendment is not carried, in future the old age pensions committee will make recommendation so far as dependants' allowances are concerned, and this Committee will deal with pensions. I want this Committee to be the Committee to deal with both. In addition to referring the matter to the statutory Committee, so far as pensions are concerned, I want this Committee to send the claims and the recommednations in the matter of dependants' allowances either to the War Office or to the Admiralty. The other point I have in my Amendment is this: Where there is delay in the payment to

    395
    any person entitled to payment I want the woman or the person to have the right to go before this Committee, so that the Committee shall investigate and send word to the War Office. The War Office agreed to that part of the scheme so far back as 17th November. It was referred to the Pensions Committee. I understood from those who sat on the Pensions Committee that they would agree to this.
    Mr. RAFFAN: On a point of Order. I should like to know whether I would be in order in moving my Amendment in this form:—
    To inquire into all applications for pensions made by persons resident within the area of the local committee, and to make recommendations to the statutory Committee thereon."
    That is a point which, so far as I know, has not been decided upon at all by the Committee. The whole point is that the local committee will not deal with every case, because they go automatically to the statutory Committee in the first instance.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is very difficult to decide in some of these matters. Perhaps the Government will give me their assistance? I understand the object of the Amendment is to transfer the duties now appertaining to the old age pensions committee to these new local committees.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Yes.
    Sir R. ADKINS: That is one object.
    The CHAIRMAN: Another object is that these new local committees shall deal with questions of separation allowance, which are now dealt with by the War Office and the Admiralty.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: No, no. It is that if there is a person within the area of the the local committee who has a right to claim, that that claim should on their behalf be forwarded to the War Office. That is all I am asking for.
    Mr. HOGGE: Would the Amendment, which is in four words, and between the two on the Paper that are now under discussion, not meet the case of both? To leave out the words "any case referred to them by," and insert "all local cases for." Discussion on that could take place if in order, and, I presume, could be easily dealt with.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I do not know whether I can help at all in this matter, but the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan) is clearly the Amendment upon which the point of Order has arisen. It desires to "inquire into all applications for pensions, grants, or separation allowances." That is in effect allowing the local committee to come in as an intermediary to intervene on behalf of the applicant between the War Office and the Admiralty for a State pension. That is not part of the scheme, and was not part of the scheme of the Select Committee on which this Bill is founded. It was never supposed by the framers of this Bill that there would be any right laid down that this Committee should act as an intermediary or interfere in this matter. I should be quite ready to argue how far the statutory Committee can be made of use for that purpose, but I must submit that this Amendment is not in order.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: This is really a very important matter. If this is not carried out, we shall get chaos in our localities, because we have now by this Bill practically destroyed the existing organisations so far as these matters are concerned. I should like to refer to the title of the Bill. The title of the Bill says:—
    "To make better provision as to the pensions, grants and allowances made in respect of the present War to officers and men in the naval and military service of His Majesty and their dependants.…"
    I myself consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who practically drafted this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Excuse me, he had a great deal to do with the construction of the whole scheme. I submitted my Amendment to him, and he told me that it would come within the confines of the Bill. If my Amendment is not carried, then you must have—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, I think, is addressing me.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Yes; but for the-moment I was appealing to my right hon. Friend to take the matter into his consideration, for unless that is done we must have chaos in the localities.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now arguing the question on its merits. The only thing I am concerned about i6 the question of order, and as to whether or not I can allow a proposal in Clause 4

    397
    which contradicts what this Committee has already decided in Clause 3. That is the only point which concerns me.
    Sir R. ADKINS: On a point of Order, and purely on that point. I submit to you that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh would be in order if the last few words were taken out, "To make recommendations to the statutory Committee thereon." I understand, Sir, that your doubt as to its being in order arises from the presence of those words, because nothing has at present been defined in regard to the statutory Committee which would allow it to consider such recommendations. I would further ask you on a point of Order, if you decide that my hon. Friend's Amendment is not in order, whether you will do so on ground which will allow the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stockton to be in order; because we want to know now whether it is in order to discuss the powers of these committees, or whether they are absolutely dependent upon the words already in the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: On that matter I have just intimated that we have already decided the point raised by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leigh. As to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stockton I am not so sure, therefore I think that it might be allowable for a short discussion on that point to take place.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words "any case referred to them by," and to insert instead thereof the words "all local cases for."
    On a point of Order. I do not object to matters being raised, but I do object to other hon. Members taking control of this Bill. Hon, Members who have Amendments down on the Paper ought to have those Amendments considered, and other hon. Members who have other Amendments on the Paper should not insist that these should be taken first. If they want to do that they should be first at the Table with their Amendments. My Amendment arises on Clause 4, which is being discussed. It raises the point in a correct way. Briefly, my point is this. Whether the local committee will have cognisance of all cases which are being dealt with in the locality? In Clause 3, in paragraph (a), we determine that the functions of the statutory Committee are to decide any question of fact, and so on. What those of us interested, from the point
    398
    of view of the localities, want to know is whether all these cases that are being dealt with—because, bear in mind, I am speaking for Scotland, which is remote from London—
    Mr. BOOTH: Hear, hear!
    Mr. HOGGE: We want to know if in Edinburgh or Glasgow the local committee that is set up under the provisions of this Bill will have cognisance of all cases that are being dealt with through the statutory Committee? I will be content with that. Is the statutory Committee only going to send down for reference cases in which they are in doubt about questions of fact, or is the local committee going to have full cognisance of everything the statutory Committee is doing for a particular locality?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I can answer that at once. These great local committees will have full cognisance of all cases which come within the purview and jurisdiction of the statutory Committee.
    Mr. HOGGE: In view of that I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), at end, to insert the words "To report to the War Office and the Admiralty any claim made by a person entitled to separation allowance, dependant's allowance, or motherless children's allowance, and also in cases when payment is delayed."
    My Amendment raises another point to that referred to by my hon. and learned Friend behind me. The meaning of my Amendment is simply this: We are now setting up in every district practically throughout the United Kingdom a committee to deal with matters arising within the four corners of this Bill. By this Amendment I want to extend slightly the powers of the local committees, so that if any woman who is entitled to separation allowance, and who is not in receipt of separation allowance from the War Office or the Admiralty, should have the right to go before this committee and make her claim. The committee would then report her claim to the War Office or the Admiralty for consideration There are in all constituencies in this country and in every district hundreds, if not thousands, of women whose men folk have gone to the War, and the women have been very hardly pressed by the fact of not having

    399
    had their cases dealt with promptly. These women have not been able to go to anybody officially within the district and make that claim to which they are entitled. My Amendment is to give those women that right. I myself have had to deal with a very large number of these cases in my own Constituency. I find in every constituency similar cases, where Members of Parliament have been written to, and where they have had to deal with these applications. I want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill to this fact: I took up a paper to-day, and in one of the columns of that paper there was a column devoted to claims and delays in payment to dependants. It stated this:—
    "That the claims department of this newspaper continue? to he the centre of interest to many thousands of dependants of soldiers and sailors."
    I want to effect a change. These thousands of claims should not come in a newspaper, whatever its political colour; they should come officially and through official representation to this local committee. Instead of these thousands of claimants, according to this paper, having to write to the newspapers or to Members of Parliament or to any person, I want these persons to go to the secretary of the local committee, state that their separation allowance is not forthcoming, and ask the committee to transfer their claim to the War Office or the Admiralty. I am prepared to put words in my Amendment giving the power to these people. The second point of my Amendment is this that where the?dependant—the mother, sister or father—want to make a claim for dependant allowance, under the circular of the War Office and the Admiralty, they, at the present time, go to the old age pensions committee. Under this Pill the old age pensions committee is defunct. I want the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to understand this point. I want to explain that at the present time the applicants go before the old age pensions committee. That is done under the authority of a circular issued by the War Office and the Admiralty as far back as last October. Under this Bill the old age pensions committee is practically defunct, and, consequently, I want these claimants to have the right to make out their case before this committee, and this committee should decide whether the person is entitled to an allowance and how much it should be. Unless that is done you will have chaos; you will have
    400
    one committee dealing with the dependants' allowance and another dealing with the pensions, and I want the same committee to deal with both. I want this committee to have a record of the family, and if it turns out that hereafter they are entitled to a pension the committee will have a record upon which they will be able to advise as to the amount they are entitled to receive. My object is to simplify the procedure.
    There is another important point, and it is in regard to cases where the payment is delayed. Unfortunately, in every district in the country—I do not refer so much to the Admiralty, because in this case I am glad to say that the separation allowances and the dependant allowances are paid very promptly—the War Office has thousands of cases in every town, and there is something wrong in regard to the payment of the separation and dependant allowances. These poor women go for weeks and weeks without their allowances, and there is often a very large accumulation of arrears before they can obain satisfaction. My Amendment will give these poor women this right: If their separation or dependant allowances or pensions are not forthcoming, I want these women to be able to go to this Committee and say, "I am not getting my separation allowance," or "I am not getting my dependant allowance or my pension, and will you write to the War Office on my behalf and make the claim? That would simplify the correspondence with the War Office and the Admiralty, because then yon would have one official to write from every district. The women would go to these officers in the same way as they go now to the old age pension officers in the case of pensions. When I spoke on the Second "Reading I cited a large number of cases which I have dealt with myself. Only yesterday T received from the War Office a letter in regard to a case in which I recovered £6 4s. 11d. and in another £3 11s. Why should these poor women, instead of coming to me as a Member of Parliament, not have the right to go before this Committee and make this claim the first week when the payment is not forthcoming? That is the purpose of my Amendment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see his way to accept my proposal. I have already submitted my Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he agreed with it. I also submitted it to the Financial Secretary to the War Office and he agreed with it, and could not see any

    401
    harm in it. I think it is generally agreed that the principle of getting one correspondent in each locality would be a great advantage to the War Office and would obviate a great deal of trouble.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I desire to support as heartily as I can the proposal which has just been made by my hon. Friend, and I do so for this reason: It is the opinion of most people concerned in local government that you ought to have only one local committee to deal with all these matters. It is absurd to have one committee to deal with separation allowances and another with pensions. We want to secure that this local committee shall deal with all these matters. We also desire that it shall deal with all the cognate matters which come under the Amendment standing in my name. I may say that the Parliamentary Committee of the County Councils Association met this morning and they strongly supported this Amendment, as they also strongly support the principle underlying the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan), which is not in order. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us that cither now or on the Report stage he will be able to unify this machinery throughout and provide that this committee, or in some cases the pensions committee, or some other committee, shall be the same committee for all the purposes set out in the earlier Clauses of this Bill, and for the purposes now carried out by the old age pensions committee, including the matter of delay, which requires urgent treatment.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I think we all fully appreciate the aim and purpose behind this Amendment. Its purpose is to get these poor people what is due to them as early as possible and obtain the information to assist them as quickly as possible. I am anxious to see that all delay that can be avoided is avoided, and we must all be in sympathy with that object. It will be the duty of the committee to give all assistance they can to these people, but I have just one small doubt as to what will be the result. Instead of making a direct application to the War Office and the Admiralty, if you put this Amendment into the Bill I am not sure that you are not encouraging something which might become the custom, and that is to go to this local committee, then have the application sent on to the statutory Com-
    402
    mittee, and then the statuory Committee might send it on to the paymaster.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: This is not my Amendment, which is to send direct to the War Office or the Admiralty.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will give an illustration. Take the case of a woman in regard to whom there has been some delay about her separation allowance or in the receipt of her pension. She goes, and you encourage her to go by this Amendment, to the local committee. In due course they send it on, and I hope very promptly, to the statutory Committee. An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] They have to send it on to the War Office or the Admiralty, and that, may entail a delay which would be obviated by direct application to the Admiralty or the War Office. I am aware of the fact that in the way suggested they will be able to get assistance, and that rather outweighs my objection. In regard to this proposal I confess a doubt, but I can say that we will look into this Amendment in the spirit of his proposal with a view of assisting these people, and deal with it when we come to the Report stage with a view to carrying out what my hon. Friend so admirably desires.
    Mr. DICKINSON: We ought to clear our minds about the actual position. I think by hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment is mistaken. The statutory Committee has nothing to do with the present separation allowances, and therefore the settlement of questions as to delay in payment will remain after this Bill becomes an Act in precisely the same position as it is at present. The pension officers and the Pensions Committee will go on dealing directly with the Admiralty and the War Office. There is the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and although this association does not exist all over the country, where it does exist it does precisely the work which my hon. Friend wants to be done. It enables poor women to bring their claims in a proper form to the proper quarter, and they hurry up the paymaster. Hundreds of widows through this association send applications to the paymaster every day to hurry up the payment of their separation allowances. I quite agree that when the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association is done away with it will be necessary that we should have some committee. My only difficulty is that you are establishing a local committee in each part of

    403
    the country which is going to be a subcommittee of the statutory Committee, and you are giving to that local committee functions which you are not giving to the statutory Committee, because you are giving them a right of inquiry and recommendation. You are doing this outside the work of the parent Committee, which is the statutory Committee. That is why I urge that the statutory Committee should have something to do with the separation allowances. At the present moment I can quite foresee that when my right hon. Friend comes to consider the words of this Amendment he will find some difficulty. I think it is essential to understand exactly what is the position, and I only rose to point that out, and at the same time to say that unless something is done the disappearance of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association will leave a void all over the country which you must deal with in some way or another.
    Sir NORVAL HELME: Might I suggest that the offer which the right hon. Gentleman has made fully meets the requirements which some of us are anxious to press, and that my hon. Friend might well withdraw the Amendment?
    Sir R. ADKINS: I hope my right hon. Friend will really consider, before we get to the Report stage, whether he can meet the wishes of local authorities of all kinds in this country that the pensions committee and this Committee should not exist both at the same time for doing work with regard to superannuation allowances. That is a question which will be brought to an issue on Report, and I can assure the Government that they will have the support of every kind of local authority in putting the two together in some form or other. On that understanding I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Before my hon. Friend withdraws, I wish to put a question. A good many undertakings have been given regarding changes on the Report stage, and we appreciate the fact that these undertakings have been given. At the same time, I think the right hon. Gentleman might endeavour to see that before the Report stage the Government Amendments appear on the Paper a sufficient time to enable Members of the Committee, who are interested in this subject, to consider them.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have taken steps this morning so that these Amendments shall be put on the Paper, and I hope there will be at least two or three days' notice.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I appreciate very much the spirit in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty has met my Amendment, and, therefore, I desire to withdraw it But I should like to say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson), that when I applied the word "defunct" it was so far as this work was concerned—that they would have no power under this Bill—and not that the old age pensions committee would be otherwise defunct unless the powers were taken away from them.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir R. ADKINShad an Amendment ore the Paper, at the end of paragraph (a), to-insert the words, "and to hear and determine appeals by any person claiming a separation allowance against the decision of the local pensions officer."
    The CHAIRMAN: Does not the Amendment of the hon. Member mean a charge on the public funds?
    Sir R. ADKINS: I do not think it does but I will leave out the word "determine" if that conveys a charge to your mind. I beg to move, at end of paragraph (a), to insert the words, "and to hear appeals by any person claiming a separation allowance against the decision of the local pensions officer, and such officer shall be under obligation to attend such appeal."
    Our point is that the local committee, constituted as this will be, should be the court of appeal for the applicant against the pension officer; at any rate, so far as sending recommendations to the War Officer or the Admiralty goes at the present time. What is called an appeal is very often perfectly farcical. The pension officer appointed by another Government Department declines to go to the local committee and give his reasons for what has been done, and the unfortunate person who may not have been given a sufficient allowance is thereby in a difficult position in getting justice from a committee which is willing to give justice. What I ask is, that my right hon. Friend will specifically take this point into consideration, and we shall certainly try to see him before the Report stage. I am sneaking on behalf

    405
    of county councils, and I know on behalf of other councils, who desire that there should be a fair hearing of every claim.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: This Amendment raises an extremely difficult question, which has exercised my attention for some time, because, in common with others, I have heard many complaints all over the country that decisions now are very often not come to on sufficient knowledge of the case, and do not give satisfaction. At the present moment there is no appeal if the pension officer and the pensions committee agree. It seems to me there ought to be some kind of appeal. As to whether you can bring it about or not, I told my hon. Friend yesterday that it is a matter for consideration between now and Report. This is an Amendment I do not think I could accept, or one which would work. It is to secure that the local committee of the statutory body shall hear and determine appeals.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Recommended.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Now the local pensions officer has to deal with two committees. I should like to see the time when this one committee covered the whole ground. I want to see as much ground covered by these committees as I possibly can in the matter of soldiers and sailors. I think in a great many places the old age pensions committee will form a large part of the local committees. There is all the more reason to simplify the proceedings and, if possible, give a really effectual appeal to the local committee, making it a good judicial body and making it the court of appeal from the pension officer. That is what I should like to bring about if I could, and between now and Report stage I am quite ready to confer with my Friends to see what we can do on those lines.
    Sir R. ADKINS: In view of my right hon. Friend's answer, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words, "and to appoint some person whose duty it shall be to assist applicants for such supplementary grants."
    This Amendment is very closely connected with what we have just been discussing, and that is the desirability for poor applicants who very often have not
    406
    had much opportunity of learning to express themselves, especially in writing, to have somebody whose definite business it shall be to help them in the statement of their cases, not-necessarily in the committee, but somebody who would take up the work and who would explain what information the applicant must get and put it into form. It is the kind of work that has been done by volunteers all over the country. I have a letter here from a gentleman with immense experience in this work. I asked him for suggestions in regard to this Bill, and this is what he says:—
    "Each claimant should have a person to help then) to state their ease. I have form that a pension officer can, by cross-examination, get the answer he desires from people who have had no training in such matters. In nearly every case where I have appealed against the decisions of the pensions committee in dependant cases the appeal has been granted and an additional allowance made."
    That is a gentleman to whom innumerable poor people have gone, and he has put their case into shape. I suggest it should be the duty of these local committees to appoint some person who would take that work up. I do not think it could satisfactorily be done by an official of the committee or by a member of the committee unless he were a member who has specialised in that particular work. An ordinary officer or ordinary member of the committee must necessarily be there to guard the funds and to take a judicial view of the matter. What we want is somebody who will act, as it were, as a friendly attorney for the applicant. I am not quite sure I have put this question down in the right way, not being very experienced in these matters, because I have put it down in regard to supplementary grants, and I venture to think the same person should deal with other matters. I am sure the question will have the right hon. Gentleman's personal sympathy, and I hope he will accept what I have proposed in principle, namely, that there should be someone or some persons sufficiently experienced for this work to-help applicants. I believe it would greatly help the committee, and also greatly help-the people who are incapable of stating their own case.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: We all want to assist worthy applicants to put their case for a supplementary pension in a satisfactory way, but I should not be inclined to tie down the various committees—some thousands throughout the country—to appoint one particular person who shall be

    407
    charged with this duty. For my part, if I were a member of the committee, I should think I was neglecting my duties if I did not assist anyone who came before me to put his case intelligently, and even forcibly, so that he should get justice. I could not bind the committees to appoint one particular person.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (d).
    The localities know very much better than the centre how to raise money. I am convinced that if, for instance, in Glasgow or Edinburgh, an appeal is made for money in a particular way and for a particular local purpose we are much more likely to get a great deal more money for that purpose. I want to make it quite clear that if we are going to get money for these purposes, it is perhaps a mistake to tie it down too rigidly when perhaps there are better ways of getting money locally.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir NORVAL HELME: There was no recommendation of this sort in the Reports that were published, and I should like to see the elimination of this paragraph, so that local committees do not solicit public subscription.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I understand that by this Sub-section the local committee, out of the funds at their disposal, can give supplementary grants. There are a large number of committees in the North of England who will not transmit their money to the central authority, and the paragraph is really inserted to meet that point. They will contribute out of the moneys collected in their own district to make these supplementary grants.
    Mr. HOGGE: I would point out that this is a new committee, and at the start will have no money.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: The money will be transferred to this committee. I am quite certain of that, because it will be practically the same committee in these localities. They are now making these supplementary grants towards the recipients of separation allowances and dependant allowances. I think that the Clause is a very proper one.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Sir W. BEALE: I beg to move, in paragraph (d), after the word "grants" ["and to make grants where no pensions"], to insert the words "or allowances."
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I shall be very pleased to accept the Amendment.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (d) to leave out the word "superannuation," and to insert instead thereof the word "separation."—[Mr. Dickinson.]
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (e).
    This paragraph places upon the local committee the duty of soliciting and receiving public contributions. That means that in Glasgow, for instance, to take a concrete case, the local committee would solicit from the public contributions, and the money, less such sum as was required to cover local expenses, would go to the statutory Committee in London. Many public funds are started in the country, and you get very much less because of the prejudice that exists against local money being sent up to a statutory Committee in London. If I am correct in my interpretation, I leave it, though I do not agree with it.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: We know from experience that there are a good many parts of these islands, particularly the northern parts, where they like to raise their own money and to retain it. Although we may think that our standard of relief is a high standard, there are people like the miners who say that they want their people to be still better done. They collect their own money and they raise the standard. It is not in human nature to prevent it, and it is much better to indicate that we fully expect it, and to say that where the standard is raised they will collect their own money, retain it and pay for that standard.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to Corporation.)
    (1) Any lord mayor or mayor, lord provost or provost, who is as such a member of the Corporation may, if he is unable or unwilling to act as a member thereof, appoint some other person in his place to be a member of the Corporation; and any

    409
    person so appointed shall hold office so long as the person by whom he is appointed holds his office as lord mayor, mayor, lord provost or provost.
    (2) In addition to the persons whom the general council of the Corporation may co-opt under the Royal Patriotic Fund (Re-organisation) Act, 1903, the council may co-opt as members thereof any number (not exceeding thirteen) of persons having special experience in work of the character to be performed by the Corporation; but in exercising this power of co-option the council shall have regard to the desirability of including women as well as men amongst the members so co-opted.
    (3) Every member of the statutory Committee appointed under this Act shall, by virtue of his office as member of that Committee, be, a member of the Corporation; but shall not as such be entitled to act or vote in respect of any question arising before the Corporation as regards matters dealt with by the Corporation independently of this Act.
    (4) The purposes of this Act shall be included amongst the purposes for which the Corporation may solicit and receive contributions from the public and donations of property.
    (5) Save as otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this Act shall affect the constitution or powers and duties of the Corporation.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "Royal."—[Mr. King.]
    Mr. WING: I beg to move in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "thirteen," and to insert instead thereof the word "fifteen."
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The number was very well considered. In the First Schedule of the constitution of the Corporation the council was empowered to co-opt any number not exceeding seven, and thirteen has been chosen in order to make the number the Corporation can co-opt the well considered number of twenty. I should be very sorry to increase it.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is not the number thirteen very unlucky?
    Mr. WING: How many is it proposed to co-opt?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Any number of persons not exceeding seven, each of whom shall be nominated as the representative of charitable funds. These seven must
    410
    be representatives of charitable funds founded for the like purpose, but they may be men or women. It is the same with the thirteen whom we are empowering the Corporation to co-opt, making twenty in all. They may be men or women, and the hon. Member may rest assured that there will be a good number of women.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "Corporation" ["performed by the Corporation"], to-insert the words "at least one-third of the members so co-opted shall be women."
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. It is not wise to fetter the discretion of the Corporation more than possible, and I think I have shown my desire that women shall be well represented both on the Corporation and on this new body.
    Mr. KING: On account of the very generous way in which the right hon. Gentleman has met us in this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "have regard to the desirability of including," and to insert instead thereof the words "include some."
    Surely my right hon. Friend will agree to say that the council shall include women. I do not know why we should leave the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation merely under the obligation to consider and consult women.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I accept the Amendment.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Words "include some" there inserted.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I beg to move in Sub-section (2), after the word "men" ["women as well as men"], to insert the words "representative of working-class industrial organisations."
    The object of the Amendment is to secure that on this particular Committee there shall be representatives of working class industrial organisations. It appears to me that this is very desirable from the point of view of the money which will be-raised by representatives of working men and by the working men themselves. If

    411
    we are to secure the confidence of the people who will be expected to subscribe, and who from their goodness of heart will subscribe, it is desirable to secure their goodwill by giving them direct representation. You make provision for women, and I see no good reason why you should not similarly make provision for the representatives of persons who may be expected to provide a considerable portion of the funds. You will in that way secure their confidence. Certain working men at least have a suspicion of people whom they are apt to dub as busybodies. I do not describe them as such. I give the experience of men who have had to deal with this kind of person: They are estimable persons who devote a great deal of time to this kind of work, but they are apt to be inquisitorial, and the presence of representatives of industrial organisations would tend to retain that confidence which it is desirable to keep, and, as the principle has been conceded in other classes, it would appear to me that this would be quite in line with that which has been already done.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Yesterday I expressed my very strong desire that the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation should co-opt representatives of the industrial community, but I think that they are much more likely to take that line without these words than if any such words were inserted.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman says we should be more likely to get representation if these words are not included. My point is that if the words are included we shall be sure to get it, because they will give statutory effect to our desire. I can hardly say I am satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's reply. I think we ought to have something more definite in the way of an assurance that consideration shall be given to this point, possibly with a view of putting in words on the Report stage. That would be carrying out a promise already given in connection with another part of the Bill.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have already said I will consider the exact form of words by which labour representation shall be introduced on the statutory body.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: That is satisfactory. I do not press my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. HOGGE: May I ask one question with regard to this Clause? Is there any part of the work of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation left to anybody but the new statutory Committee? Do we, by this Bill, bring all the work of the Royal Patriotic Fund within the four corners of the measure, or will that Corporation still retain special work of its own?
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to ask whether the Royal Patriotic Fund will in any way interfere with the work of the statutory Committee, or will it merely assist and advise that body from time to time?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: With regard to the first question I may point out to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that Subsection (5), of Clause 5, runs—
    "Save as otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this Act shall affect the constitution or powers and duties of the Corporation."
    The work of the Royal Patriotic Fund will continue to be done in the old way; and may I say that, with a considerable experience of that body, it would be a great pity if its duties were transferred to this new body. I am asked whether the Corporation will interfere with the work of the statutory body. So far as I can make out, the statutory body holds much the same position in relation to the Corporation as the Asylums Committee of the London County Council holds to that county council. It is, in fact, entirely independent. The Corporation will, no doubt, give the benefit of its advice, but it is not intended that it shall in any way interfere with the duties of the statutory body.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6 (Short Title) added to the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: As regards the new Clauses, the subject-matter of the first one has already been dealt with. The second one imposes a charge, and is, therefore, not in order. The third Clause comes under the same ruling; while the fourth is outside the scope of the Bill. The same remark applies to the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan).
    Mr. HOHLER: With regard to the second Clause standing in my name, which you have declared to be outside the scope of the Bill, may I point out that it does

    413
    not impose any additional charge. The only effect of the Clause is to get rid of the seven years' limitation in regard to death. That is to say, if anybody does from his wounds after the period of seven years, his widow is still to be entitled to a pension. I submit that that is not imposing a fresh charge. The remainder of the Clause only enables pensions to be given to persons who are disabled by disease medically certified as contracted or commencing or seriously aggravated whilst actually serving. I submit that that, too, is not a new charge, but that it comes within the title and purport of the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have scanned these Clauses very carefully, and have obtained information as to their effect.
    Mr. HOGGE: With regard to the case of a man who contracts disease while actually serving, may I point out that the Pensions Committee makes provision there, and that the money is provided for such cases.
    The CHAIRMAN: That takes it outside the scope of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Thursday), and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

  NATIONAL REGISTRATION [EXPENSES.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Question again proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred and allowances payable in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to provide for the compilation of a National Register."
  Amendment again proposed, At the end of the Question, to add the words, "Provided that the expenses for the year 1915–16 shall not exceed a sum of £50,000 for England and Wales; and of £25,000 for Scotland; and of £12,000 for Ireland."—[Mr. Clough.]
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment: To leave out "£25,000," and insert "£10,000."—[Mr. Pringle.]
  Question proposed, "That '£25,000' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  Mr. LONG: I hope the Committee may be willing now to decide this question. We had a short debate on it last night. Hon. Gentlemen who, like myself, are familiar with the forms of the House must know that this is really a formal stage, and that every point raised here can with greater propriety, and with greater advantage from their point of view, be raised on the Clause which deals with the allowances to me made, and the way in which the money is to be expended. I hope, therefore, the Committee will dispose of this question and allow us to proceed with the consideration of the Bill.
  Mr. DENMAN: I certainly do not want to delay proceedings, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the question I wish to put to him is strictly relevant to a Financial Resolution. Hon. Members who urge that the financial provision should be strictly limited must, I think, have forgotten one important consideration. This is not a Census Bill, as they seem to assume, in fixing a limit to the money to be spent. This is a Bill to provide a continuing register, so that the initial expense will be but a small proportion of the total expense involved. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what expense he anticipates will be incurred in the work of the inspectors. Evidently this Bill will be quite unworkable, unless you have, in those parts of the country in which there is a continual movement of the population, a very considerable body of inspectors to see that the person who moves from one borough to another gets a new registration form. Clearly, the expense of that will be very great, and I want to put two or three questions to the right hon. Gentleman. Does he propose that this army of inspectors shall be a voluntary, unpaid army, or does he propose that they shall be employed and paid by the local authorities, or will they be inspectors under the control of headquarters? I should be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman will give me an answer to those questions.
  Mr. LONG: The hon. Member has asked me some questions, one of which, at any rate, I cannot answer. Nobody can say what will be the actual cost of the continuing register. We do not know how long it will be needed, or what precise work will be connected with it, and it would

  415
  therefore be absurd to attempt to make an estimate of the cost. The hon. Gentleman spoke of an army of inspectors. That idea is the creation of his own brain. We have never suggested an army of inspectors, nor is it necessary. Under the Bill we make it the duty of the people of this country to register, and we provide the the machinery by which they are to be registered. We also make it a duty—and it was a duty which they cheerfully performed in conection with the Insurance Act—to record their movements. I do not believe that that will involve any expense. As regards the continuing expense to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I need hardly say that I hope, in common I imagine with everybody else, the period will be short. The register is needed so long as the War lasts, and Heaven grant that that may be but a short time.
  Mr. WATT: My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Clough) has sought to put a limitation on the amount to be granted for carrying out the purposes of this Bill. A comparison has been made by the hon. Member and myself between the expenses to be incurred under this National Registration Bill, and the expense of the last Census. We have been told by the Minister responsible that the Census of 1911 cost £203,000, and the President of the Local Government Board in reply to a question, has stated that the expense of this particular measure will be infinitely less than that of the Census to which I have referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton has moved an Amendment seeking to limit the expense that will be incurred, and he has adopted what I think is a very fair figure indeed. He proposes to limit it to £87,000 for the first year. Let the Committee remember that the expenditure on the late Census was spread over three years. My hon. Friend proposes to allow £87,000 to be spent in one year, and in face of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that this registration is going to cost much less than the Census, I venture to submit that £87.000 is a fair limit to impose. If the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that amount for the first year, may I ask if he will agree to any limit at all. On this question I have an appeal to make to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, who in past years, when another Government was in power, sought on every occasion to limit the expenditure in connection with other measures. I hope
  416
  he will give us his assistance and support in this instance. I should expect him to do so, but if he does not I must infer that he has a higher respect for this Government than he had for the last, and that he can trust this Government, as he said yesterday, but that he could not trust the last. His long Parliamentary experience should lead him to the view that few Governments are to be trusted with a free hand in the expenditure of money. At any rate, I desire to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Clough)—first, that there should be a limitation of the amount of money that is spent under this measure, although I believe that £87,000 is a larger figure than is necessary.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: In answer to the hon. Gentleman, may I say that whenever I have asked for a limitation to be inserted I have invariably accepted any limitation which the Government of the day offered to put in, and if the President of the Local Government Board will suggest any limitation I will agree to it.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I should like to ask whether it is intended that the whole of the expense of this registration is to come out of national funds or whether any part of it is to come out of local funds? Any attempt to limit the expenditure on the construction of this register would have an effect on the register itself. I can see nothing but unlimited expenditure because of the complications arising in the construction of this register, which are far greater than those met with in constructing the Census. What will happen? You will send to single houses in districts like that I represent ten or twenty of these forms, which are to be filled up. You will send them to persons unaccustomed to use their pens, and who dread putting their pens to paper. You impose upon them the filling in of a number of answers to questions, and you will find it practically impossible to get them to do that unless you send skilled persons prepared to fill in the forms for them, leaving them nothing but their signatures to add. Unless enormous expenditure is incurred in the endeavour to prepare this register it will be an absolute failure. If the right hon. Gentleman is willing to rely on the efforts of unskilled and untrained voluntary workers to save expense in collecting this information, the time it will take to collect the information—probably incorrect information—to check it, and for all

  417
  the various local governing bodies to go over it, collate it, and put it under the different headings and make it available for the purposes for which it is to be constructed—the time it will take and the expense that will be incurred will be enormous. I strongly oppose both the Amendments before the Committee, because I feel certain that any limitation of the expenditure will be absolutely fatal to the Bill.
  At the present moment in London—I know nothing about the country—the local authorities have their staffs depleted through large numbers having gone to the front. Only the other day the town clerk of Shoreditch asked me if I could not do something to induce those who remained to stay, because unless they could get a badge or something to prevent the annoyance to which they were being subjected they were longing to enter the Army. Already the staffs are depleted while the work is greater than usual at the present moment, because in addition to the ordinary work, especially just now, there is the preparation of the rate demand and sending it out, and they have the quinquennial valuation to prepare, while they have only half the staff to do it. This work will never be done if you get a number of untrained persons, boys, girls, and others—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is really dealing with a Clause of the Bill, to which several Amendments have been put down.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: The point I am putting relates to finance.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On the Resolution before the Committee and the Amendment it is only broad grounds of dissent or support that should be discussed, not the details. The hon. Member is at present going into details. There will be ample opportunity for doing that, as he will see if he looks at the Order Paper, in the Committee stage.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: My whole point is to show the inadvisability of limiting this Vote, and to ask the question whether the expense which must be incurred by somebody or other will all be borne out of national funds, or whether local authorities will have to bear the extra expense imposed upon them by the extra work they will have to carry out by means of an unskilled staff when their present staff is depleted in the way I have suggested?
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to put in some limitation if he can possibly do so. I believe it would be in the interests of the progress of this Resolution through Committee. The hon. Baronet behind me (Sir F. Banbury), on many occasions when I was on the Treasury Bench, asked the Government of the day to put in some limitation.
  Mr. LONG: Was it ever done?
  Mr. PEASE: Yes, on several occasions. I have not looked up the precedents, but I have one or two clearly in my mind, and some of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee have confirmed my impression, that on more than one occasion it has been done. If there were some limitation it would help the progress of the Bill. I do not want to occupy a great deal of time on the Committee stage of this Bill. Some protest was made on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is really with a view of trying to help the Government that I suggest that some limitation should be inserted. Of course, I shall not press it upon the Government if they cannot accept it, but last night the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in his opinion perhaps rather more than £50,000 would be required for England. If that is his view, could we not insert some figure like £100,000 for England and some corresponding figure for Scotland and Ireland? If we could do that it would help the progress of the Bill.
  Sir H. CRAIK: We are all as anxious as possible not to prolong this Debate but to get to business. I am surprised that a suggestion like this should have been endorsed by one who lately held the position he did, and by one who knows ordinary financial business so well as the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). It is all very well to fix a limit on a salary or a distinct piece of expenditure. We all know this work must be done. We cannot measure the amount of work involved. As the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has pointed out, there is this point of uncertainty in the whole matter that we trust that a great part of this work will be carried out by voluntary workers. If there is a likelihood of it being carried out by voluntary workers, if you fix a limit there must either be a danger of crippling the work or you must put in a figure which will look enormously extravagant. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will hold to the present form of

  419
  the Resolution, and also that the Committee will uphold his hands by not discussing further matters for which there will be opportunities of discussion later on.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I rise at this time not with a view to prolonging the discussion of this matter, although I think it is more advantageous that the question of finance should be discussed on a Financial Resolution rather than on a Clause dealing with finance. If it is limited now, I promise, so far as I am concerned, not to enter into a discussion of the limitation when the Clause is before us. I have to recognise and welcome the action of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) in taking the action he did. In this matter of Financial Resolutions I have been a disciple of his. On many occasions during the lifetime of the late Government I had the pleasure of supporting him in respect of limitations of Financial Resolutions. I remember that on those occasions he was always willing to withdraw his opposition to a Financial Resolution if the Government, in response to his request, itself offered a limitation. I am quite willing on this occasion to take up exactly the same attitude. I am glad to find that irrespective of what Government is in power the hon. Baronet and I are agreed upon matters of financial economy. It is extremely important that we should set a limitation before we begin our discussion in Committee. There will be a number of Amendments introduced in the course of the Committee stage which will have the effect of limiting the expenditure under this Bill, and of making it a more efficient and workable measure. If we have a limitation upon the expenditure before the Financial Resolution is reported to the House, that will be a lever for those who are advocating those Amendments to get the assent of the Government to them. I do not wish to enter into arguments on the merits of any particular proposal, but I will refer, for example, to the Amendment designed for the purpose of excluding females from the purview of this Bill. Obviously, if there is a limitation in the Financial Resolution the Government will have a greater temptation to accept that Amendment and so make the Bill less ridiculous than it is in its present form. There is another Amendment which I have in my mind, but which I have not been able to put in such a form as to place it upon the Paper. I will mention it for the information of the right hon. Gentle-
  420
  man, in the hope that he will give it his consideration. It is a practicable Amendment, and he will find it is an economical one and will make for efficiency. I have the idea of suggesting that the machinery of national insurance should be used for this purpose. Some 15,000,000 people are insured under he National Insurance Act—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going into detail again. I must ask him to keep simply to the broad issue.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am quite sure that if my right hon. Friend were advised of the virtues of my proposal he would immediately accept it. Such a proposal would tend to economy. I have indicated the general lines of that proposal, and if it is worked out it will be found practicable. The main object of desiring a limitation at the present time is the absolute need for economy in regard to all expenditure. There was a very interesting and instructive Debate in another place yesterday upon this question. We are all advocating economy, but it is more important that the Government should show an example to the country. Here we have an opportunity in the House of Commons of showing how to introduce economical methods by limiting the expenditure upon a particular matter of legislation. I do not suggest that the figures in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Clough) are exactly the best figures to adopt, or that the modification I suggested in regard to Scotland is precisely the correct figure, but I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman that those figures are well worthy of consideration and that he might at least indicate what in the view of the Government would be the cost. In the course of their deliberations upon this matter I should have thought the Cabinet would have considered the cost. I understand that when a measure involving expenditure is before the Cabinet the question of the cost is always one of the questions taken into consideration. Surely in the course of their deliberations some figures were put before the Cabinet as to the cost which would be involved in obtaining this register. In these circumstances it is not asking too much that the figure which was the estimate, and upon the faith of which the Cabinet assented to this Bill, should be inserted as the limit in the present Resolution. If that is done, I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will facilitate

  421
  the progress of the Bill and will, to a large extent, conciliate those who look upon it with critical and suspicious eyes. I hope, the right hon. Gentleman will respond to the appeal, which comes not only from a discredited corner in the House, not only from a corner which has been attacked in the columns of a newspaper which we understand is subsidised by Unionist headquarters, but also from other quarters of the House which usually receive a more favourable response from the Front Bench.
  Mr. THOMAS: I do not know whether I come within the category of this corner or whether I am being criticised or not; but at all events I most certainly am going to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to limit the amount. I make this appeal for various reasons. It is useless to talk of saving money if you are not going to have efficiency. I voted against the Bill, but having entered my protest I am going to make it as efficient as I can, and I do not believe in merely opposing a thing for the purpose of killing the effect of the Bill; on the contrary, I am going to see if it cannot be put into better shape. In the first place, what Minister could fix an amount? The present abnormal situation, with the, depleted staffs in the municipalities and the limited staff from any central organisation, must of necessity make labour very dear. On the other hand, if amateurs are going to deal with (his question—I hope they are not—the Bill is never going to be effective. I understand that if the Bill is necessary it is necessary because of the urgency, and what is waited is wanted at once, and on those grounds it will be false economy to put in an amount of money which may be wasted. It will be far better to trust those who will spend the money to spend it wisely and well, having regard to the abnormal period in which we are living, but at the same time, now that the register is decided upon, let it be a complete, comprehensive register, obtained under the most expert advice, administered, I hope, in the best spirit, but at the same time do not let it be crippled on any ground of false economy.
  Mr. LONG: I was rather astonished at the appeal made to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, when I remembered that the precedents to which he referred, as far as I know, all occurred in the pre-War period, and that since the War the Government, of which he was a distinguished Member, passed something like fifty Acts of Parliament, many of which
  422
  we never saw in print, many of them being of the most far-reaching importance, and during the whole of that time, when I sat on the Bench where he is now sitting, it never occurred to me or my colleagues to do anything else than to give the Government the utmost support we could, which more often consisted in sitting silent, and never consisted in making demands which we knew they could not possibly gratify without departing from the ground they had taken up. This is not so much a matter for me as for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer heard the Debate last night and appealed to the Committee on no account to fix a limit to this Resolution. The grounds upon which the limitation is recommended are really only these. The right hon. Gentleman told me, and others have told me, that it would facilitate the passage of the Bill. I have some little experience in passing Bills through this House, and it has always been my aim and object to conciliate my Friends without giving away any of the principles for which I stood. But may I point out what we are doing now? We do not know for what period we are legislating. Will the Committee consider that, even at the eleventh hour? Who knows here to-day, when he talks of the duration of the War, how long it will be? Who knows what will be the difficulties to which this country may be exposed before the release from our agony comes? I ask the Committee not to hamper the Government when they are doing their best. We may be wrong, but we accept the full responsibility for what we are doing. We believe the Bill is essential to the proper preparation of this country for difficulties which it may have to face. We believe the expense will be small. Everything indicates that this will be the case. The hon. Member (Mr. Chancellor)—I do not know whether he was speaking from his own experience, or whether he was entitled to speak for the corporation—told us that staffs are reduced by the War. Of course they are. He told us they would have difficulty in carrying out this Bill. I do not know how far he is entitled to speak, but I am entitled to speak, if anyone is, for the local authorities of the country.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I spoke after a very long conversation with the town clerk of my own borough.
  Mr. LONG: It is quite possible that the borough of Shoreditch may require assistance, but I have been in communication

  423
  with local authorities all over the country. I have had communications from lord mayors, mayors, chairmen of urban district councils, and their officials, and it is a remarkable fact, if this difficulty is going to occur in connection with the staffs, that no single communication has reached me pointing in this direction, and that every communication I have received points in the opposite direction. They have assured me that they can carry out these duties, and can command, not volunteers who know nothing of the work, but expert volunteers who understand it perfectly well, well trained, well educated men and women who are prepared to do it, because of the War, for nothing. I appeal to the Committee to let us have this Resolution and to get on with the Bill. I welcome the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Thomas). That is the spirit in which I invite the Committee to approach the further consideration of the Bill. Those who oppose it and do not believe in it had their innings upon the Second Reading. They made their case, and the House did not agree with them. I appeal to the Committee to take the decision of the House, if I may put it without any offence, like men, and let us get to our work and enable the Government to do what the country requests of them. In answer to the question as to the division between the Imperial Exchequer and the local exchequer, the reason why the words are put in as they are is because there is to be an arrangement between the Treasury and the Local Government Board, and we thought it desirable to have the power to be able to say, "If you are excessive in your demands you must pay the difference yourself," but it is our intention to defray the whole of the expenditure from the Imperial Exchequer.
  Mr. COWAN: I would remind those who are in favour of limiting the expenditure that it is, after all, expenditure on a war emergency measure. At a time when we are speiding £3,000,000 a day on the War it does not seem worth while to haggle and to waste the time of the House for the sake of effecting a small and very problematic economy in connection with carrying out work which the House has almost unanimously resolved to be urgent and necessary. I think we may reasonably appeal to the patriotism of the House, and those who are honestly opposed to this Bill, to allow that which the House has decided ought to be done to be
  424
  done, and to trust the Government in regard to this small expenditure where they trust it in regard to the disbursements of enormous amounts of money.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CLOUGH: I do not wish to press the Amendment to a Division, in view of the additions which were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night, with regard to the amount in the Bill. I am very sorry that the President of the Local Government Board has not responded to the appeal of my right hon. Friend in undertaking to put some figure into the Bill. This is a course that has been adopted at the invitation of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) several times before. I shall not press the Amendment to-day, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take it into very careful consideration, with a view to putting in some limitation when the Motion comes up on the Report stage to-morrow.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred and allowances payable in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to provide for the compilation of a National Register."
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Register of Persons between the Ages of Fifteen and Sixty-five.)
    A register shall be formed of all persons, male and female, between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five (not being members of any of His Majesty's Naval Forces or of His Majesty's Regular or Territorial Forces) subject to the exceptions mentioned in this Act.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, after the word "A" ["A register shall be formed"], to insert the word "voluntary."
    I move this Amendment for a purpose which will be obvious, and I do not propose to occupy time in placing my own objections and fears before the Committee if it is not inserted.
    Sir LEO CHIOZZA MONEY: On a point of Order. The House of Commons by a very large majority has passed the Second Reading of this Bill—a compulsory measure—to take a war census. My hon. Friend is moving an Amendment which strikes at the very root of the principle which has been affirmed by the House. In these circumstances I ask your ruling, Mr. Maclean, as to whether the Amendment is in order?
    6.0 P.M.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The point has received very careful consideration, and on consideration of the whole position, as I understand it, I am not prepared to rule out this Amendment, but I am quite sure that the hon. Member and those hon. Members who succeed him in Debate will not endeavour to get a Second Beading Debate upon this subject.
    Mr. HOGGE: The Committee will understand the position of some of us in regard to this matter. I say quite frankly that we have put forward our protests on the Second Reading, and that we now propose to improve the Bill if we can. There is no idea on our part of pursuing any Amendment in a factious way or delaying the Committee, and I hope my hon. and naval Friend (Sir L. Chiozza Money) will not raise this point until he sees that there is an attempt to do what he fears. The reason I raise the matter is that we are going to make a register, and that register we have been assured by my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill will not be used for certain purposes. I want, however, to bring to his notice the kind of thing that I have in my mind when I express certain fears. I have in my hand a letter which was sent on the 30th June, that is only a few days ago, by a major who is a recruiting officer. The letter was written from a recruiting office, and on paper which bears the Royal Arms. It is an official document, and is sent to an individual just as I presume the question paper in connection with this new register may be sent to the houses. I want to read this letter, and to show my right hon. Friend why it is that some of us are afraid of this register and the questions that are to be put in connection with it. I have brought the envelope and the stamp to show that the letter is perfectly genuine. On the front of the envelope are the words "On His Majesty's Service." The letter was sent by a major whose name I can give, and I am perfectly willing to hand
    426
    the letter over to my right hon. Friend. I hope the Committee will listen to this letter, and that they will protect people against this kind of thing. Here is the letter:
    "Dear Sir,—Unless you have some good and genuine reason for not enlisting, which I am agreeable to investigate, I advise you to offer to join the Army before you are made to. This is an entirely private and friendly piece of advice. Compulsion may not be so far off as you think. I am only waiting the word—(whose word?)—to call up every man of eligible age, and, as yon see, I have yon on my list. It is possible that you may be one of those to whom this advice does not apply—there are some such to whom this letter is unavoidably addressed—but if you are, I can only tell you that I have good reason to believe that you will be mightily sorry in the end if you wait until you are fetched. Not only that, but if it comes to fetching, those who are fetched will not be asked where they would like to go.
    Yours truly,
    Majors—
    Recruiting Officer."
    The district and the town are also given.
    HON. MEMBERS: Name!
    Mr. HOGGE: If the Committee want the name they can have it; but I will hand the letter to my right hon. Friend, so that he can see that I am not saying something that is not perfectly genuine. I want to say quite frankly that I am entitled to put this point as expressing a fear which obviously resides in the minds of many people, when this sort of thing is being done now by an officer of the Army, from a recruiting office, and he says he actually has this man on his list, and that if he does not go he will be fetched, and that if he is fetched he will not be given the choice as to where he is to go. Surely that is not the kind of thing that we ought to accept.
    Mr. HOHLER: Has that letter been sent to a member of one of the Volunteer Training Corps who has promised to go wherever ho is wanted?
    Mr. HOGGE: It has been sent to a man whose brother is at the present moment serving in the Army, and the man himself is prepared to go under ordinary circumstances, but is not eligible at the moment.
    Mr. HOHLER: Is he a member of a Volunteer Training Corps who has given in undertaking to go when called upon?
    Mr. HOGGE: I am afraid I cannot give that information, but whether he is or not, it is a very improper letter to be sent by anybody wearing the King's uniform to any person he expects to draw inside the Army. It is that kind of thing that I have in my mind when I put forward this

    427
    Amendment. May I give one further example, and it is the only one that I will give? It is an advertisement from a Scottish newspaper appealing for recruits, again under the King's arms, and with the King's title above the advertisement. The appeal is for recruits for the 7th Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders. I am certain of this—and you will be certain of it, too, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, as you know Scotland well—that no Highland regiment will welcome conscripts. The man who has to be conscripted into a Highland regiment will have a very rough time. This advertisement, appealing for recruits, and again signed by the officers of the recruiting stations, makes a great point of the following:—
    "An officer in authority in addressing troops lately said, 'my list word to young men is that they had better enlist within the next three weeks, because, if they are not enlisted we are coming for them.'"
    These things may not have any relation to this National Register; they may not or they may, I do not say that they have, but I am putting a perfectly legitimate point, and if the sense of the Committee is that they do not agree with, and that they do not desire this kind of thing, then, personally, I should not pursue this Amendment any further. I only take this opportunity of raising it because I think it is a fair point to raise, that that kind of thing ought to be stopped, and ought to be stopped at once, and that the view of both sides of the House of Commons ought to be definitely expressed in that direction, or, at any rate, it ought to be made clear that that kind of thing receives no sympathy from this House, and that they deplore a kind of letter which, if persisted in, would wreck any attempt to get this National Register.
    Mr. LONG: I do not want for a moment to suggest that the House of Commons should shirk any reasonable debate upon any part of this Bill that calls for full discussion, but I respectfully submit that this question of compulsion underlay the whole of the Debate which took place on the Second Reading. The part of the Bill that really led my hon. Friend and his supporters in this House to oppose the Bill with great ability and great vigour was that we were laying an obligation upon the people of this country to do that which they might be unwilling to do. I do not desire to treat my hon. Friend with any want of respect, but I can only deal with his argument by repeating the arguments
    428
    that I used on the Second Reading. My hon. Friend, in moving his Amendment, has sought to support his argument by reading one or two letters which appear to have been addressed to men by recruiting officers. I think I have quite enough to do, at all events for the present, to be responsible for the sins of my own Department, if we commit any sins, and I do not think it is quite fair to call upon me in a Debate of this kind to reply for the War Office and all its numerous recruiting officers who are spread all over the country. I may, however, be permitted to say this, that, so far as the Government of which I have the honour to be a Member is concerned, there is no authority whatever for any man, speaking in the name of the War Office, which is represented in the Government, to go to his neighbours and exercise towards them any kind of compulsion in regard to the action they might take as to joining the Army.
    In saying that I wish to make it perfectly clear that I have no authority on this occasion to speak for the Government on special matters because they do not arise, but I know the mind of my colleagues, and I say without any hesitation that, in my judgment, it would be a criminal act on the part of the Government to admit now that their hands were tied and that they would be unable at any time to take any course which might seem to them desirable in the interests of the country. To make a statement of that kind would be to do a great injustice to the Prime Minister and his colleagues. Whilst saying that, however, I say that there is no authority for the issue of letters of the kind read by the hon. Member, and I sincerely hope that they will not be repeated. So far as the National Register goes, I do not think that these matters have any bearing upon it. So far as I know there will be no attempt on the part of the people who will prepare the register to make an improper use of the information they obtain. I am ready, if the Committee wishes when we reach that part of the Bill, to strengthen it in regard to secrecy if that is thought to be desirable. As regards improper advances to men and attempts to exercise improper influence or to improperly use the information gained in connection with the compiling of this National Register, I believe there is no reason whatever for anxiety, and I hope my hon. Friend, having secured his object by the ventilation of this matter, may be

    429
    good enough to withdraw his Amendment and let us get to the Amendments of the Bill rather than to discussion on principles.
    Mr. HOGGE: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, not because I have ventilated the subject but because I have got his assurance in such definite terms, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move to leave out the words "A register shall be formed" ["A register shall be formed of all persons"], and to insert instead thereof the words "A Census shall be taken."
    I do not do this in any sort of hostility towards the principles of the Bill. I urged very strongly last August that such a Bill should be introduced, and I am equally keen upon it now as I was then. My object in introducing these words are twofold. First as regards the mere name, probably the name would be more familiar than any new name and therefore likely to cause less trouble. But that is not really my point in pressing the Government to accept the Amendment. My object is to ask the Government to see if they cannot make this Bill more nearly like a Census Bill than it is at the present time. I think they will have very great difficulties with the Bill as it stands which they would not have if it were a Census Bill. I take two points by way of illustration. The first is this: Under a Census Bill, which this Bill would be if my Amendment is carried, the Census is taken on one particular night, and the return is to be sent in by the head of the household at that particular time. You will be far less likely to lose people by a system like that than you will be in making a register which gives fourteen days, or whatever may be the particular time, in which to return the papers. It would strengthen the Bill very much if the Government would agree to adopt the Census arrangements of a single night and place the responsibility upon the head of the house for making a proper return on that particular day. In addition, it would save a very large amount of expense. Take the case of a household in which there are a large number of people, say, eleven or twelve, or probably more. You will, under this Bill, perhaps send eleven or twelve forms, whereas Under the Census principle you will simply send one form to the head of the house. There is another point upon which I prefer the Census principle to this
    430
    Bill, and it is a very important point, namely, the question of residence which appears in this Bill. I have had enough experience from the legal point of view to know the terrible pitfalls that; occur round that word "residence," and the difficulty of saying when you make the return where the person's residence is.
    Take, for example, the case of a large number of wealthy Members of this House, who have a house in London and a house in the country, and a staff of servants who go from one house to the other. Where does such an hon. Member reside? Probably he would be returned as residing in London. At the end of the Parliamentary Session he goes to his home in the country, and all his servants go there at the same time. The fresh registration of every one of those servants has to take place, for they are probably going away for six months, and it is not a mere temporary absence. If it is done by the head of the house there is a comparatively small amount of trouble. If it is done by each person separately, then there is a considerable amount of trouble. If this Bill is to apply to both men and women, probably one of the types of women of whom you would wish to have an accurate register, more than anybody else, are trained hospital nurses. Take the case of such a nurse who has left hospital and is working on her own account. She has no residence in the ordinary sense of the word. She probably belongs to a nurses' co-operative society, or something of that kind, which acts as agents for her in London, and she is sent to different parts of the country. Where is that nurse to be returned as really residing? Obviously she is residing only temporarily in the place where she is on the particular occasion when the list is compiled. When there is a fresh case for her she goes somewhere else.
    Difficulties of that kind will occur continually, and make it difficult to enforce a Bill such as this against a particular person who has failed to register in the proper way. In the case of a Census you have a particular date. There is no question of residence there. Each person is enrolled or registered on the particular day, and if he changes his residence no great difficulty arises. This Bill, of which I am strongly in favour, needs strengthening rather than weakening on any particular point. The class of person we want to make sure we shall get in this Bill is the class of person who may not be so very

    431
    willing to put himself down. A person may have a servant to whom he is very much attached, and whom he thinks indispensable—a chauffeur, or something of that kind. The head of the household would think twice before incurring penalties by failing to return such a person, but there will be a great temptation to the person who is receiving good wages not to make that return.
    Mr. LONG: I am reluctant to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend, but I must ask for the ruling of the Chairman. All that my hon. and learned Friend is saying now refers more properly to Clause 4. If we are to have a Debate now on this very important point, are we to have it again on Clause 4?
    Mr. RAWLINSON: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it would be more convenient I will accede to his suggestion. I am strongly in favour of this Bill. I think that the word "Census" would be more useful than register. The prejudice may be unreasonable, but people are accustomed to Census and are not accustomed to registration. If the Government do not wish me to pursue the point I will renew what I wish to say later on, and I now merely move the Amendment.
    Mr. LONG: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not think it necessary to pursue the Amendment. With regard to the subject to which he refers in the latter part of his speech, I submit that that should be raised under Clause 4. Unlike my hon. and learned Friend, I attach great importance to the word "register." I am most desirous of impressing on the country that this is not a Census. A Census is taken in peace time, and is used mainly for statistical purposes. I made it clear on the Second Beading that one of the reasons for making this proposal is that we want something more than a Census. We want a register in which shall appear the names of the people in this country who are available for work. If we call it a Census we shall not only have confusion between the ordinary Census and what is proposed by this Bill, but we should not arouse in people's minds what we want to arouse, namely, the conviction that they are being asked to do something special which they will not be asked to do in peace time.
    Mr. RICHARD LAMBERT: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment.
    Mr. LONG: I will accept nothing from you.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Personally, I think that it is rather an improper thing for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will accept nothing from me. I may assure the right hon. Gentleman that my object now is to try to improve the Bill. I accept the position in which it was left at the end of the Second Beading, and I accept the Division. My sole desire is to try to improve this Bill and to try to make it a workable measure. I should have considered it a great improvement if the word "Census" were substituted for the word "register." I believe that a great many people would prefer the word Census. Register is a name which they do not understand. Census is a name which they do understand. For that reason I hope, in spite of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to accept anything which I suggest, that he will reconsider his decision.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to treat everybody who speaks in this part of the House in the same spirit as he has treated my hon. Friend (Mr. Lambert). In reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) I really think there is some importance in the question. In all countries we live to a large extent under the tyranny of words, and after all the word "register" has acquired a special meaning in regard to this particular proposal. It has been elevated into a shibboleth by certain sections of the Tress. The word "Census" is a word with which the people of the country are acquainted. It covers a definite kind of investigation. It is one to which the people of this country take no exception. In these circumstances I think that from that point of view it deserves some favourable consideration, but I submit a further point of view. In the very able speech with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wound up the Debate on the Second Heading, his main contention was that the object of this Bill was statistics, that it was to obtain information, to get at facts. Obviously a Census is the appropriate term for such a method of obtaining information. If it is only facts that we desire to record surely Census is the appropriate term, and if it will, to some extent, allay suspicion or diminish prejudice, surely the Government will be well advised to accept an Amendment on a small point like this, which will do some-

    433
    thing to improve the reception which the Bill will receive at the hands of, at least, a small section of the people of this country.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the frank statement of the hon. Member who spoke just now and that at the commencement he will endeavour to throw oil on the troubled waters and thus help the situation very much. It is unlike the right hon. Gentleman to make the remark which he made just now. I hope that he will accept the suggestion. He will get all that he wants if he does so. I trust my hon. and learned Friend will not withdraw his Amendment.
    Sir WALTER ESSEX: I should prefer the Amendment to be accepted. Still, Jet us get on. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the meaning of one statement which he made—that he desires certain specific information on the register. Of course, if he wants it he will probably get it, but are there among the items of information which he desires any which are not included in the ordinary Census?
    Mr. LONG: I am not familiar with the ordinary Census, but I am assured by the Registrar-General, who is responsible, that the Census would not give the information which we want. If we require this particular information we must have it in the form of registration. I should like to say at once quite frankly that I regret very much the remark which I made a moment ago, which certainly ought not to have been made, and without any qualification I wish to express my regret.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, after the word "all," to insert the word "male."
    I think that the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill will acknowledge at once that, although an Amendment of considerable importance, this is an Amendment which is relevant to the? Committee stage.
    Mr. LONGindicated assent.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am very glad to have the assent of my right hon. Friend to the statement that it was a matter which could not be adequately dealt with on the
    434
    occasion of the Debate on the Second Reading. The effect of my Amendment—
    Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. It was ruled on the occasion of a Bill introduced a Session or two ago that the insertion of women into the Bill would so change its character as to constitute a new Bill, and that therefore that Amendment could not be moved. In view of that ruling, I would ask whether it is in order now, it having been decided that a register be taken of all men and women in this country between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five, to make the proposed alteration, which would change the character of the Bill so as to become a new Bill, with the result that it would have to be sent back?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): On the occasion to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers it was an extension of the Bill which was proposed. This is a restriction of the Bill, and on that ground I sec no reason why the Amendment should not be moved.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: On that ground would it be in order afterwards to move that men be excluded from the Bill? I venture to point out to the Chairman that the mere fact that it is a restriction does not bring the Amendment within the rules of Order, because it could be such a great restriction that it would really nullify the principle decided by the Second Reading.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The ruling from the Chair must be taken with an ordinary common-sense interpretation, and to propose to leave out the word "male" would be simply to make the Bill ridiculous. If I was in the Chair I would rule, and I think that others who would follow me would also rule, such an Amendment as that out of order.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I do not know as a fact whether there are more men or women coming on the register, but I rather think that it is a larger Amendment to leave the women than the men out of the Bill.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The effect of my Amendment, with a consequential one also upon the Paper, would be to remove women entirely from the operation of this Bill, and to make a register only of male persons in this country. If my right hon. Friend is not prepared to accept this Amendment in the sweeping form in which it stands, he will, I know, be ready to admit that there are many difficulties in

    435
    connection with the registration of women which will have to be met and faced and dealt with in the Committee stage of this Bill. So far as I am concerned, my own opinion with regard to the devotion and self-sacrifice of the women of this country during the War, is that their conduct has proved the justification, and triumph, and glory of the voluntary system. I think the same will be true of the men. But I am dealing now with the question of women, and I suggest, if for that reason alone, that it is unnecessary to include women within the operation of this Bill. My right hon. Friend knows well enough, and I think he has given the information to the House, that when the women of the country were asked voluntarily to register themselves for War service in this country, enormous numbers did so, and about 100,000 women are being registered at the Labour Exchanges. It is well known that it has only been found possible to avail ourselves of the services of a very small proportion of these women. So that on the general aspect of the question, I would respectfully submit that you have only to ask for the services of women in any capacity in which they are fitted to serve, to receive offers from overwhelming numbers of them. Therefore, on those grounds, I think the inclusion of women is unnecessary.
    But I want to point out to the President of the Local Government Board some real difficulties which would immediately arise if you desire to apply this register to women. My hon. Friend who raised the point of Order (Mr. Leif Jones), said the Bill would affect a larger number of women than of men. It will affect school girls of fifteen years of age, and old women of sixty-five. [An HON. MEMBER: "Young women of sixty-five."] I am reminded that they are young women at sixty-five. I want to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he intends to apply the register to girls of fifteen. There are some tens of thousands—I am very anxious not to exaggerate the number—of school girls between the ages of fifteen and eighteen who are at this moment at boarding schools throughout the country. Is it seriously suggested that those school girls, if they have to fill up this form, each individually, and state the work they are prepared immediately to undertake, and, failing to do so, will be brought before the tribunal and be fined £5. and a continuing fine of £1 per day?
    436
    You have only to state the case with regard to this aspect of the question to show that the Bill as it stands must be modified in order to meet a very real difficulty that would affect many thousands of children.
    But I pass from that point to a more general point. There would be brought within the operation of this Bill some millions of women, who are wives with young children. I submit very respectfully for the consideration of the Committee that we do not desire women, the wives of workmen, with young children, to do anything else in this time of war than care for their families. We do not wish to present a form of register to these women, whose time is fully occupied in doing the best service they can to the country in this time of war by raising a healthy family. We do not wish them to do anything else than attend to their children. To submit this form to them, and ask them what work they are willing immediately to perform, and the nature thereof, is to bring a most disturbing influence into our social life, of a kind and character that will bring us no compensation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Divide."] I do not know, Mr. Maclean, why — having received the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill that my point is relevant, and one he wishes to see discussed—my relevant observations should be interrupted in this rude manner by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), who distinguishes himself so frequently by preventing the business of this House being proceeded with when in accordance with the desire of Members. I do not allow myself those unmannerly interruptions. However, that is a digression into which I have been led.
    I continue my argument as to what the Bill would gain by the omission of women. In the constituency of my hon. Friend, if he will allow me to call him so, the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, should this registration be taken there, I believe the form would have to be filled up by thousands of aged charwomen, cleaners, and caretakers. Can it be seriously suggested that it will in any sense be an organisation of our resources to have all over the country these full details concerning the affairs of aged charwomen or office keepers? I am not speaking in any sense disrespectfully, but I am perfectly certain when I say that the difficulty relating to, at least, these people is that they cannot in any way aid us in

    437
    the work which this Bill seeks to do. For these reasons, and because I feel that many thousands of women, many hundreds of thousands of women—I think I might say, without exaggeration, many millions of women—would feel the utmost difficulty in replying to the questions on the form, and in any sense suggesting how they could be better employed than they are at present. For these reasons I think the Bill would be more efficient, more workable, and more capable of organising the resources of this country if this Amendment were accepted.
    Mr. COWAN: Further down on the Paper I have an Amendment in the same sense as that of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse), but I differ from him in some of the reasons which he has given for excluding women from the Bill. I understand he is against the measure on principle, but I am strongly in favour of it. In my Amendment to which I have referred I propose the exclusion of women mainly because that would very largely reduce the cost of making the register. Out of 33,000,000 included in the register some 13,000,000 would be women, and that would reduce the cost of making the register by about half, while facilitating its completion very much, and it is regarded, I understand, as a very important matter. As a proposition of abstract justice I think there is much to be said for the argument that so long as women are deprived of any exercise of political rights it is not fair to lay upon them additional obligations. On the point of age it ought not to be expected that women over thirty will give, or can be expected to give, a correct answer. It is neither fair nor reasonable to expect it. On the other hand, if women of sixty-five are registered, they will be of no value for the purposes of national service. If the object of the Bill, the remote object of the Bill, is ultimately to facilitate the introduction of a measure of compulsion that, I submit, would be an additional reason for excluding women from the purview of this measure, because there is no idea in any quarter of the House of compelling women to do anything. We all know that we cannot compel women to do anything. We have no great hope that we can do much in those directions. We cannot compel them to do anything whatever, and we cannot compel them even to register. If this Bill is passed in its present form I
    438
    predict with entire confidence that women will refuse to register, and that they will not be penalised for refusing. If you want a Bill for the purpose of registering and taking stock of the resources of the country it would be a pity to cumber it with a, provision that would not be operative and would be very unnecessary.
    Mr. THOMAS: I rise to oppose the Amendment, because, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, I consider that many of the arguments he adduced are not arguments relevant to this particular matter. There may be good or bad reasons for dealing with women of fifteen or of sixty-five, but these are matters of detail in regard to ages which can be dealt with on the Committe stage. In regard to the hon. Gentleman's argument as to boarding school girls, nothing would prompt me more, and convince me that I was right in my opposition, than this very objection which he raised. Once you let it get abroad that a particular class is to be exempted it would be fatal to the whole thing. Surely if you are going to exempt boarding-school young women of eighteen years of age [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] The Mover of the Amendment adduced as an argument that one of the difficulties, and one of the primary reasons of his moving the exclusion of women, was because there were tens of thousands, to use his own phrase, of young girls between fifteen and eighteen at boarding schools, and surely, he said, it was not contemplated to ask information from them. That was his argument. I submit that if they are not to be asked then the hundreds of thousands of young girls from fourteen years upwards, who are compelled to work long before that age, have no right to be asked. I submit that that was the argument of the hon. Member [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] You may say "no," but that was one of the reasons he gave for the exclusion of women from fifteen to eighteen. That is one of the reasons I am giving for their inclusion, and instead of women resenting, as the hon. Gentleman said, more responsibility being placed upon them because they have not the franchise. I think all the evidence goes to show that they would resent being excluded, and that they are anxious and willing and trying to do all they can. If I understand the object of this register at all it is to be able to have information so that suitable people can release suitable men for the Army. If it is not that it means nothing.

    439
    It is true to say that since the War large numbers of women have taken up positions that men formerly occupied, and entirely different to their previous positions, with the result that unless you know the real "work that women are doing to-day, as you will by the register, it would be impossible for you to use your information to any advantage. The next point urged in favour of the Amendment was with regard to wives and young children. I contend that that is all a matter of dealing with the form that is to be issued, and how the form is to be used. That refers to the administration of the Act, and has nothing whatever to do with the principle that we are now discussing. First, on the ground of an effective register, and, secondly, on the ground that the women of this country would resent being excluded, and on the more important ground still that any register of men alone would be useless for practicable purposes, I oppose the Amendment.
    Mr. W. LONG: I desire to submit the position of the Government with regard to this particular question. When I first made it my duty to prepare this Bill I did not include women. My reason for that exclusion was that it was extremely desirable to get the return as rapidly as possible, and I thought it would be best to confine the register to men in the first instance, and follow it up by a register of women. The information as to what the Government propose to do, as the Committee are aware, is really in the possession of the Government themselves alone, but they learn a good deal of what they are going to do from people outside. This information came into the possession of other people, and the result of that was, as the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) has correctly surmised, that women, quite regardless of old differences on the electoral question, made an almost unanimous demand upon my colleagues and myself that they should be included in the Bill. They assured us, many of them, and if I could give their names it would be seen that they are most representative of women, that women would not only resent being excluded but would look upon it as a serious rebuff and wholly unjustifiable in face of the splendid services they have rendered already in the prosecution of the War. I think that by itself would justify their inclusion.
    The Proposer and Seconder of the Amendment asked were we going to take
    440
    the names of girls at school and mothers of families, and then came a phrase, to which I do most earnestly ask the attention of the Committee. I am no pessimist, I am quite the reverse. I am an optimist, and over and above an optimist I have an unconquerable belief in my country and my race. But I do believe that my country has never been faced with a graver situation than the one we find ourselves in at this moment. I would beg hon. Gentlemen, when they are discussing these questions, not to look at them through our own glasses but to try to look at the situation through the glasses of our Allies. What did my hon. Friend behind say? He said, referring to women as if we were in peace times, "We do not wish them to do other than they are doing, attending to their babies and their homes." Then he said that to bring this idea of a register for national service into their minds and homes would be a disturbing element. A disturbing element at this moment, after eleven months of war! Indeed, we do not wish women to be diverted from their ordinary domestic occupations, and we do not wish or desire that they should desert their children, but must we not remember and try if we can, and it is difficult for those who have not seen the scenes, to realise what is the fate of women and children in many parts of France and Belgium at this moment. It is not enough for us to thank Heaven with all our hearts that the fate of our women and children is better than theirs. It is for us to spare nothing, to spare no effort, to leave no stone unturned, which will enable us to prevent our women and children being overtaken by the cruel fate which has overtaken the women and children of those countries. Therefore I submit we cannot look on these questions as we approach them in ordinary times. Women would resent being excluded. But further than that, women are already doing the work of men in many capacities, and doing it wholly admirably. May I venture to interpolate the remark that men will have to look to their laurels after the War is over if they are going to return to avocations which women have now adopted in their place.
    When I was discussing this Bill with a friend the other day, he said, "What is your register going to do? Are you going to apply to this body of men and that body of men, because if you do you will interfere and possibly stop existing social services which are most important?" My

    441
    answer is that it is not mine or the Government's register that is going to stop them. How do you know if things do not alter that circumstances are not going to stop those social services, and how do you know that you may not have to turn into war service all the work that is now being done in ordinary domestic or commercial concerns? That is the fact, the great solemn fact, which we have got to realise to-day, and we are forced to take exceptional measures not only to deal with the present but to deal with the future. In that future service women may not only be of the greatest value, but we may not be able to do without them. Therefore I think the Government were justified in their decision that this register ought not to be confined to men alone, and I hope the Committee will support them in that decision.
    HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think it is quite desirable that the Government should hear the views of at least some members of the Committee. I did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman desired to close the Debate upon this question. I only wish to put one or two practical points as against the decision at which the Government have arrived. In my view the inclusion of women is a mistake in the interests of the Bill, and I wish to discuss every Amendment on which I speak on the basis of improving the Bill. I am not arguing as regards the principle. [An HON. MEMBER: "You protest too much!" and other HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I am quite content for my conduct to be judged on my action through the Committee stage. The objections to the inclusion of women are, I submit, three. The inclusion of women means loss of time and loss of money, and diminishes the efficiency of the register. Undoubtedly if you include 13,000,000 women, and that is about the number, you are greatly increasing the time which will be taken in making up the register, and consequently in making it available for the purposes of the country. In the second place, the inclusion of 13,000,000 women will undoubtedly very largely increase the cost of the operation. And then, most of all, there is the question of the utility of their inclusion. At present there is a voluntary register of women for war service, and 87,000 women have registered themselves. That register has been opened since, I think, April, and the Government have only been able to place
    442
    2,000 of those 87,000 women. [HON MEMBERS: "Divide, divide."] I think, under those circumstances, viewing the result of that voluntary effort, and the inability of the Government to use the services of those who have volunteered that it is absolutely useless to have this compulsory register, which I think will be absolutely valueless for the purpose the Government have in view. Those who do not wish to see the Bill effective would prefer to see this provision as to women included, but as I desire improvement I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
    Sir S. COLLINS: I think it would be a great mistake to leave out women, and I think the young girls in our boarding-schools would be greatly disappointed not to be in this register. They are willing, active, full of intelligence and strong to do all that they can. They would be willing, I am sure, in our national emergency to do anything if called: upon. I did not like the attack that the hon. Member made on those fair ladies represented by the hon. Baronet the-Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury). They are not all old women. The hon. Baronet will bear me out that some of those ladies who tidy out the offices are some of the youngest and the fairest and the strongest in the City of London. They also would feel it a very great slight on them if they were let down. I am sure they would be able to take up-and do their part, and I oppose the Amendment with all my heart.
    Mr. OUTHWAITErose—
    HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Hon. Members-opposite who are in favour of conscription seem to think that no Members on this side have a right to be heard.
    The CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. Member not to make remarks of that kind, I will see that he has a hearing.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I would not have made that remark, but my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) was also interrupted. I do not agree that the exclusion of women would be an improvement. As I understand, the only object of getting the names and the employment of these people is to find whether their services can be better utilised in another direction. The chief object of getting a list of men's names and

    443
    employments, and a list of women's names and possible employments, is that you will be able to go to employers of labour and say, "You have such a number of men in your employ who we think would be better employed in another way, and here we have a certain number of women who are capable of taking the jobs of these men." It is only by having a register of women that you will be able to supplant the labour of these men by the employment of women, and draw the men out to other services.
    Amendment negatived.
    The following Amendment stood in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King): "To leave out the words 'male and female,' and to insert instead thereof the words 'of either sex.'"
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for North Somerset does not appear to me to add anything to the Bill.
    Sir LEO CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to move to leave out the words "male and female, between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five," and to insert instead thereof the words "in the case of males between the ages of fifteen and fifty-five, and in the case of females between the ages of fifteen and forty-five."
    I freely confess that the point to which my Amendment is addressed is an exceedingly difficult one. In a matter of this kind one is bound to set up arbitrary limits of some sort, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, in framing this measure, found very great difficulty in deciding what those limits should be. The arbitrary limits that I suggest are probably open to criticism on many grounds. I put them down, not by any means in a dogmatic way, but merely to raise the subject for discussion. Their chief point of recommendation is that we want to bring this measure into effect at the earliest possible moment, and obviously, quite apart from any arbitrary line that you may draw, the lower ages would include a larger number of the people whom we want to register. I have been furnished with the numbers who would be excluded if my-Amendment were accepted, and I find that about 4,500,000 names would come out. If we add, say, 2,500,000 of enlisted males— I cannot name a definite figure—we arrive at 7,000,000 names to be taken out of the 25,000,000 who would probably require to be dealt with under this measure.
    Mr. WATT: Does that include Irish women?
    Sir CHIOZZA MONEY: Yes, that includes the whole of the United Kingdom. On that ground there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment. Fears have been expressed that the work in connection with this Bill would take a very long time—so long as to make the measure impracticable. That is not the case. Even with the ages in the Bill as it stands—and this is to some extent an argument against my Amendment—the probability is that useful information would be available in about eight weeks. If my Amendment were accepted it is probable that we should take a week or two off that time. That week or two is a very valuable period, as time is of the essence of everything that we do in connection with this War. I rejoice that the Committee have rejected the view that women should be left out of the Bill. I think that women would clamour to come in. The same remark applies, in some measure, to some of the people, both men and women, who would be excluded if my Amendment were accepted. Here, again, the argument is against my own Amendment, but I want to put the whole case fairly as I see it. It seems to me that a considerable number of men over fifty-five, and of women over forty-five, would like to be included in the register. If, therefore, my Amendment or any modification of it is accepted, I hope the Government will devise some form of words to enable men and women outside the arbitrary limits, whatever they are, to come in and be registered if they so desire.
    The CHAIRMAN: Before I put the Amendment, I had better draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that I propose to put it in such a way as to save the question of the ages. It seems to me that the real first question raised by this Amendment, and the only one needing to be decided here, is whether a difference as to age shall be made between men and women. Later we shall proceed to discuss the ages. That is the businesslike way of proceeding.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to the word 'fifteen' ['between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five'], stand part of the Clause."
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Does that include the word "fifteen."
    The CHAIRMAN: No.
    Mr. ROCH: I think there was great force in what the Mover of the Amendment said as to the difficulty of knowing where to draw the line. While I think it desirable that women should be included in the Bill, I think it is equally desirable to limit the numbers as far as it can fairly be done. That is to say, you should limit the number of women to be registered to those who can be really effective when you have the register. In the interests of the register itself, it is desirable that the number should be limited as far as possible. After all, the practical difficulties are not in the way of getting the register, but in classifying the register when you have it, and of having your material in such a form that you can handle it properly. The difficulty that employers of labour are finding is not in getting a mass of men on their books, but in weeding them out and getting effective men. In the same way, the practical difficulty in regard to this register will be to get it so tabulated that it may be easily accessible, and to have it classified in such a form that you can readily ascertain where you can put your hand on the people you require. Therefore, while I have not sufficient knowledge of Census returns or of ages to know how far the Government can wisely limit the Bill, I am certain that the more they limit it the less will be the difficulties of classification and the more effective the register will be.
    Mr. THOMAS: This is the most impracticable Amendment on the Paper. In the first place, we are only as old as we feel. If you start, as you would by this Amendment, to fix the age at fifty-five for men, it is just likely that you would rule out the very people you require to get. For instance, there are thousands of men who, years ago, came into superannuation schemes which have enabled them to retire at fifty-five—very often men in the best of health who, by means of a little garden and their superannuation allowance, are able to eke out a living. This applies in many cases to engineers, especially at sixty years of age. Those are the very people you want to include, because large numbers of them could be utilised at their old trade. But the Amendment rules them out. On the other hand, a new situation arises so far as women are concerned. It is very questionable whether women over fifty-five would be useful. That is an arguable point. There is nothing in the contention of the Mover of the Amendment on that score.
    446
    I submit that, if this register is to be effective, it must embrace those large numbers of men who have left the avocations which they followed in their early days, but could usefully go back to thorn for emergency work, and thus relieve other people.
    Mr. CAVE: I gather that my right hon. Friend would like to hear the views of the Committee on this subject. There is much truth in two points put forward by an hon. Member opposite. First, it is important to reduce the number to whom the register applies, if by so doing you do not destroy or impair the efficiency of the Bill. Secondly, if you reduce the number, you save time, not so much in preparing the register as in working it out and getting the results together. Therefore the point the Committee has to consider is, will the ages given in the Bill give exactly the right limits? If you exclude from the register men over a certain age, you do not therefore prevent yourself from getting their help. The older men would be most likely—indeed, quite certain, if they are able to render assistance—to volunteer their services.
    Mr. THOMAS: That destroys the very object of the Bill—if you can do everything voluntarily. The great argument has been that you want it done in an organised way. The real complaint is that you have square pegs in round holes.
    Mr. CAVE: I do not think that the remark of the hon. Gentleman destroys the point I was making. I am strongly in favour of making the Bill compulsory. I am pointing out that by excluding men over sixty you do not necessarily lose their help, because you may still get it by their volunteering. The second point I want to make is that I do think there should be a difference made between men and women. A difference is made in many Acts of Parliament. A man of sixty may be fit for a special kind of work, though a woman of sixty is not so. Therefore I hope that the suggestion will not be ruled out that some distinction should be made in the matter between the two sexes. As regards the exact ages to be chosen it is very difficult to come to a decision. I do think it would not be far wrong if the age were fixed for men at sixty and for women at something over fifty, say fifty-five.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment, and for two reasons: one is that I

    447
    think that the register would be much more readily accepted by the country if it covered every man and woman between the ages named. There would be no distinction. Everyone would feel that his neighbours of both sexes were subjected to the same compulsion. There would thus be no grievance of any kind that one was let off. Whilst I appreciate what has been said about the possibility of the difference in capacity, if you lowered the age for women to forty-five you would cut out a number of women who are just the people free now to render service to the country. They have finished with the cares of their young family, who have grown up, and they have a good deal of leisure, and are ready to render what service they can to the country.
    Sir J. D. REES: It would be very unfortunate to introduce into the Bill the age of fifty-five, which, for instance, is the age at which many active young fellows, who have spent about a quarter of a century abroad in the public service, come back to this country feeling full of zeal and willing to do what they can. What about men like Lord Cromer, and others in the other House? The age of fifty-five is altogether too early. I sincerely hope ray right hon. Friend will stick to the ages in the Bill, It would be a very great advantage, for reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones), that the project should be made as comprehensive as possible.
    Mr. LONG: This is really the most difficult question to decide in the Bill. I am not going to go into the field so completely covered by hon. Members on both sides of the House as to the merits or demerits of particular statements in regard to the private history of the women of the country The ordinary objections in this matter, in so far as the women are concerned, will at the present time, I think, be entirely swept away by the profound desire of the women to serve their country in any capacity for which their strength and ability fit them. It was curious to note, when we had the preparation of this measure in hand, how different was the feeling outside to that inside the House. Directly after the introduction of this Bill, when it was known that the ages were fifteen to sixty-five, I received some abusive—perhaps that is too strong, but, say, angry—letters, like one from a gentleman who said to me, "Why, I am seventy-one, and I am still as fit and strong
    448
    as ever I was. I am longing to do some work for my country. I can do work which younger men are doing. Why leave me out?" I can assure gentlemen like the one I refer to that he can voluntarily add his name to the list.
    The fact—I believe it to be a fact—that many of the older men in the country will voluntarily place their-services at the disposal of the country through the register, or in any other way, does not dispose of the case of, or the necessity for, the Bill. There is undoubtedly a certain number of people in this country—I am not going to say how large that number is; I do not know, but I hope and believe it is small—who have not yet placed their services at the disposal of the country and who are of the right age in the sense that they are full of activity and are young. Compulsion is needed for them. I have never concealed the fact that it is the intention of the Government deliberately to compel these people to enter their names on a list so that there may be proof of their existence, and where they live, should the opportunity come to avail ourselves of their services. What the ages should be is very difficult to say. I am very sorry that having gone out of the room for a little while, thinking that the previous Debate would run for a few minutes longer—to be frank with the Committee, I went to have a cup of tea—I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hants (Sir Leo Chiozza Money) because I understood he put the case for his Amendment, as he always does, with great clearness and in a very attractive manner. The impression left upon my mind after listening to this short and businesslike Debate is that on the whole the numbers indicated by the Government in the Bill are the numbers that should stand. They were the subject of careful consideration on our part, a great deal of investigation, and not a little communication with people who would be likely to know. On the whole, therefore, I would ask the Committee to allow the numbers to remain as they are, and not even to make any distinction between the sexes. No doubt there will be critics. Some will say the adoption of the Amendment would save time and labour. But, on the whole, I think the Government are upon the side of leaving the numbers as they are, and not making a change, which we should be making somewhat hurriedly at the present time, in view of the very careful consideration which we gave to the preparation of the Bill.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I put one question to the right hon. Gentleman in order to shorten the Debate? Will he be able at a later stage of the Bill to meet the point of the school children who are not under their parent's roof—children at boarding and private schools?
    Mr. LONG: My hon. Friend means school children—girls—[An HON. MEMBER: "Boys as well!"]—who are at various schools. I confess I myself am strongly in favour of their registration. Let me remind the Committee that this register is to be taken now. I hope it will be taken within a very few weeks. I hope it will be operative, if required, during the next eighteen months or so. It may be essential to have all in. No one can say the various purposes to which these girls of sixteen or eighteen can be put to to relieve people who are older from different kinds of work. I do not think the inconvenience will be great. I am sure no harm will happen to these girls by their being included. Let us have all the information and numbers we can, and then let us make the best of it.
    Mr. DUKE: I only intervene for one moment. I have great misgiving about these ages, as have other hon. Members, but after what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, I am completely satisfied. "With regard to the potent argument of the hon. Member for North-West Hants, might I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that to save time perhaps it would be practicable to cast out at present the outer limits of age, in which case you? could classify the inner limits and deal with them first, and the outer limits somewhat later.
    Sir S. COLLINS: I think I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that those who wish to put down their names might do so voluntarily, even though they are beyond the age limit. If that is so would it not be as well if the right hon. Gentleman said that clearly, so that it might go out to the country generally?
    HON. MEMBERS: He has done so.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I have an Amendment down presently asking that the age should be seventeen, instead of fifteen. Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he means to be inflexible upon that point? I feel very strongly upon it, but I do not want, at the moment, to multiply words. I feel if he takes into
    450
    the register tender children of fifteen or sixteen, even in a time of extremity like this, he will make heartburning, even if he does not make his Bill ridiculous. I beg him to make the beginning age of these children sixteen or seventeen at the very least.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment deals with the point.
    Sir CHIOZA MONEY: After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and having in view the general sense of the House on my Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the word "fifteen" ["ages of fifteen and sixty-five"], and to insert instead thereof the word "eighteen."
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will very seriously consider whether the age might not be raised. I am quite certain that the age of fifteen is too low. Even if we want to have a number of these young people of both sexes working for the good of their country in various callings and avocations, the best way for them to get to work is through their parents and through local or personal influences and relationship, and not through the National Register. I also want to call attention to this fact: There will be, in connection with this register, undoubtedly a very large number of ineffective offers of service quite beside the mark. People will offer to do work for which they are totally unsuited. The people who are most likely to make these offers are young people who have enthusiasm and great ideals, but who have no real experience or ability to serve except in the way which their parents or superiors indicate, and their voluntary offers of service will not, to my mind, be of any real use to the country. I do seriously ask the President of the Local Government Board to consider whether he will not raise the age, if not to the eighteenth year, which I suggest, at any rate higher than he has already gone in his Bill.
    Mr. DENMAN: I only want to raise one practical point. This register may have a life of several years, and I should like to know whether, subsequently to the original taking of the census, a person reaching the age of fifteen years is thereupon under the obligation to register. I venture to suggest the Bill is not very clear.

    451
    So far as I understand it, anybody becoming fifteen after the passage of the Bill is liable to register, but I should like to have an assurance on that point.
    Mr. THOMAS: The one point I want to put is this: If, unhappily, an application of this Bill was to occur in two years' time, this Amendment, if accepted, would prevent the utilising of people of twenty years of age. There is another point. Whilst I agree it would be very inconvenient to allow the suggestion to get abroad that we were going to use boys and girls of fifteen years of age, I think the answer to that is, that is not the intention, but having obtained the information, those who are fifteen now would be seventeen in two years' time, and it would be absurd to say that you have got a National Register if that National Register neither included those of twenty years of age nor enabled you to use them.
    Mr. DICKINSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him what he means exactly by the words he used just now, that the register will not be operative until eighteen months?
    Mr. LONG: My right hon. Friend must have misunderstood me. I think what I said was exactly the reverse; it would be operative during a year and perhaps eighteen months.
    Mr. DICKINSON: Then may I ask when he expects it will be operative, because that does affect very considerably, of course, the commencing age? Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that the register will be operative within a few months?
    Mr. HOLT: I do not want to press for this Amendment, because I think there is a good deal to be said for the argument that this is to apply for a good many years hence; but I would like to ask the President of the Local Government Board to secure that the children—for they are children—between fifteen and eighteen, instead of registering themselves, should be registered by their parents or some one responsible for them. I do think it is rather an objection that small children, whether at school or at home, should be filling up these forms entirely on their own responsibility, without consulting their parents or other people responsible for them. If the right hon. Gentleman could put in some words to provide that persons between fifteen and eighteen shall
    452
    fill up their forms through their parents or others responsible for them, I would feel rather more friendly towards the Bill than I do at present.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I would put this. practical point to my right hon. Friend, as I think it will show him the real difficulties we feel "with regard to this age of fifteen: If no Amendment is carried with regard to this minimum age of fifteen, the position will be that many thousands of children will fill up their own forms without the guidance of their parents, and when they leave school at the end of the term to go home, it will be necessary for them to send their certificates of registration to the registration authorities for the district where they are situated, which will almost invariably be a different registration authority from that in the district in which their school is situated. If the children, numbering many thousands, fail to carry out this regulation, they will commit an offence under the Act and be liable to a penalty of £5, and a fine of £l per day while the offence continues. That, I am quite sure, is not my right hon. Friend's intention, and he will see, I think, that some Amendment is necessary in order to-meet this difficulty. I have had a very considerable experience, like many more, with the youths of this country, and I can assure the Committee, regrettable as it may seem, they are very ignorant of Acts of Parliament, and I am quite sure very ignorant of the proceedings in this House. There will certainly be many thousands of unintentional breaches of the Act on the part of those children, and I suggest the difficulty will be entirely overcome if at a later stage my right hon. Friend would indicate his willingness to accept an Amendment in this spirit—that the Act shall not apply to a child or young person at school between certain ages who is not under the roof of his parents. I am not suggesting the terms of the Amendment, but only indicating the spirit of the Amendment, which I think would substantially meet our views.
    Mr. LONG: Two or three questions have been asked which I would like to dispose of first. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Denman) asked me whether this process was to be a continuing process. Certainly it is not contemplated that the register should go on being made during the next two or three years. It may be necessary, and, of course, we renew a great deal of legislation passed as emergency

    453
    legislation, of which this is a part; but the object we have in view is to secure the making of this register as soon as possible to give us reliable information, and to enable us to know what are the resources of the country. We may have to make many changes; we cannot tell. But for the present this is sufficient; and, undoubtedly, if you were to raise the age as suggested in the Amendment before the Committee I think you would be really making a mistake. May I give one example? I do not think anyone would be likely to accuse me of trying by legislation, or in any other way, to interfere with the laws to protect children of tender age, or do anything which would be likely to expose them to risks, dangers, and drawbacks to which they ought not to be exposed. At this moment the Government are being pressed to alter regulations which prevent children under the age of sixteen or seventeen from being employed in certain occupations which they are perfectly well suited to perform, and we are pressed not on the ground that it is desirable that they should be so employed, but because the sources of supply of people who can do this work are drying up in certain directions. One of the things I want to find out through the register is whether that is true, or due to ignorance— whether it is not possible to move labour from one part of the country to the other, and in some cases, instead of taking children to do this work, to find older people who can do it with perfect safety. I only mention this case to show that there has been very strong pressure brought upon us to include those of the age of fifteen.
    The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) feels that it would be very undesirable that children who are at school, or institutions of that kind, removed from the care of their parents, should have to fill up this return without the assistance of their parents, and it was suggested by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark (Mr. Whitehouse) that we should introduce exemptions. I hope that no proposals of exemptions of this character will be made. They are the pitfalls of legislation. Once you get into exemptions you impose all sorts of difficulties on the people who have? to carry out the law. I considered it with my advisers, and we do not think it requires a special enactment in this Bill. My hon. Friend may possibly have omitted to notice that the difference between this register and the Census is that this is going to be done by the local
    454
    authorities—that is to say, this is going to be a local collection of local information. Really we must give the local authorities credit, to which they are abundantly entitled, for common sense and intelligence in the performance of their duties, and for not attempting to force upon the children the duty of making these returns independently. We assume—and I am quite sure we are right—that in those cases the local authorities would invite the aid of the scholastic institutions, the masters and teachers. It was never suggested that children should be exposed to extreme demands of that kind, and I am quite confident that where children of that age fail to make their returns there is not a local authority in the country that would dream of starting a prosecution. Might I call attention to the fact that in this matter of prosecution the Bill is most carefully guarded? We have sought in every way to make prosecution only possible where the offence involves a real attempt to avoid doing what the law says you shall do. I shall be quite willing to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hexham if it is found that some words ought to be added in order to make it clear that, to obtain information as to children away from their parents, assistance shall be invited from those responsible for them. I believe myself it is rather a counsel of perfection, but, on the other hand, I am most anxious that we should not run the smallest risk of placing, burdens on those children which they ought not to perform.
    Mr. HOLT: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his considerate reply. I should like to meet it. I should be satisfied if he would give a personal undertaking that he would send instructions to local authorities that they are to administer the Act in the way indicated.
    Mr. LONG: We shall certainly do that.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I should like to point out that there are a large number of young persons between fifteen and eighteen in the country who will require assistance who are not at public schools, and probably not so well able to fill in forms as boys and girls in public schools. Therefore any instructions to be given as to help should include all people who require that assistance.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I do not want to be ruled out from getting a concession, and would ask whether we are going to register

    455
    children of tender years. It is not a question of school children away from home. You must not make a distinction in this national matter between the children of the rich and the children of the poor. It is a matter of child life, and children of fifteen—those who are fathers and grandfathers know what we are talking about— are of a tender age. If you like to put in a proviso that, on attaining the age of sixteen or seventeen—if we can make a bargain with my right hon. Friend—they shall then register, I will not object. There is another point. I do not care what the Germans think of us, but I do care what the rest of the world will think. Will they interpret this as a cry of "England in extremis"? We are registering our infants fifteen years of age. I do not want to oppose my right hon. Friend, but he promised that he would give us a lot of concessions and do all he could to make this Bill effective. I ask him for two years. I will split the difference gladly, and if he will meet us he will add another halo to the many he wears.
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment to a Division. On this matter I take an opposite view from that expressed by the hon. Member who has just spoken. I think we can obtain a great deal of information by these statistics, which will show how children are now employed. It is not children at the age of fifteen who will be affected, but children at the age of sixteen, and fifteen is not included.
    Sir W. ESSEX: The Bill says "between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five."
    Mr. PEASE: They are at the age of sixteen when they are put on the register.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): After they have concluded their fifteenth year.
    Mr. PEASE: I want to obtain information in regard to the occupations of these children, and one use of this register will be to divert children from unsuitable to suitable occupations. I think it will also induce people to keep their children longer at school. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) thinks it is in the interests of agriculture that the children should leave school earlier, but I think they ought to be kept at school longer. These children are growing up, and many of them will be specialised in one subject or another, and it is important for the State, if we are to
    456
    have this register, that we should know the specialisation under which some of these children have had experience, and the business in which they are being trained.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I point out that registration is not a painful process, and as regards it being undertaken at a tender age, may I point out to the hon. Member opposite that children are now registered at a much more tender age.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Not for war purposes.
    Sir J. D. REES: They are registered soon after their birth. This is merely a registration, and it is not more painful than the registration of birth. It is perfectly well known that there have been many school boys at the age of sixteen and seventeen who have done splendid service for their country, and this mischievous Amendment on no account should be accepted.
    Mr. NIELD: I should like, in reply to the observations which were recently made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Sir Walter Essex), to give particulars of two cases which are within my personal knowledge and are appropriate to the discussion which is now proceeding. The first case is that of a lad who is very little more than sixteen years of age and yet has been persistently besieged by recruiting sergeants, who are daily to be found in the Strand, in order to induce him to enlist—not crediting his statement that he is considerably below the recruiting age. The other case is that of a lad, also sixteen years of age—who, however, is 6 feet in height—who has been very keen to take some part in what is going on around him and has been anxious to serve his country. His parents have endeavoured to dissuade him on account of his years, but the lad has taken the matter into his own hands and answered advertisements which he has seen in the newspapers, with the result that he is an applicant for admission to the Anti-aircraft Corps. The proposal of the Mover of the Amendment would treat these lads as mere children, incapable of filling up the statutory form, and would, if carried, cause a widespread indignation among those who, though young, are eager to undertake some service which, however humble, may ensure for the benefit of their country.
    Question put, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 21.

    Division No. 6.]

    AYES.

    [7.50 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Hardy, Rt. Hen. Laurence

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Bird, Alfred

    Home, Edgar

    Runciman, Sir Walter (Hartlepool)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hudson, Walter

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Shortt, Edward

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Bull, Sir William James

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Butcher, John George

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Cave, Rt. Hon. George

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Thomas, James Henry

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownies

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Tickler, T. G.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Turton, Edmund Russborough

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Crooks, William

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Wardle, George J.

    Dairymple, Hon. H. H.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    White, Col. G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Nield, Herbert

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C, B. Stuart-

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Younger, Sir George

    Galbraith, Samuel

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

    Goldstone, Frank

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.

    Gretton, John

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Talbot and Mr. Gulland.

    Hancock, John George

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    NOES.

    Adamson, William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Sutton, John E.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Morison, Hector

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Pratt, J. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    King and Mr. Clough.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, to leave out the words "(not being members of any of His Majesty's Naval Forces or of His Majesty's Regular or Territorial Forces)."
    Later on the Paper there is an Amendment down to obtain returns from householders of those resident in each house, and consequently this exclusion would not apply if the returns were obtained from householders rather than from individuals. If the householder were to make a return regarding those belonging to his family, it would be advisable to have on record those who are members of His Majesty's Naval or Territorial Forces.
    Mr. LONG: Our object in this Bill is to avoid taking a double register of the same people. The names of the people referred to are already enrolled on the list of the
    458
    Navy and the Army, and most of them are now away from this country. Those that are here are moving about from place to place, and we already have a full record of all of them, and every particular connected with them. Therefore, it would seem unnecessary to add to the work of registration by again taking these particulars in regard to a large body of men like this.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOGGE: Might I ask if the right hon. Gentleman could not meet the point in another way, later in the Bill? It is highly desirable that every family should have the credit for its contribution, either to the Navy or the Army. I do not know whether with the papers which have already come from that household my

    459
    right hon. Friend will be able afterwards to put it on paper, but, if he cannot, will he meet it by having it in the form of the questions, so that we can know what contribution the household has made to the Army or Navy?
    Mr. LONG: That is a most admirable suggestion. We should all desire that some such record should be made, and, if we could possibly find some words to meet the point, I should be very glad to accept them.
    Mr. KING: I am very sorry to hear the last remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. It means that there are to be two or three million extra papers.
    Mr. LONG: No.
    Mr. KING: Well, extra persons.
    Mr. LONG: No.
    Mr. KING: Then extra questions. It means that there is to be a great amount of extra work done in order that we may have a separate list for another purpose.
    Mr. LONG: My hon. Friend is really conjuring up a very strange fancy. It is merely suggested that where a household has contributed to our Forces, either on sea or land, the fact should be put on record. It will not require any fresh papers; it will not be a very difficult task, and it will only mean some few words added to the existing questions.
    Mr. KING: Does my right hon. Friend mean that he has already, in advance accepted the suggestion that this register should be compiled by household forms, and not by individual forms?
    Mr. LONG: All that I have said is that I think it is very desirable, if it be possible, to give an opportunity of recording this information, and that I will see whether it is possible to give effect to the hon. Member's suggestion or not. That is really all the mystery.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for West Meath (Mr. Ginnell) — [after the word "forces" ("Regular or Territorial Forces") to insert the words "Irish volunteers"]—fails, because it is not definite enough to put in an Act of Parliament, but if he desires to bring any such exemption he should bring it up on Clause 11, and then I will consider it.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "in," to insert the words "the Schedule to."
    I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to put the exceptions in a Schedule and not in a Clause. It would be much more convenient. There are certain drafting Amendments which are met in that way, and in the Schedule which I have put on the Paper I have included one or two other classes of persons who, I think, ought to be excepted and who are not named in the Bill.
    Mr. LONG: I hope that my hon Friend will not press this Amendment. It is really a question not of principle but of draftsmanship, and, as he knows. I am not responsible for the draftsmanship. It is in much more capable hands than mine, and I should not like to accept an alteration without consulting those who are my advisers in the matter.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Registration Authorities and Districts.)
    The Registrar-General, acting under the directions of the Local Government Board, shall be the central registration authority, and the Common Council of the City of London, and the councils of metropolitan and municipal boroughs, and of urban and rural districts, and the Council of the Scilly Islands shall be the local registration authorities for their respective areas, and each such area shall be a separate registration district.
    Mr. PRATT: I beg to move to leave out the word "central."
    This and several consequential Amendments have the object of making the Registrar-General, acting under the direction of the Local Government Board, the registration authority for the whole of the country. I want to make the machinery as prompt, as effective, and as quick-moving as possible. Whatever our opinion may be, now that we are to have the Bill we want it to do its work as promptly and as efficiently as possible. The object of the Amendment is to have one authority, and one authority alone, to carry out the work of registration. The Registrar-General conducts the Census from the centre and not from the local authorities. He has a knowledge of the problems, and he has, indeed, much of the machinery ready to his hand, and I think that it would be

    461
    better to allow him to direct the whole of the machine for the whole of the country. It would secure, in the second place, the same standard of excellence all over the country. I am quite sure, leaving the matter to the different local authorities, that you would have a standard of excellence in one part much higher than in another, and for the purpose of speed and efficiency you do want to set the same standard all over the country. I do hope, in the third place, that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some definite promise that no expense is to fall upon the local authorities. This is entirely a national matter. Many of the local authorities are very hard pressed as it is, and they will be more hard pressed in future. I do think, therefore, that we should have a definite assurance that the local authorities are not going to be called upon to make any financial contribution to the cost of the work, but that it is to be a charge entirely on the Treasury. If the expense is to be met at the head, then the direction of the machine should be from the head. It may be advanced, and I believe it will be advanced, that one of the objects of the Bill is to use local machinery and local knowledge. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will see at once that all the local machine and all the local knowledge can be harnessed by the representative of the Registrar-General. I think entirely on the one point of efficiency that the suggested change is a good one, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give it his consideration.
    Mr. LONG: The Amendment really goes much further than I think the hon. Member himself quite realises. He suggests that the Registrar-General should do this work as he does that in connection with the Census because it would be more accurately done. It would certainly be more expensively done, because the Registrar-General is entirely dependent upon paid assistance. I have, of course, from the very beginning discussed the matter with the Registrar-General and I have had his personal assistance and advice. He tells me that he could not at all guarantee obtaining an enormous staff such as he has to obtain for the purposes of the Census at a time when all those difficulties exist to which reference has been made, whereas the local authorities can much more easily get local assistance. My objection to the Amendment is that it would alter the character of this register. It is really to be a local register carried
    462
    out by the local authorities with the aid of their own knowledge of their own localities, and many of the difficulties which critics of the Bill saw in the first instance I believe will be met by the fact that the register is to be made by the local authorities knowing the district and the people in the district, and not by a central authority acting through a mere stranger hired for the purpose. The hon. Member probably was not in the House when I made an announcement earlier in the afternoon with regard to the cost.
    Mr. PRATT: No, I was not here.
    Mr. LONG: I will very gladly repeat it as he has asked me the question. My statement was that it is the deliberate intention of the Government, and I am prepared to affirm it in any way that will be sufficiently satisfactory, that the entire cost shall be borne by the State and not by the local authorities. Our intention is to come to an arrangement between the Treasury and the Local Government Board as to the scale of expenditure, and we thought it well to take power to throw any expense beyond that upon the rates merely in order, if we find any local authorities recalcitrant and unwilling to accept our scale, that we should be able to say to them, "If you do not accept our scale you will have yourselves to pay the difference between ours and your own." It is only a sort of power in reserve which it is intended the Local Government Board should possess in the hope that the knowledge that such power exists will render the exercise of it altogether unnecessary. Our intention is that the cost shall be borne by the State, and there will certainly be no attempt to depart from that principle.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The central registration authority is bound to accept every local authority irrespective of its means and resources for the purpose of making this register. It does seem to me that it would be much better to leave the Registrar-General as the central registration authority with a completely free hand in the selection of the local authorities for the purpose of the register. But as these considerations do not commend themselves to the Government I do not think that it is worth my hon. Friend's while to press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. PRINGLE: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a suggestion I threw out in perhaps a very incomplete form when we were discussing the Financial Resolution. My suggestion was that, for the purposes of making the register effective and complete, the machinery of the National Insurance Act should be employed. By means of that machinery the Government have secured an immense amount of information which they could very well use in connection with this register, with the result that the work could be much more economically carried out. Not only have you a considerable amount of information available from that source, but you also have the machinery for obtaining increased information in respect of all insured persons. It is ready to their hands, and if the Government will only use it, I think the work of registration will be done far more cheaply than is possible by the machinery provided in the Bill. There are 15,000,000 people insured under the National Insurance Act, both men and women, and in the ease of many approved societies there are collectors and visitors calling on these people at stated times. Other approved societies are in constant touch, through their local secretaries, with their members. The local secretaries know the insured persons and consequently they would be the likeliest people to get the form filled up with the least friction and irritation. In the interests of economy and with a view of avoiding friction I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to consider this matter. If he regards it as totally impracticable, I shall accept his decision.
    Mr. THOMAS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not treat this proposal too seriously. There is strong objection to it from a practical standpoint. It is true there is a certain amount of information obtainable through the machinery of the Insurance Act, but it is not information requisite for the purposes of this Bill, and, in the second place, it can only be obtained through the trade unions and the approved societies, and these would immediately object, on the ground that it was putting additional work on their shoulders. Then there is the further point of view, that every week there are thousands of transfers from one society to another, and these would present a practical difficulty. Finally, the only approved societies that are in direct contact with the insured persons are the insurance societies through their agents, and if their power was used
    464
    to the disadvantage of the trade unions and the friendly societies, as it might easily be, it would cause endless friction.
    Mr. LONG: I think the speech we have just listened to shows that there is a very strong divergence of opinion with regard to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, with, I am sure, the single desire to effect economy. We propose to leave it to the local authorities to avail themselves of such assistance as they may think most beneficial. I do not propose to tie their hands in any special direction.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Duty to Compile Register.)
    It shall be the duty of the local registration authority, in accordance with instructions issued by the Local Government Board, to compile and maintain the register so far as it relates to their area, to tabulate the contents thereof, and to make them available for such purposes as may be prescribed, and to furnish to the central registration authority and to other Government Departments such returns there from as may be required.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the words, "to tabulate the contents thereof, and to make them available for such purposes as may be prescribed." I think it is really putting too much on the local authority to ask them to tabulate these returns. It is admitted that they are working under great difficulties with depleted staffs, and this would throw heavy work of a totally new character upon them. I believe the proposal to simply ask them to furnish to the central registration authority and to other Government Departments such returns therefrom as may be required, is quite sufficient. I hope this Amendment will be accepted, because it is put forward merely with the object of stating quite clearly the duties of the local authorities, and rendering them as simple as possible.
    Mr. LONG: I can assure my hon. Friend it really is undesirable to press this Amendment. I have had communication with local authorities all over the country, both personally and by correspondence, and in not one single case has any objection been raised to this part of their task. They see their way to give all the assistance required, and I believe it will be found that the work will be done with all the accuracy that is required. We are not

    465
    proposing a register to be used for statistical purposes in the same way that the Census is used. We want one with certain information which the local authorities can reasonably be asked to tabulate.
    Mr. KING: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. DENMAN: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on a point to which I referred earlier in the evening, and that is as to the method by which the local authority is to maintain the register. We are assured there is to be no staff of inspectors to maintain it, and it seems to me, therefore, there is a very serious possibility of the Bill failing to do that which we have been assured is one of the chief objects aimed at, namely, to enable the Government to keep its eye on slackers. Without some vigorous form of inspection the slacker will be able to escape with the utmost ease from the operation of the register. Suppose he registers originally in the borough of Shoreditch, and then wants to slack and escape notice. All he has to do is to go a few yards away into Whitechapel. How on earth is he to be discovered there unless there is some form of inspection? All traces of him will have been lost. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, that an obligation is laid on the man to register himself afresh, but we are talking of just precisely the sort of man who wants to escape that obligation and has a perfectly easy means of doing it. It would be of interest to the House if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us how he proposes to deal with such cases.
    Mr. LONG: I am afraid the only answer I can give to the hon. Gentleman is this. If a man is determined at all costs to evade serving his country, no law in the world will force him to do it.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Duty to Fill Up and Return Forms.)
    (1) For the purpose of enabling such a register to be compiled it shall be the duty of every person as aforesaid, within the prescribed time, to fill up and sign a form showing the following particulars—

    (a) name; place of residence; age; whether single, married, or widowed; number of dependants (if
    466
    any), distinguishing wife, children, and other dependants; profession or occupation (if any); name and business address of employer (if any), and nature of employer's business; and (in the case of a person born abroad) nationality, if not British; and

    (b) whether the work on which he is employed ft work for any Government Department or otherwise serving war purposes;

    (c) whether he is skilled in and able and willing to perform any work other than the work (if any) at which he is at the present time employed, and, if so, the nature thereof;

    (d) such other particulars as may be prescribed.

    (2) The central registration authority shall cause forms to be prepared and issued to the local registration authorities, and every local registration authority shall, in accordance with the instructions from the Local Government Board, cause the forms to be distributed so as to secure that, as far as possible, a sufficient number of forms shall be left at every dwelling-house within their registration district, and shall also give public notice as to the place within the registration district where forms can be obtained.
    (3) The local registration authority shall also make arrangements for the collection, in the prescribed manner and within, the prescribed times, of forms when filled up and signed.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "aforesaid" ["the duty of every such person as aforesaid"], to insert the words "for himself and of every occupier of a dwelling-house for any of such persons as aforesaid residing in his house."
    This Amendment will greatly strengthen the Bill. It can do not possible harm. Its effect would be that when the Bill came into operation, say, on the first day, every householder will have to make a return to the local authority of every person to whom the Bill applies who is resident in his house on that particular evening. By that means you will get at the beginning a complete list of everybody you want to bring within the meshes of this Bill. An hon. Member opposite spoke of the difficulty of people shifting about. That would be minimised if you get them in the first instance. The object of this Amendment is to get them in the first instance. It

    467
    compels a householder of a house where a man sleeps on that particular night to make a return as well as the man himself. It is quite true that if a person desires to avoid the Bill there is no possible means of shutting out every single way of a man avoiding registration, but it certainly makes it more difficult to avoid registration if the occupier of the house where a man sleeps as well as the man himself has to make the return. This is done in the case of the Census. I do not know any sort of reason against this being done. Although you cannot force people to register, and although there may be a certain number who may wish to avoid registration, it will make a great difference if somebody else is liable to the penalty as well as these people themselves. I am very keen about the Bill, and keen about this Clause, and I think the Amendment will strengthen it.
    Mr. LONG: I am afraid my hon. and learned Friend forgot the important fact that in the case of every occupier who happens to be beyond the limit of age no obligation will fall upon him; therefore the people of whom he would otherwise have to make a return will escape.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: My Amendment is directed to that, although, perhaps, the wording requires improvement. The words "for himself" apply to every person who is bound to make the return between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five. I leave that as it is, but I propose to add the words of my Amendment, which provide that every occupier of a dwelling-house, whatever his age is, shall make a return of any person between the age of fifteen and sixty-five who is residing in his house on that particular evening. The occupier of a house may be of any age, but he is bound to make a return of anybody residing in his house between the ages dealt with in the Bill; so that if a man of eighty were the occupier and he had a servant aged thirty-five, he would make a return of the servant.
    Mr. LONG: I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. However, as it stands, it would mean a duplicate register in certain cases, and for that reason I should very much regret if it were accepted. I should regret it for another reason altogether. We have sought in this Bill to throw upon the individual the national obligation of registering himself and making himself responsible for the
    468
    fact that his services are placed at the disposal of the country, if necessary. The Amendment, to a certain extent, would remove that obligation. The hon. and learned Gentleman must admit that you cannot throw upon someone else the obligation you throw upon the individual without, to a certain extent, diminishing the responsibility or else having a duplicate registration. We propose that the individual shall register himself. He is perfectly free to decide where he shall register himself. He may be working in a district quite remote from where he lives and he may register himself in either district. He may have two or three qualifications, and he can select for which of them he will make his return. If this Bill passes it becomes the duty of all individuals to see that they are registered. This Amendment would be a very difficult one to carry out, while it would weaken the personal responsibility which we seek to attach to the people of the country by the Bill.
    Mr. DENMAN: While I cannot endorse the concluding arguments of the right hon. Gentleman as to the weakening of personal responsibility, because the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was very clear that the responsibility would remain with the man himself and, as I believe, with the occupier, nevertheless I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has resisted this Amendment, because the idea of duplicating the forms throughout the country is one which the whole Committee would view with some alarm. Not only would it mean duplicating them, but you would have two different kinds of forms—a form filled by the occupier which would be something quite different from the form filled by the man himself, and the magnitude of the whole operation would become even more unwieldy than it will be in any case. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Mr. KING: I would like to point out to the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rawlinson) that he is introducing into his Amendment the difficulty of residence, against which he himself warned us at an earlier stage of the Bill.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I think I do away with it. I only test the place where he happens to sleep that particular night. The occupier has to return the persons who happen to be in his house at the particular time when the register is taken.
    Mr. KING: I am glad to have that assurance, but the Amendment does not say on

    469
    a particular night when the man sleeps in a house. The Amendment uses the word "residing." I suppose the register will not necessarily be taken on one particular night, but will probably cover two or three days. That is another reason why we should not accept the Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward a proposal which might increase the efficiency of the register. As the Bill at present stands many people will escape altogether. There is a floating population whom it would be very difficult for the officials carrying out this register to place at a particular time. There are people who have migratory occupations; they will hardly be registered at all under the machinery of this Bill. If, therefore, the duty is placed upon every occupier, whether or not he comes within the ages specified in the Bill, to enter the names of any persons who are generally resident in his house, that will give an absolute security. It will give a double check, because, in the first instance, you will have the provision for individual registration, and if by any means the man has not been individually registered, you will have the return of the occupier of the house in which he usually resides who would be bound to register him. You would have the double security that every man you desire to register would be registered under the Clause. In those circumstances I think the proposal deserves serious consideration.
    Mr. THOMAS: I was tempted at first to support the Amendment because I thought it would render the Bill more efficient, but after considering it, I put one or two suggestions before the right hon. Gentleman for his consideration. Supposing, as happens among the poorer sections of the people, there are lodgers in the house. There are thousands of men who live in one town and get employment in another. This Amendment would throw the responsibility on the occupier of giving the details of some of these lodgers. He might legitimately and honestly fill in details of what he believed the particular individual was doing in the town where he was working, but the occupation might have changed, and there you would find that the man himself was giving entirely different information from what the occupier was giving on his behalf. That is one difficulty, but it is not comparable to the position of those who tabulate the register. They would have two sets of in-
    470
    formation for the one individual, and they would be called upon to choose as between the two. There would be enough work and difficulty in obtaining one register, but this proposal only aggravates and complicates the difficulty; at the same time, instead of being efficient from the standpoint of changed occupations, it would seriously add to the difficulty.
    Sir WILLIAM BEALE: I thought at first that this Clause did not apply to people who were over sixty-five, and therefore it would not apply to me in any way. If you are going to alter this Clause in this way, you will have to put down some Amendments to alter the penalty Clause, because that plainly and in terms only applies to people who are bound to register themselves. Then it would be exceedingly difficult for the occupier to ascertain all these particulars which are required. He could only do so to the best of his ability. He would not necessarily know them. Inaccuracies would occur as between the account of the man himself who knew all about it, and that of the occupier who could only trust to the man telling him the particulars as far as he thought fit. I suggest that the Amendment is really a little impracticable, and it will be better to leave the Clause as it stands, and throw the obligation on the individual and not on anyone else.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: With reference to the point of the hon. Member (Mr. Thomas), that the Amendment would involve a double register, and therefore great additional difficulty in tabulation, there is a great deal of force in it, but will not that difficulty arise to a large extent under the Bill as it stands, because paragraph (a) of this same Clause lays it down that the householder has to enter, not only his own name, but the number of his dependants, his wife and children, and so forth, and presumably those who have domestic servants have to return them. Supposing a man had two daughters, aged twenty and twenty-two, he would be under an obligation to enter them, as his dependants, and they would also be under the obligation of registering themselves. Consequently, those daughters who came within the prescribed age for registration would occur on two different lists.
    Mr. LONG: Is not my hon. Friend confusing two different things? The Bill proposes that people should register themselves; therefore these two daughters,

    471
    being of age, would give their own particulars if they so chose. But the other case is merely that of a man who has to maintain his children or an aged mother. There is no register of the dependants. There is only the registration of the fact that the man who registered himself is responsible for the maintenance of other people.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I had intended to put down an Amendment in this sense myself. I am very desirous, though I do not like the Bill at all, that it should be made successful and complete now we have decided to carry it on. My fear is that the distribution of large numbers of these personal forms will create an amount of irritation amongst certain classes who are not accustomed to fill up forms, who very seldom write anything at all, and who would almost rather face the enemy in the field than have to do a thing of that kind. If you can reduce the number of returns, you will reduce the probability of mistakes, and this Bill will not have the tendency of making the War unpopular, which I gravely fear it will do in certain parts of the country. If the practical difficulty is not too great, I feel sure that the Act would be much more effective and have much less injurious effects on the popularity of the War throughout the country if the Amendment were accepted.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I quite agree that there is a certain amount of difficulty, but it is no greater than that which occurs in the Census papers, where you have to fill in most delicate questions with regard to all householders. As to duplication I mean it for a check, so as to see that every man does register himself who is in that house, so that when this return goes to the local committee they say, "Here is John Brown, living at 12, Such-and-Such a street, who has made no return. We will seek him out and get his return." When they get it, of course it will be classified, and the tabulated return of the occupier will not necessarily be used at all except as an indication that there is a person residing in a particular house on a particular night. and he must be got in. Therefore you will not miss anyone at all. That is the object of my classification. I thought it would strengthen the Bill because it would get hold of every single person to start with. The details would have to be got from the men themselves. However, I will not press the matter any further if my right hon. Friend is against me. I thought it would be
    472
    a great help to the Bill, and would ensure that you got in touch with every single person, and would not take away the liability of a man himself to register, because he would be equally bound to do so.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: May I mention an important point? If this Bill is carried quickly and the forms are sent out at once, they will be in time to be distributed by the persons who distribute the rate demand, and by that means they can be left at every house. That would minimise the work and the expense.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the words whether single, married or widowed; number of dependants (if any), distinguishing wife, children and other dependants."
    The object which my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Watt) had in putting down this Amendment was to obtain some statement from the Government in relation to these particulars. This paragraph asks from each person a great many extremely intimate particulars. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that these forms are to be collected by voluntary workers in the different localities, and that they are not to be collected by officials. In those circumstances you will have, in many cases, if I may put it as inoffensively as possible, people without any responsibility going round, and in collecting these forms they will be obtaining the most intimate particulars regarding the personal and domestic affairs of the whole male and female population in that particular locality. Unless the people who collect and distribute these forms are going to be put under the Official Secrets Act, I should object entirely to the giving of the information which is required in this paragraph and subsequent paragraphs. I think a great number of people will take strenuous exception to it. The details that are asked for in the Census are much less intimate than the details here required. In every Census Act there is a Clause which applies the Official Secrets Act to the officials engaged in carrying out the Census, and it seems to me to be an absolute necessity, from that point of view, that the same provision in relation to the Official Secrets Act should apply in regard to this inquiry.
    There is a further important point. I believe that if you are going to get a

    473
    thoroughly good register, and if you are going to get replies which will be useful to the Government, the people who are asked to answer the questions will answer them much more fully and much more satisfactorily if they know that the information that they give is to be received under the seal of secrecy, and that no busybody in the locality is to be entitled to find out all about their close personal relations without any penalty being imposed for a breach of secrecy. If my right hon. Friend would make a statement on this Amendment regarding the Official Secrets Act a very considerable amount of objection to the inquiries which are to be made under this National Register Act would be removed, and, furthermore, you would get far more adequate replies. I beg to move the Amendment for the purpose of eliciting a statement from the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. LONG: I respond at once to the invitation to say very generally, and I hope very briefly, what the intentions of the Government are In regard to this Clause. Let me take the latter part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks as to the question of secrecy. It is quite obvious that there must be a complete check upon any possibility of the divulging of information obtained in the collection of facts for this register. I do not think, however, that this would be the best Clause on which to provide that. We could do it better on Clause 12. As to the Official Secrets Act, I do not think that would be quite satisfactory to the purpose, because it will be necessary, of course, for the people authorised—that is, the Government Departments—to make use of the information confidentially. That there should be no publication, no gossiping, and no improper use made of this information is, of course, obvious, and I will insert words, the terms of which I shall be glad to give to the hon. Member, which will have the effect of imposing the severest penalties in the case of any breach of that kind. In regard to the questions that we set up, I do not pretend for a moment that the phraseology of this Sub-section is perfect. We have spent a great deal of time over their preparation and compilation, but still, no doubt, they may be a little improved, and I am quite willing to accept Amendments if it can be shown that they can improve the wording. What we really want to do is to get information from the people of the country which will enable us to see what their position really is. That is to
    474
    say, we ask whether they are married or single; whether they have dependants, either in the form of children of their own, or, as in some cases, dependants such as widowed mothers or relatives of that kind who are entirely dependent upon their earnings. The reason for that is, that if it is necessary, as it seems almost inevitable that it will be necessary, to migrate labour about the country, and possibly to divert labour now occupied in one class of industry to other channels, it is unquestionably desirable, if possible, to do that with the maximum productive power on the part of labour at a minimum of cost. When you come to move those who have dependants upon them you raise the whole question of housing and cognate questions in the most acute form. Therefore, if any of these steps have to be taken, it is absolutely necessary that the Government should have in their possession all the information they can possibly get. For those reasons we have set up the particulars in this Subsection. I quite admit that there is justice in the criticism of my hon. and learned Friend, that these questions do go very far into what are generally regarded as private domestic affairs, and they can only be justified by a great emergency and by a great difficulty which which calls for a special effort. Obviously we must take care that the only use made of the information thus obtained shall be official use made for the service of the State, and that there shall be every precaution taken in the statute that this information, given for the benefit of the State, shall not be used to gratify the mere idle curiosity of any individual. I shall be very glad to bring up words to meet that point.
    Mr. GORDON HARVEY: I had an Amendment on the Paper at an earlier stage in regard to the question of secrecy, and I was informed by Mr. Whitley that it would be better to defer it until Clause 12. However, the point has been broached, and the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to give favourable consideration to the matter, and has promised to present a form of words with which he hopes to satisfy the Committee on this point. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in addition to the matters of delicate family secrets, which are liable to lead to scandal, and the revelation of things which should be forgotten, there are other points, which are perhaps minor points, but nevertheless of real importance. There is the question of a workman filling up the form as far as he

    475
    can, and in that portion relating to the work that he is willing to do, answering "there is no work that I can do." That may be due not to unwillingness to do work, but to some hidden incapacity, some delicacy, the revelation of which, although it might not have interfered with the performance of his ordinary occupation, might, if it were revealed to those employing him, have a very serious effect upon his future. If an answer is given which does not satisfy those responsible for the register, they can send for the individual and cross-examine him to elucidate something which he has been desirous of concealing, and these persons will be his neighbours, and probably in some cases his employer. Another question which is very important in the opinion of some is that in reference to asking a man's age. A great many working men have a strong objection to giving information on this point. I have a letter in reference to this which I will show to the right hon. Gentleman. I need not trouble the House with it. It is an anonymous letter, but it points out the very serious doubts which the writers entertain as to whether the revelation of their ages might not interfere with their subsequent employment. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make his form of words as wide as possible so as to meet these points.
    Mr. THOMAS: There is no Clause in the Bill which was viewed with more apprehension by some of those who are opposed to it than this particular Clause, and the intimation of the right hon. Gentleman that regard will be paid to secrecy in this matter helps us considerably. There are some other points to which I desire to draw attention. The question as to age may mean a man losing his job. When you remember the large number of employers who treat men of a certain age as being too old, you must realise the possibility that if this information is available to the employers advantage will be taken of it. Workers therefore view it with very great apprehension. Then take the case of the large number of men who suffer from internal complaints. For instance, take hernia. I know that there are large numbers of men who would lose their employment if it were known by their employers that they had this complaint. They are efficient and they are doing their work well and will continue to do it. Yet they would probably be prevented from
    476
    paying that they could do other work, such as that of fitters, and for the very reason that they were suffering from that very complaint. The next matter to which I want to draw attention is the necessity of a very broad definition as to the question whether the work on which a man is engaged is "work for any Government Department, or otherwise serving war purposes." After what the right hon. Gentleman said, I will simply ask him to-consider these points.
    Mr. PRINGLE: In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. R. MCNEILL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) (a), after the word "number," to insert the words "names and ages."
    9.0 P.M.
    As the Bill stands at present, the answer to be given includes "number of dependants (if any), distinguishing wife, children, and other dependants." I rather gather from what fell from my right hon. Friend that all that is wanted is for the registered person to say, "I am the father of so many children." My object, which is the same as that of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) in another Amendment, is to have some check by which it could be ascertained how far the register was correct, and that the person should not only say who his dependants are, but that he should give the names and ages so that it should be possible to compare them with the register as signed by those persons themselves. Strictly speaking, the consequential Amendment, my Amendment lower down, is directed to the same idea, that when it comes to saying what his personal occupation is he should also give information with regard to dependants who happen to be absent. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the information given in the form as it now stands is sufficient, I do not wish to press the matter, but if we had those few additional words it would add to the value of the register and give information which, as the Bill stands now, we shall not get.
    Mr. LONG: My hon. Friend will quite appreciate the object which we had in view. Suppose that the answer given is "mother" or "grandmother," there is no object in saying "grandmother aged eighty-five." On the other hand, there is clearly no object in stating the ages of

    477
    his children if he has, say, five or six children, because their ages are below the age that is specified, and, therefore, they are out of all account, except that they are dependent on him for a living. Therefore, in moving this individual, you realise, with all the information before you, that you are moving a man whose movement means interference with the lives of some other people. It is for the same reason that we ask for the names of the employers. It is not for recruiting, but for the various arrangements which have to be made in connection with labour. You have very frequently unwittingly taken away the very men whom, if you had fuller information, you would have left where they were, so as to take if possible other people in their places. In the same way there are great difficulties as to the principle of recruiting for the Army, because the recruiting officer, notwithstanding what hon. Gentlemen sometimes say—and I am speaking of what I know in my own experience—has taken four or five men from one employer and none from his neighbour, the result being that the man who has lost all his men feels the burden of the War much more heavily than the employer none of whose men have been taken away. Having this information, though it would be impossible that no man should escape, we should at all events be in a much better position than we are now, and the names and ages of persons of the right age would appear in the register, and those who are not of the right age are not required to be registered at all.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. JOWETT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1) (a), after the word "dependants" ["and other dependants"], to insert the words "number and names of servants, male and female, respectively, and their occupations."
    I will endeavour in a very few words to explain the purpose of this Amendment, and I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman favours it, after my short explanation, he will put words in to accomplish the object if these words are not, in his opinion, fitted for the purpose. The object of this Amendment is to place the onus on every person filling up the form to say whether or no he has in his personal service any persons, in order that the authorities may judge whether those persons might be more usefully employed in other directions. For instance, there are some 29,000 coachmen and grooms employed,
    478
    and nearly 15,000 employed in driving motor-cars, and motor-car attendants. We see from time to time announcements requesting subscriptions for the purpose of getting motor-cars for use in bringing soldiers from the front to the hospital, and so on. Surely it would appear that to employ chauffeurs, and others engaged in like capacities, at a time like this, in personal service, is a very improper proceeding, and the men could, in my opinion, be better engaged elsewhere. There is also this further instance, and it is the next point I wish to make, that taking males and females together there are nearly a million in domestic service, and out of these there must be a vast number who could presumably be far better employed than they are in personal domestic service.
    Another point I want to mention has reference to savings, and the appeals which are urged upon the people of this country to save. Having regard to prices and the increased cost of living, it is practically impossible for any ordinary workman or workwoman to save money except at the sacrifice of something useful or needful. But there are exceptional and rich people who can save, and upon whom it should be incumbent to save; and I think the State should make it clear that the savings of those persons should be personal savings. The employers of domestic servants and chauffeurs take those persons away from national service, the production of things useful and of necessary food, for the purpose of serving their own particular will. They are the people who ought to have this obligation to save put upon them; therefore, I ask that in addition to requesting the honest workman to answer a number of questions, some of which he may dislike, we shall place upon every rich man and every rich woman the obligation to say how many people they employ or retain in their service for their particular luxury and comfort.
    Mr. LONG: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman, in proposing the Amendment, has sought to draw, as I think, a wholly unnecessary comparison between different classes, all of which, rich and poor alike, however they may describe themselves, are united in their desire to sacrifice everything they can and so far as they can, for the common good. Personally, I should show no mercy, if I had to exercise the authority, to those who in times like these keep for their personal luxury and comfort in their employment people who ought to

    479
    be in the service of the State, and employed in more useful capacities. I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has really appreciated what we propose to do by the Bill. It seems to me that the provision of the Bill is really much more effective than the provision which he seeks to move. We make it the duty of every person not only to register himself, but in his return he has to include the name of his employer. Supposing, the case which the hon. Gentleman gave, that some selfish person is keeping in his or her employment a number of young men who ought to be doing the nation's work elsewhere, the name of such person must appear in the return, with the nature of the services rendered to him. In each case the servant, in making his return, will have to give the name of the person by whom he is employed, and therefore it seems to me that, with the hon. Member's Amendment, we would not get anything more complete than we get now by the return in which he will have to state his own description and the description of his master. If you tell me that there is any reason for a more complete remuneration, and I want it to be complete, I shall be very glad to consider it; but it seems to me that the return giving the personal duty of the individual, with the information as to his employer, covers all the ground.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: The right hon. Gentleman contends that the proposal of my hon. Friend is met by the provision as it exists. I think I can give an illustration to show that it is not quite so. A short time ago the question of allowing children to be taken away from school for farm work was discussed, and I asked a question as to the number of gamekeepers employed. The Return given showed that there were 24,000. I have no doubt that a large number of those have enlisted. My point is this: If you take a very large estate of from 40,000 to 50,000 acres, on which a large number of gamekeepers are employed, you would get a return from each individual gamekeeper as regards his own employment and the name of his employer. But those individual returns will be sent in from perhaps a number of different local authorities, whereas, if you call upon the owner to say how many game-keepers he employs, then you will get them altogether. If the purpose of this Bill is subsequently to put pressure on individuals to fulfil their responsibilities—I do not say that I am in favour of the Bill—it
    480
    should be applied all round, to the individual landowner as well as to the servant, and you should say to rich people who employ gamekeepers and servants that, while they are urging working men to give up their employment and serve in the Army, those gamekeepers and servants, in view of the great peril of the country, could best be employed, not in personal service, but in the service of their country under patriotic conditions.
    Mr. HOLT: The whole of the information sought for is furnished once every year by the employer when he takes out a licence for his male servants, and all you have got to do is to look at the return which is made every January in order to get the licences for these people. It is, therefore, absolutely unnecessary to ask for any further return, since the information is already in the hands of the Government. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who spoke last whether he really thinks that an employer of gamekeepers or anybody else ought to turn round and say, "Unless you enlist I will dismiss you." Because that is the proposition involved in the hon. Gentleman's argument.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I say at once I am not in favour of the principle of this Bill at all, but, if you are going to have compulsion on one section of the individuals, I think you ought to give facilities for putting compulsion on all.
    Mr. HOLT: That was not the hon. Gentleman's argument at all; it was that all classes of employers ought to compel their servants to enlist.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: No!
    Mr. HOLT: There is no use in the hon. Gentleman saying "No!" The hon. Gentleman's argument was that the employer should compel his servant or threaten him with dismissal.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I cannot permit that to go without contradiction. I said nothing of the kind. I said give him the opportunity of doing other work, such as tilling the soil, instead of the children.
    Mr. HOLT: The hon. Member said more than that. I cannot believe that any friend of the labouring classes in any quarter of the House really thinks that employers ought to threaten their servants. I believe, also, that in a good many cases it is necessary and useful to have servants, since it assists those who employ them to perform very necessary work. Underlying

    481
    the hon. Gentleman's argument is the contention that servants should not be employed for any purpose. It is ridiculous to suppose that a very busy man, who is employed probably at a large salary in doing work of the highest importance, ought to mend his own boots and clothes. That is the fundamental proposition underlying the hon. Gentleman's argument. I hope that the Bill will be preserved in its present form, and that you will ask everybody to account for himsef.
    Sir GODFREY BARING: We have just heard from the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) that he employs parlour maids in order that he may fulfil his duties more efficiently in his house. I think the hon. Member was not quite fair to the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite), with whom I do not agree. I should certainly think that the hon. Member for Hanley never suggested that any threat should be used by any employer in order to make his servants enlist or anything of the kind. I do think what the hon. Member for Hexham said with regard to the male servants' licences is a sufficient answer to the hon. Member for Hanley.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: That would not be fair to the employer, as probably a number of them have enlisted since January.
    Mr. THOMAS: We have heard economic arguments in connection with this Amendment, and the supporters of the Amendment are not exempt from blame in that connection. I do not believe than any class or any creed in this War can claim a monopoly of patriotism, because you have only to look at the casualty lists each day to see that all classes are bearing their share. Therefore I am going to approach the Amendment and argue it on the merits, because I do not think there has been any valid objection against it so far. With regard to the licence supplying all the information, that only applies to males, and this is to be a register for both sexes. Then, as well, many of those licensed in January may have enlisted or may be doing something else. Therefore, if you want complete information the method suggested by the Amendment is the only means by which you can obtain it. There is the further point as to the man, say, who has three or four houses and may have two men in the London house driving motors and two in each of the other houses. Those men would be registered in the particular town, and therefore if you want to have the information so that
    482
    you can see it at a glance, you can do so by means of the system proposed by the Amendment. Surely if the object is simplicity there is something to be said for it. I hope, therefore, we shall not reject the Amendment merely on the ground of the arguments that have been used on the virtues of one class or another, but that we shall only reject it if it will not help to work this Bill.
    Mr. CAVE: I must say I am rather astonished by the arguments used in favour of this Amendment. I want to know, for the information of myself and other Members, whether, in the view of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett) and the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) it is the duty of employers to discharge their servants. Is it a crime to keep servants in these conditions? We have been told, rightly or wrongly, that so far as we can we should keep our servants. They ought not to lose their employment in order that the employer may save, but, of course, if a servants is able to render war service he ought to be allowed to go, and, so far as possible, encouraged to go. I have never yet heard it suggested by anyone that it is a misdemeanour to keep a servant on who has not an immediate prospect of rendering any war service. More than that, the question arose in the very early days, "Is it right to put pressure on a servant to enlist, or otherwise to offer himself for war service?" I always took the view, and I think most hon. Members will be of the same opinion, that while it is quite fair to your servants and employés to say that you wish them if they can to do war service, but that it is going too far to say that unless they enlist they will lose their employment. If that is their view, I do not see how it can be reconciled with the view's of the hon. Gentleman who supported this Amendment. If they hold the views I gather from their speeches, one must entirely alter one's opinion as to the duties of employers in war time. The hon. Member does not suggest that the return should give the ages of the persons employed, but unless you give the age the return is not of any value, even for the purpose for which the Amendment is moved. For surely if one has a servant over military age, as I believe most male servants are to-day, it cannot be suggested as a reproach that you retain that servant in your employ. On the contrary, I think men over military age ought to be thus employed as domestic servants or drivers,

    483
    or for any other purpose. Therefore, the return suggested in the Amendment is of no value for the purpose the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and is founded on a wrong principle altogether. Let me add this: The Amendment does not distinguish between domestic servants and others. I do not think he means that an employer of hundreds of men should be bound to make a return of all his employés. I think that would be the effect of the Amendment, but if he does not mean it I do not want to say anything about that. I should be very glad to know exactly what is the purport and scope of the Amendment, and whether he means that he desires all servants, so far as possible, to be returned.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has reached a point on which I have been very curious since the discussion began, and that is what the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment means by "servant." Are all employed people servants?
    Mr. JOWETT: The ordinary workman would not acknowledge the term "servant."
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the word "servant" is the proudest title anyone wishes to bear, and the reason I felt strongly on the speech with which the Amendment was moved was the whole tone running through it which suggested that those in the employ of other people were somehow in a degraded position. I wish to protest very strongly against that assumption, which seemed to run through the hon. Member's speech. I cannot really believe he intended it, and I think he must have put down this Amendment without giving it consideration. It may be there are people in this country who employ too many servants, but consider this case. What about the servants in an hotel? They are very necessary parts of the establishment. They run the place. Does he suggest that the work done by servants in an hotel is less honour able work than that done outside, because they happen to be indoor servants? I suggest that in his desire to criticise certain people who may employ too many people to minister to their personal needs, he has arranged his Amendment much too widely and has cast—
    Mr. JOWETT: I made it perfectly clear that I should be ready to insert any alternative words that meet the purpose I have
    484
    in mind, and I explained that I did not mean the other kind of so-called servant.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and during that speech he spoke of servants and people who minister to the whims and caprices of the rich—those were his own words—as though they were identical classes, and it is precisely that that has drawn me to my feet. I really think the information which will be forthcoming can be obtained otherwise. I am perfectly certain that in the cases he really wishes to get at, the information is already available in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt). He had the gamekeeper in mind. Let us consider the different classes employed on an estate. The gamekeeper is obnoxious to him. What about the woodmen? Are they servants? What about the carpenters who are building farmhouses and putting up buildings? Are they the servants of which he wishes to have a return? If so, I think you must have a return of everybody in the country. Again, I suggest that the Amendment is far wider than the hon. Member intended, and that he had better withdraw it.
    Sir W. BEALE: Although I think the Debate about the different classes of servant, and what it is the duty of the employer to do with regard to them, is very useful and very instructive, and that in their place one would possibly share the view of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett) and the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite), as they feel very strongly on the subject, really it seems to me a waste of time, and that there is one consideration that might have been pointed out earlier in the Debate, and which I shall urge, at least to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, is a good reason why at all events he should reconsider this subject, and if after the Debate he thinks it really worth while to bring it up on the Report stage, he should do so. It would be absurd to press it on this occasion, and for this reason, if for no other. The Bill as it stands proposes that everybody between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five should give certain information about himself. It is only people between fifteen and sixty-five, and he wants to go and say that people between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five, besides mentioning their dependants, if any, should go into the question of what servants they have. He will not hit the very class against which

    485
    it is directed. They are not confined to the people between fifteen and sixty-five. Another hon. Member avoided that by the wording of his Amendment, but this Amendment certainly misses the very mark which the hon. Gentleman who proposed it has most in his eye in bringing it forward.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I would like a word or two of explanation in reply to the statements made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston. He made the suggestion that I rather supported these methods of compulsion by employers upon those men whom they employed. I was delighted to hear his condemnation of that method. It is detestable to apply that sort of economic pressure. But I would point out that this is being done to-day throughout the whole sphere of labour. With Government sanction employers are being virtually asked to do it. Every day questions are put in this House which contain suggestions that men should virtually be discharged in order to be compelled to join the Colours in that way. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] But I was really drawn into supporting this Amendment because the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, in reply to my hon. Friend, brought forward a contention in opposition to his Amendment which I did not think held water. Because of that I mentioned the case of 25,000 gamekeepers, whom you could not get unless you got the employers to state how many they employed, because they would be disseminated over many localities. I do not regret my intervention if it has helped to bring out condemnation of the action of employers of bringing economic pressure to bear upon those they employed.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I think the House is entitled to discover what the object of the Amendment really is. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] When the hon. Member moved his Amendment I quite thought it was directed against the employment of unnecessary servants, yet when he wished for these servants to be discharged, as the hon. Member for Hexham said, the hon. Member for Bradford said he had no intention of the sort. What, then, does he mean? His statement was that those employers should be induced to save. How, except by discharging their servants? Surely, I should have thought that he and those who act with him would have desired that these servants should be free to
    486
    decide for themselves whether or not they should enlist. They are not bound to do so. If there are eight servants where there should only be two, it is quite open for the superfluous six, if they choose, to leave that employment. The object of this Amendment it to compel employers to discharge their servants. If it does not mean that, what does it mean?
    Mr. JOWETT: I wish to repudiate the suggestion that the object of this Amendment is for any such purpose. The object of my Amendment is to direct attention to a very grave social fact, which sooner or later will have to be faced, and that is that far too many men and women are engaged in employment which is unnecessary. It should be the object of this and other Bills to endeavour to make that as difficult as possible—to change that kind of employment for some useful kind of employment.
    Amendment negatived.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I am not quite clear in my mind as to whether the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher) does not get beyond the point and into extraneous questions. In view, however, of the fact that some reference is made in the Clause to nationality, I want to know what the hon. and learned Gentleman has to say.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "and (in the case of a person born abroad) nationality, if not British," and to insert instead thereof the words "place of birth; nationality of father and mother; if born outside the Dominions of the Crown, how long resident in the United Kingdom; and, if a naturalised subject of any country (including the United Kingdom), of what country and date of naturalisation."
    After the fact that you, Mr. Maclean, have declared the Bill proposes to inquire into the nationality of people born abroad, I propose to extend the scope somewhat further in order, as I think, to give information which will be valuable for the purposes of the Bill. For the purposes of this Bill you want to know not merely what a person can do, but also in what capacity it is safe or desirable to employ him. It is quite obvious that some employments in which people will be asked to serve for the purposes of this Bill will be positions of trust or confidence. In order

    487
    to know whether it is desirable to put those persons into those positions of trust and confidence I submit it is essential that we should inquire somewhat further into their origin and antecedents than the Bill proposes to do. The information asked for in the Bill as it stands is good, but not quite enough. Let me point out why. In the first place, it does not ask the place of birth, and that seems to me desirable. In the second place, it does not ask for any information as to the person's origin or antecedents and as to whether the person was or was not born in England. I suppose the reason of that is that technically, according to English law, a person born in England becomes ipso facto a British subject. But just consider—
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. I wish to ask your ruling, Mr. Maclean, in regard to this Amendment; whether in a Clause asking for information a controversial topic such as alien registration can be introduced, and whether, if so, we shall get to an end of the Bill at all? There are other Amendments down, but I feel if we pass this one I shall not be able to raise my point of Order upon the others. I ask whether it is in order in a limited Bill of this kind to suggest that other particulars should be asked for in order that we may have a large discussion upon this particular topic?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member must recollect that when I called upon him I gave him a warning that the particular matter which the Amendment indicates might, in my opinion, raise questions extraneous to the Bill. I must say, listening to what the hon. Member has said, that he is introducing a subject extraneous to the Bill. If he will confine his remarks to the particular and perfectly simple topic of nationality, and not extend them and introduce questions which are quite alien, he will be in order. If not, I must ask him not to pursue the topic.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I am trying to keep within the limits you suggest. Upon this point of nationality it is quite true, as I was pointing out, that by English law a person born in Enland becomes an English subject. My point is this: A person born in England may be the child of German parents who are temporarily resident here, and for the purposes of the Bill it would be important that we should know who the parents were, whether they were German
    488
    or alien enemies. This is all very important considering that this Bill is a Bill for the purpose of war time. It is obvious—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. It is now quite clear that it is extraordinarily difficult to pursue this topic at all without going beyond it. I think, after what he has said and how he has explained his Amendment, that I must rule him out of order.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I gather from you that some parts of the Amendment are in order. I will not detain the Committee more than a moment more. But I put it to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that it is desirable that some further particulars as to nationality than those asked for in the Bill should be obtained. The Bill only asks for the nationality if the person is born out of this country. I suggest it would be desirable to give the nationality of his parents. I further suggest it is very desirable to know whether the man, even if he is born in this country, has become a naturalised subject of a foreign Stale.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must rule the Amendment out of Order.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (b).
    I only rise to move the omission of this paragraph in order to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that I do not intend to move to omit paragraph (c), which was put down in error, and I do not intend to press the Amendment I am moving. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not promote the efficiency of the Bill if these questions were put only to employers of labour or to persons working on their own account, because I want respectfully to point out that these are two questions which cannot possibly be answered by a great number of workmen who, nevertheless, may be engaged on war work. Let me, out of a great, variety of instances, take one. A great number of manufacturers are making various kinds of tins for war service. The apprentices and the workmen generally do not know in the least whether those tins are for the Government or not. There is no reason why they should know. In many other cases workmen are making some tiny part of some article required in connection with the War, and they again do not know they

    489
    are engaged on war work. Both these questions, particularly the first, are questions which a great number of workmen cannot answer, and which it is idle to put to them, and which, in putting to them, you may get very inaccurate information. Therefore, I suggest my right hon. Friend's object will be completely achieved if these two questions are put only to employers of labour or to persons working on their own account.
    Mr. LONG: Perhaps it may be convenient if I state at once the alterations we propose to make in these interrogations. I propose, in consequence of the general discussion we have had, that paragraph (b) should be amended by the omission of the word "any" before "Government," and the substitution of the words "or under a," so that the paragraph would read "work for, or under, a Government Department," and the omission of the words "or otherwise serving war purposes." I also propose, if the Committee agree, to omit paragraph (d). Those are the Amendments I propose to make in consequence of the general discussion, and perhaps they may somewhat affect suggestions which might otherwise be made. With regard to the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I trust the Committee will not think it desirable to cumber our interrogations, which cover a great deal of ground, and probably the information would not be desirable, and I doubt whether it would be in time for any real use.
    Mr. HOLT: I have listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said with a great deal of satisfaction, and I hope he will not think me tiresome if I ask him to elucidate this point. I take it that in asking a man to say if he is working "under" a Government Department he really means to say whether he is employed by a Government Department. That, of course, is perfectly easy to understand. Anyone can give that answer at once. But when he is asked whether work on which he is employed is work "for" a Government Department, what is the real meaning of that? Take the case of a stevedore at the docks who is putting cargo on a ship, and part of that cargo is for a Government Department, and required for war service. Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that stevedore to say that he is working for a Government Department? Does it refer to direct employment by a Government Department only, or does it refer to a
    490
    person who is doing work, all or part of which may be on behalf of a Government Department?
    Mr. ROCH: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to clear up the meaning of this Clause, because I take it he wishes this Bill and the registration under it to be as clear as it can possibly be. There is the uncertainty as to what is meant by working for Government Department. Take the case of the miner. I suppose a miner who is working in a mine which is supplying a Government Department would be engaged in work for a Government Department, but an ordinary miner, although working in an ordinary steam-coal mine, cannot know whether he is working for the Government or not. In fact, miners, with very few exceptions, could never be able to answer the question whether he was engaged in working for a Government Department. Take, again, the cotton operative or woollen operative; it is impossible for them to say whether the contracts their employers are fulfilling are for the Government or not. Take, again, the whole question of subcontracting. Many persons who take on Government contracts let sub-contracts to numerous other people. It is impossible for the employés, and it is impossible really for the employers, to know whether it is a Government contract or not. Those are the general lines of the difficulty. It is almost impossible to understand the Bill as it stands.
    Mr. G. HARVEY: Where an employer holds a Government contract those employed under him are in Government employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] In the course of a day's work a man may be working for five hours of the day upon work which he knows is going to a Government contractor and the other five hours he may be upon work for another purpose altogether. How is that man to say whether he is working for the Government or not?
    Mr. SANDERSON: I think these difficulties are being very greatly exaggerated. Every workman would know whether he is employed by a Government Department or not. The question is whether a man is working for a Government Department, and I should understand that that applies to a man who is in the position of a contractor. If a man is contracting for a Government Department he would be working for a Government Department. The hon. Member opposite said that a

    491
    man working as a miner in a mine would not be able to answer this question, but I do not think he would have any difficulty whatever. If he were an ordinary miner and did not bother about his employer's contracts he would not answer the question, but would simply say, "I do not know." It is not necessary for him to answer the question under those circumstances, and that is a perfectly good answer. He has to answer a previous question and give the name of his employer. The miner would know the name of the employer, and if he did not know whether his employer was engaged in Government work he would not give any answer. I think these questions are perfectly simple.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. LONG: I think it is a very good thing for us and for the carrying out of the laws under which we live that, as a rule, about 95 per cent, of the difficulties raised in the House of Commons very seldom occur in the practical application of an Act of Parliament. I ask, Are these difficulties quite so great as hon. Members make out? Of course an ingenious Member of Parliament setting his brain to work to find out not how he would answer the question but how difficult it would be can easily devise a series of difficulties. As the Committee know, an immense deal of work is being done in connection with the manufacture of munitions of war, and we think it would be an advantage if we could get some fairly reliable information as to the number of factories in the country and the number of men now engaged in the production of munitions of war.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Are you only asking for those engaged in munitions work?
    Mr. LONG: No. There are a large number of factories which were producing other things, such as gramophones, pianos, and other things, which are now producing munitions of war, and that is information which would be extremely useful. Hon. Members have asked how on earth is anyone going to say that they are working for the Government? Many of these men know perfectly well that they are working for the Government in the sense that they are, for example, making armour-plate, parts of aeroplanes, parts of submarines, and a variety of work of that kind which is clearly for the Government. I believe there will be very little difficulty about men actually engaged in certain work for
    492
    the Government making that return. Surely those who are doubtful will be able to say, "I do not know," and those who feel quite satisfied that they are not working on Government work will say so! I think most of those difficulties will disappear and they will not prove as great as some hon. Members seem to think. I hope we shall be permitted to insert those words.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: At first I was inclined to agree that there were great difficulties in connection with this matter, but possibly I made the mistake of reading Question (b) independently of Question (a). This arises because we have taken this Section as, so to speak, watertight, and we have forgotten that the people who will scan the forms will be skilled persons at the work. There will be a lot of marginal cases in which difficulties will arise, but if you turn to question (a) you find that a man has to declare what his occupation is. If he declares also the name of his firm and is not quite certain what to say in reply to question (b) then the person who scans the form will have no difficulty in putting the matter right. The right hon. Gentleman has so simplified the form that the scheme will be quite workable in practice, and I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment he has suggested.
    Mr. HOLT: I quite appreciate what the hon. Member for Sunderland has just said, but may I point out that you are asking a man to declare the nature of his employer's business and asking him to say whether or not it is for a Government Department? Where I think these answers are going to lead the Government astray is that they are going to minimise the amount of work that is being done for a Government Department. Those in a Government Department have not the least notion who are working for them and who are not. I have had a considerable amount of experience in connection with the Transport Department of the Admiralty. We are constantly told that in taking a ship for transport work we are interfering with the supply to the Government of articles which are very necessary for the prosecution of the War. The ramifications of a trade are so complicated and so intricate that not one of these workmen or even the Government themselves can really tell which people are working for the Government and which people are not, and, if you are going to take any action on the answers to this question, you will

    493
    land yourself in a horrible mess by underestimating the work that is being done for the Government. That is why I object to the question. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would get misleading information which would do him a great deal of harm.
    Mr. R. LAMBERT: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession which he has made, but I cannot help thinking, seeing that in the previous paragraph the name and address of the employer and the nature of the employer's business have to be stated, that the whole of paragraph (b) is superfluous. The officials who will tabulate these particulars, if they have the name and address of the employer and the nature of his business, will surely be able to tell whether it is for a Government Department or not, and it seems to me that you are only adding a little confusion if you force upon the man in addition a question which many will not be able to answer, namely, whether the work on which he is engaged is work for or under a Government Department.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: The question arises whether the penalty Clause will apply to some of these workmen. I quite agree that it is really a very difficult problem. Take very large steel works. Some of the ordinary plates, not the armour plates, are used for the small ships which the Government are building, and other plates are used for boilers which are manufactured for the Government. Other plates, again, are made for ordinary mercantile ships. How is it possible for a workman to know whether he is employed on work for the Government or not? It is, in fact, kept secret from him whether the plates are for the Government or not. Again, if steel works are employed on Government work the man making the pig-iron is really also employed on Government work, because he is making the pig-iron for the purpose of converting it into steel. You will have all these complications, and I hope before the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether in the case of an error, it may be wilful or due to ignorance, the penalties will apply. If you do apply them, I am certain that you will frighten a very large number of people.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay some attention to what my hon. Friend has said, because these penalties will be rather frightening
    494
    to the workman. There are steel works in my Constituency which have a Government contract. A man working in them will be able to say that he is working for a Government Department. Along side is a coal-pit which is supplying part of the output to these steel works. It will be impossible for any individual miner in that coal-pit to say whether or not he is working for a Government Department, and if there is the threat of a penalty over his head, it puts him in an unfortunate position. I would like it to be made perfectly clear that he will be able to say "I do not know," and that no penalty will follow.
    Mr. LONG: Perhaps hon. Members will look at the penalty Clause. I cannot conceive anybody attempting to apply it to these considerations. The first penalty Clause clearly does not apply at all, and paragraph (c) begins—
    "Wilfully makes or signs, or causes to be made or signed, any false return of any matter specified in the form."
    If it were demonstrated that it was possible to apply these penalties, we should certainly desire to use fresh words, but I am advised that they certainly would not apply.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I think that he is quite right about the penalty Clause, but from the point of view of saving time does he not think that it would be just as well to hold over paragraph (b) until the Report stage? There is a strong difference of opinion about the necessity of these words; it is very doubtful whether you will not duplicate information, and it is quite certain that you may get misleading information. Is it not therefore worth the right hon. Gentleman's while to reflect upon the argnments which have been used, and to consider whether he cannot find other words between now and the Report stage?
    Mr. LONG: I am quite willing to consider on the Report stage any suggestion of the kind, but really there has been no general case made out that confusion exists. Certain doubts have been expressed, and I have endeavoured to meet those doubts. They were largely connected with the possibility of penalties. I have made it quite clear that the penalty Clause is safeguarded, and in these circumstances I think that the general sense of the Committee is that we should amend the Clause as I have suggested.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has met our criticism, and to ask him to note with regard to the Amendment which he proposes to introduce, under which a workman will have to say whether he is engaged under a Government Department or not, that the question is already answered in paragraph (a), which requires the workman to state who is his employer and the nature of his employer's business. I beg to withdraw the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    The CHAIRMAN: Unless this Amendment is withdrawn, it will be impossible to put in the Government concessions. I was not aware of them until I had put the Question, and I have already put the Question that words beyond the Government Amendment stand part of the Clause. If hon. Members object to the withdrawal of the Amendment, the concessions cannot therefore be put in. [An HON. MEMBER: "They could be put in on the Report stage!"] There may be no Report stage, because so far there has been no Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. LONG: I beg to move in Subsection (1), paragraph (b), after the word "for," to insert the words "or under."
    Mr. HOLT: The words are clearly superfluous, because the answer to them is involved in the question which asks the name and address of the employer and the nature of the employer's business. If the man is employed by a Government Department, the answer to that question is: "I am employed at the War Office."
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: There are many businesses which do an enormous amount of contracting work, and it is ridiculous to expect men to say whether or not they are engaged on Government work.
    Mr. LONG: With regard to the Amendments which I have made, with every desire to meet the wishes of the Committee, I would ask that they should be considered as a whole.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I am quite prepared to give the Government the Subsection as it stands in the Bill, but I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should consider between now and the Report stage the suggestions which have been made, not in the interest of those who have put them forward, but
    496
    in the interests of the Bill and the object which he is aiming at. There is no doubt that large numbers of men are employed by firms and collieries where the work done is mixed, some being for the Government and some not, and the men therefore would not be able to answer this question. I am afraid that will injure the working of the Bill, and I hope therefore the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to give the point his serious consideration. I feel it would be much better to do without these words.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In paragraph (b), leave out the words, "or otherwise serving war purposes."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I rise to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), to leave out the words, "and willing."
    I venture to submit that the deletion of these words would improve this Subsection. If they are left out my right hon. Friend will find out where a man is skilled and able to perform any work other than that on which he is employed at the time. In my case the right lion. Gentleman has succeeded in casting his net so wide that he gets me in by just five months. I may have to answer this question whether I am skilled in and able to perform any other work than that which I am performing at the present moment. I am not quite sure I am skilled in the work I am performing at this moment, and I am still more doubtful if I am skilled in any other work. If the words "and willing" are left in I may be holding myself up as a person who is not desirous of serving his country, and I shall also be exercising what I think is the worst form of compulsion, namely, getting a good and willing person to come forward, because he does not like it to appear in a written document that he is not willing to serve his country. But you will not get the slacker and lazy fellow with a thick skin. He will still have the opportunity of saying, "I am not coming forward," and nothing will happen to him. I should think the object of my right hon. Friend is to find out whether people are skilled in work other than that on which they are> employed at the time, and he will find that without difficulty if these words are left out. I am in favour of national service. But I am in favour of it all round, and I do not want to put compulsion upon one young lad while leaving out another lad. If the words "and willing" are left in, not

    497
    only will they have that effect, but they will also have this additional effect, that a large number of people who may have a greater idea of their own powers than other people have will say, in their desire to be patriotic, that they are able and willing to perform certain work which, when they are called upon by the right hon. Gentleman to do it, it will be found they are not able to perform. Take the agricultural labourer. He is asked to say whether he is able and willing to perform other work. I do not want to make agricultural labourers out to be better than any other class, but, so far as I know them, they have been extremely patriotic and desirous of coming forward. An agricultural labourer will certainly say he is able and willing to do something else, and when he is tried he will certainly be found to be willing, but it is very doubtful whether he will be found to be able. My right hon. Friend shakes his head. I think he will believe I am desirous of improving the Clause.
    Mr. LONG: Oh, yes!
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have no other object. I do not wish in any kind of way to put any obstruction in the way of inducing men to come forward and serve their country. I do not want what has happened up to the present time, and what I am sure is bad, that all the good men should leave the country to be killed and that all the slackers should stay at home. My belief is that that is encouraging and taking away good men who ought to be left at home.
    Mr. LONG: My hon. Friend misunderstood my shake of the head. I was not deprecating his action. What I meant was that T did not quite agree with him in his illustration of the agricultural labourer and the idea that he can claim to be skilled in other trades. One of the reasons why these words were put in was because a good deal of information reached us as to the position of certain men with knowledge in connection with mechanics, probably of an elementary character, and of knowledge of some of the skilled trades by amateurs who have a certain amount of time at their disposal and who are very anxious to have an opportunity of placing their services, by their own act, at the command of the country. So many of these intimations have reached us from so many different quarters that we thought these words ought to be included. I laid some stress on that aspect of the case in the earlier
    498
    speeches I made. I should not like to leave the words out unless there be a very strong feeling on the part of the Committee that it would be desirable to remove them.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If these people are willing and desirous they can always come forward and it is not necessary that you should say so.
    Mr. LONG: Obviously that applies to the whole Bill if you deal only with volunteers. My idea was to give a special opportunity to those who register to declare their willingness to serve their country. I know it meets a general wish throughout the country, and I should be sorry to omit the words. I do not think they are of an overwhelming importance, but if it is the general wish of the Committee to omit them it is not a matter on which I should ask them to spend much time or resist with any determination. I think the words had better remain in.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will retain the words. I do so because I am thoroughly convinced that this will give an opportunity for the retention of the voluntary system of service in which so many of us are interested. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has failed to understand something of the psychology of the human mind in this matter. If a person is not to express his willingness to serve he will be inclined to exaggerate his qualifications. If, together with the statement of what he can do he expresses his willingness to serve, you may take it that he will not overstate what it is that he can undertake. There is another point. I believe the Minister of Munitions has been able to mobilise a very considerable amount of labour from such unlikely places as the Stock Exchange. He has got men with a little mechanical skill who with a little training have been able, I am informed, to turn out a considerable number of shells. There we can, by giving opportunities to men of a similar kind to state their qualifications, give them an opportunity of offering their services, and I believe we shall meet a desire in the country for men to put down what their qualifications are in this connection and then also give them an opportunity for offering their services. The Government will then have in their hands a great deal of detailed information they do not at present possess and will be able to take advantage of it. Therefore I hope the words will be retained.
    General Sir IVOR HERBERT: I do not know that I altogether followed one part of the hon. Member's argument, but I rise to support the Amendment, because I think my right hon. Friend will be quite safe in assuming that everyone is willing. That has been my experience ever since the War began. Everyone is expressing his willingness to do all he can do, and very often a great deal that he cannot. Therefore I think willingness may be assumed. At the same time I recognise the point of view put forward by the President of the Local Government Board, that people like to have it recorded that they are willing. There may be something in it, and for that reason I should not be inclined to press the Amendment very far, but my own feeling is very strongly in favour of the Amendment.
    Sir W. BEALE: I think the Amendment will greatly strengthen the means of getting a full, complete, and serviceable return. It must not be forgotten that this Bill is not popular. There is the underlying fear that it will lead to compulsion. I like the Bill none the less, because I regard it as one on which you can found a good attempt to do without compulsion, but also because, if the occasion arises, it is one on which you can have a system of compulsion if necessary. I believe the apprehension that the question may come up is pretty universal throughout the country, and I think you will meet the same difficulty which was met when the householders' return was asked for before. Of course, I do not come within this, on account of age, to make a return myself, but I shall use my influence with every man I can to make a full and proper return. It is all very well to tell a man, "This does not mean compulsion, it only means that you are to state you willingness to come when you are wanted," but he says, "Why should I say I am willing to go when there are those men down in the village loafing away all their time?" What am I to tell that man? He believes that if he says he is willing he is offering himself for selection if compulsion comes in preference to men who ought certainly to be called on. The men I have in mind are not really unwilling, and none of them would like to say they are unwilling, but they may be forced to say so if the words "are willing" remain in the Clause. For instance, they may not be willing to change their present employment. I am speaking apart from
    500
    compulsory military service. Suppose a man is a handyman on an estate. He may say "I do not want, and I am not willing to leave my present employment unless you want me." If he goes they will have to get someone equally efficient to fill his place. It will certainly, in my opinion, check what you intend to do, namely, to get a full and complete return if you insist upon a man stating on the face of an official return whether he is willing to go or not He may not be willing to go at the time, but some change may come and he may be willing when you want him. I do not think it will serve a useful purpose to insist that he should make this statement about willingness.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: My right hon. Friend said he would be willing to sacrifice some of the words in the Clause if he found there was a general sense of the Committee to that effect, and as the only speeches that have since been made have been pressing him to make that change—
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    Mr. McNEILL: At any rate, for my part, and I am sure there are a great many others. I would very much prefer to have the Clause as it is rather than have the Amendment. I profoundly disagree with a great deal that was said by the hon. Member (Sir W. Beale). I do not believe for a moment that there is any such apprehension as he seems to think in the country as to the effect of this Bill. So far from there being an apprehension that this Bill may be used for the purpose he suggests, if there is any feeling at all, it is one of disappointment in knowing that it will not be so used. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) showed by his speech that he was willing to improve the Clause, but he showed by his Amendment that he was not able to do so. In regard to what my right hon. Friend said, this provision is certainly meant to deal with the class of persons of whom we have heard a good deal—the men who do not profess to be professionals, but who have some skill in some trade and would be quite willing, in a more or less amateurish way, to give their service in that trade. That information would not be at the disposal of the Government unless these people were in a position on the register to say they were not only able to some extent to do the work, but willing to give their services.
    Mr. J. MASON: I should be very sorry to see the words "and willing" altogether lost, but I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether, owing to the difficulty of answering the question, it would not be desirable to separate the question, and ask (1) whether he is able to perform any work other than the work (if any) at which he is at the time employed; and (2) whether he is willing to do so. There are lots of men who cannot claim to be skilled in certain work, but who are, notwithstanding, quite willing to do some work. Take the case of the man who is just over the military age, who has never been a soldier. He cannot claim to be skilled in military service, but if the age limit is raised he may be willing to become a soldier. If the question was separated in the way I suggest I believe it would facilitate matters.
    Mr. E. JARDINE: I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to leave out these words "and willing." I do not agree with the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that there would be any difficulty, because I take it that it would be very easy to put the question: "Are you able to perform," etc. A second question would be, "If able, are you willing? But we are at war. We are losing quite 2,000 men a day. If people are needed for service, surely they should be called upon. Is it not really serious of us to be wasting time discussing whether a man is willing or not? If he is able, he should be called upon.
    Sir FRANCIS LOWE: I cannot conceive it possible that any man, if he is skilled to perform certain work, would not be willing to perform it at a juncture like the present. Generally I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London says in this House, but I really think that he is splitting straws now. There is nothing whatever in what he said, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will stick to the wording of the Clause as it stands.
    Mr. CAVE: Supposing a man is willing to perform other work but is not skilled in it, how is he to answer the question? Apparently no provision is made for a man desirous of saying, "I will do anything whatever that the Government ask me to do, but I cannot say that I am skilled in any particular work other than my own." There is no place for him to make that statement. I was struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor said as to whether the questions should not be put separately, or, at all events, whether we
    502
    should not ask a man—first, whether he is skilled, and secondly, whether he is willing to perform other work.
    Amendment negatived.
    The following Amendment stood in the name of the hon. Member for Hanley: After paragraph (c) to add the words, "Whether he is in possession of land at present utilised in the main for the preservation of game or as a private park which is capable of producing food for human consumption, and, if so, the approximate area and situation thereof?"
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Hanley is outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I submit that you may take the view that this Amendment is not entirely outside the scope of the Bill if you consider the question which we are discussing? When you ask a man whether there is any other work which he can perform it is obvious that great numbers of men will reply that they would be able to utilise the soil. There are large numbers of men who come to town occupations from the country. I suggest that this gives the Government the opportunity of enabling men to do good work in the production of food in this country, and that therefore this Amendment follows as supplementary to this Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that it would require a new Bill.
    Amendment made: Leave out paragraph (d).
    The following Amendment stood in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson): After Subsection (3) to add the following words, "(4) It shall be the duty of every employer of labour (including heads of Government Departments) to fill up and sign a form showing the particulars above referred to in respect of all such persons as aforesaid who are in his employment."
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I think it would be well to have some such inquiry. Still, after the clear expression of the right hon. Gentleman's view about duplicating returns, I will not press this Amendment, which undoubtedly is a distinct duplicate in itself.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Completion and Correction of Forms.)
    The local registration authority shall cause the forms when filled up and signed to be examined, and such of them as appear to be imcomplete or incorrect to be completed or corrected, and may take such steps as appear to them necessary to enable such completion or correction to be effected, and where it appears to the local registration authority that no form has been returned or that the form returned cannot be completed or corrected without the personal attendance of the person concerned, they may require his attendance at such place and at such time as they may appoint, and it shall be the duty of every person whose attendance is so required to attend, and to answer such questions as may be addressed to him for the purpose of enabling the form to be filled up, completed, or corrected.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Bight to Certificates of Registration.)
    After the return by a person of a form filled up and signed, and, where necessary, completed and corrected, in accordance with this Act, there shall be supplied to him a certificate of registration, which shall be signed and preserved by him.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Notification of Changes of Address, etc.)
    (1) If any person registered under this Act changes his place of residence he shall, unless such change is merely temporary, within twenty-eight days thereafter send or deliver to the local registration authority of the district in which the new place of residence is situate, by post or otherwise his certificate or registration with the new place of residence noted thereon, and there shall be supplied to him a fresh certificate of registration, and if his new place of residence is in a different district from that in which the previous place of residence was situate, the local registration authority receiving the certificate shall communicate the change to the local registration authority of the last-mentioned district and the change shall be noted in the register.
    (2) Within twenty-eight days after the arrival in the United Kingdom of any person between such ages as aforesaid, he shall, if not previously registered, send or deliver to a local registration authority, by post or otherwise, notice of his arrival,
    504
    together with the particulars concerning himself required by this Act to be registered, and shall, if so required, attend at such place and time as the authority may appoint, and shall answer such questions as may be addressed to him for the purpose of enabling the necessary particulars to be registered, and thereupon shall be supplied with a certificate of registration.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. KING: I really think that this Clause wants some consideration on points in regard to which we hoped to get some concessions from the right hon. Gentleman. There is a good deal of feeling about what he himself has called "the ticket-of-leave Clause." It seems to me quite unnecessary, once having got a man registered, to pursue him about after he has moved and to impose upon him the duty of registering himself perhaps several times. If for various reasons he has changed his address, and he has to make another return, it does seem to me quite unnecessary, and certainly is likely to cause friction and suspicion. I hope we may have some justification of this Clause, and have enacted some concessions or modifications which would be very gratefully received.
    Mr. LONG: The precedent for this Clause was received with unanimous assent by the House of Commons in connection with the National Insurance Act, and if the machinery has worked smoothly and easily where a man claims 5s. a week, there surely would be no objection where a man wants to give his services to his country. The same applies to penalties, and there are proper safeguards that where the act of a man is justified by the circumstance there will not be any proceedings. The penalties are somewhat similar to those existing under the Census Act, and I think are necessary.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Supposing this Bill passes, as I hope it will, in a day I shall have to register all my female servants, not to offend the hon. Gentleman opposite, I register my female servants in London. I then, unfortunately, have a house in the country, and when this House rises, as I hope it will before August, I go down with my female servants to the house in the country. Am I to notify to the local registration authority that I have left London, and have all my servants to notify that they have changed? Then Parliament is summoned again in November.

    505
    I come back to London, and am I again to notify the people in London I have left my house in the country, which is mine, subject to the pleasure of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and the house in London is also mine. Are my female servants again to notify the registration authority that they have come back? That, as far as I can see, will be the effect of the Bill, and I have consulted my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) on the point.
    Mr. LONG: I do not know that I am bound to assist my hon. Friend to carry on his household arrangements. I am "bound to say if he has a house in London and a house in the country, and if he is fortunate enough to have a large staff of female servants, I do not think he deserves any sympathy if he has to go to the "enormous" labour of notifying the change.
    Mr. HOLT: Do the Local Government Board expect when a person moves from one district to another that there is to be complete re-registration, or is the person simply to send in notice of the change of address? If the latter is all that has got to be done you may take it for granted that it will be of no use to anybody. If you are going to ask people to send you any notification of any value you have got to have complete re-registration. This is going to cause an enormous amount of friction in the country, and if the President of the Local Government Board is well advised it will be much better for him to explain exactly what it is he expects to do on changes of residence, and exactly why he wants to have it done.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered this Clause from the standpoint of elaborate and expensive machinery which will be necessary in order to record these changes of address. Let the Committee think of what happens in London alone. In London alone the entire population changes its address, on an average, once a year, so great are the number of times that many of the industrial classes have to change their address. That means that a very considerable number of persons will have to be employed permanently in order to record those changes of address. The detailed work will be so great that it will make for efficiency to the working of the Bill if this Clause is omitted altogether. If this Clause is maintained, I trust that the certificates of registration will be printed on parchment, otherwise it will be a very tattered rem-
    506
    nant which will travel between the registration authorities on many occasions. I think, if the right hon. Gentleman inquires of the Insurance Department, which is engaged in working the Insurance Act, he will find that most serious difficulties have occurred in connection with this provision, and that some administrative portions of the Act have actually been threatened with a complete breakdown owing to this particular provision. I earnestly beg him, unless he is attached to this Section, and unless it has in it greater advantages than appear on the face of it, to omit it.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I want to put a simple and practical question. The Bill says that "if any person shall change his residence, unless the residence is "merely temporary." I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to define in the Bill what "merely temporary" means. But I hope he will express an opinion here which could be quoted to any local authority requiring it. It would save a great deal of trouble if the right hon. Gentleman could make some pronouncement, if it could be done in half a dozen words, as to what he regards as "temporary" change of residence?
    Mr. LONG: In reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hexham, the object of the Clause is to secure as far as possible accuracy. The intention is not, as suggested, to embarrass people. It is to ensure that they shall make these alterations if they were again to live, more or less permanently, in a different part of the world. The idea is that their services should be available for national purposes. Obviously, if a man has moved from one place to another, the very fact of his removal would make his service impossible for the moment. Therefore it is only intended when the change is really of a permanent character that he should intimate that he has changed his address. So far as the question of the hon. Member (Mr. Whitehouse) is concerned, my information a couple, of days ago is that this power is being worked quite smoothly under the Insurance Act. I hope the Committee will now come to a decision. The views taken of the possible success or failure of the Clause are largely dependent upon the views entertained as to the success or failure of the Bill. Therefore as it seems to me that there are more who look forward to the success than those who take the opposite view I hope we shall get the Clause.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Where are the large numbers who come from Ireland to Scotland to be registered?
    Mr. LONG: I do not know that they are not registered in Ireland, but I presume they were in Scotland. As a matter of fact, I do not believe they stayed in Scotland for more than six weeks.
    Mr. HOLT: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that a man who registers when he changes his address has to register all those other circumstances which must necessarily follow change of address?
    Mr. LONG: It is very difficult to answer carefully prepared conundrums of that character. I should imagine that all that would happen would be that a man would indicate his change of address. That is all we desire of him. That is all that is contemplated by the Bill as it stands. Those are the views which we shall endeavour to impress on the local authorities in the instructions which we shall issue to them.
    Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Matters to be Prescribed by Instructions.)
    The Local Government Board may issue such instructions as appear to them to be necessary for carrying this Act into effect, and may by such instructions prescribe—

    (a) the manner in which the register is to be compiled, and the nature of the forms to be issued; and

    (b) the duties of registration authorities, and persons employed by them under this Act; and

    (c) anything authorised by this Act to be prescribed.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill

    CLAUSE 9.—(Expenses.)
    Mr. LONG: I postpone this Clause.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Right to Use Schools, etc.)
    A local registration authority may for the purposes of this Act use free of charge any room which may be used for the purposes of taking a poll at a Parliamentary election, subject, however, to the conditions and provisions subject to which it may be so used.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. KING: I beg to oppose the Clause. I consider that there are very good reasons indeed for doing so. If the local authority wants a school at all, it will not want it for one day; it will want it for a considerable time. The Ballot Act, Section 19, only empowers the authority that takes an election to take the ballot in the school, which means, of course, the use of the school for one day only. If, on the other hand, the school which is required for the purpose of this Act is required at all, I cannot see but that it will be required for a very much longer period than one day. That might mean, and almost certainly would mean, breaking into the school life of the village or the school life of a district for a week, two weeks, or more, and apparently there is no power in any other authority—the education authority or the Board of Education—to stop that, which will amount to the shutting up of a school for a consider able time. No explanation was given and it was not referred to, so far as I can make out, in the course of the Second Reading of the Bill, and unless some explanation is forthcoming—
    And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  CONSOLIDATED BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE).
  Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House to join with a Committee of the Lords on Consolidation Bills have leave to sit notwithstanding the adjournment of the House.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Whereupon Mr. 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 Two minutes after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  RIFLES.
  RIFLES.
  ORDERS FOR LOCOMOTIVES.
  ORDERS FOR LOCOMOTIVES.
  METROPOLITAN FIRE BRIGADE.
  METROPOLITAN FIRE BRIGADE.
  OPERATIONS IN DARDANELLES.
  OPERATIONS IN DARDANELLES.
  RE-ENLISTED SOLDIERS (BADGES).
  RE-ENLISTED SOLDIERS (BADGES).
  IMMATURE POTATOES (SALE IN CANTEENS).
  IMMATURE POTATOES (SALE IN CANTEENS).
  COLONIAL PRIME MINISTERS.
  COLONIAL PRIME MINISTERS.
  ENGLISH COMPANIES (GERMAN SUBJECTS).
  ENGLISH COMPANIES (GERMAN SUBJECTS).
  Dividends Abroad.
  Dividends Abroad.
  School Children (Employment).
  School Children (Employment).
Preamble
Appeal Committee—Third Report from; read, and agreed to.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TRENT NAVIGATION TRANSFER) BILL.

  BARNOLDSWICK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  Board of Education (Regulations, Grants to Schools for Mothers)—Regulations under which Grants to Schools for Mothers in England and Wales will be made by the Board of Education: Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

DUNFERMLINE AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
    To be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Hylton).
ELECTRIC LIGHTING' PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    Committee to meet on Wednesday next.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (DERBYSHIRE, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
IRVINE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been reported from the Committee, and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection in regard to the Southampton (Extension) Order.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE (OUSE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE AVENINGHAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed for Wednesday next.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House and I hope expedite the passage of this Bill with its various Amendments through Committee if I make a few introductory observations by way of explanation of the position in which the Bill is now presented to your Lordships. There are a number of Amendments standing in my name on the Paper which, with a few exceptions at the end, with which I will

283
deal in the course of my remarks, are all recommended for insertion in the Bill by the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills. The object of the Bill, as the Joint Select Committee state in their Report, is to consolidate the existing law contained in a series of Acts dating back to the year 1770 relating to the government of India. In the Bill as now drafted, the Joint Select Committee have made certain Amendments for the purpose of bringing the Bill into closer conformity with the existing law or of simplifying the form of law without in any way altering the substance. These Amendments are included in the Bill as it is now presented to your Lordships, and they are set out in Appendix A of the Report of the Joint Select Committee with a brief description showing the reasons why such alterations have been proposed. The Committee report that the Bill thus amended represents the existing law as contained in the various Acts which they have examined and which are consolidated in this measure, and it reproduces the provisions of these Acts as understood and construed by existing constitutional practice. Therefore I think I may say with complete confidence that the Bill is purely and simply a consolidation measure construed as such on strict and rigid lines with no attempt at any actual amendment of the law.
In the case of a long series of enactments extending, as these do, over a period of upwards of 140 years and many of them overlapping each other, your Lordships will readily understand that, with the best intention to reproduce in a consolidation measure the actual effect of what I may term a jumble of ancient texts, considerable difficulties beset the Joint Select Committee in their work. They found themselves in this dilemma, that they must either on the one hand propose in many instances clauses which would be obviously unworkable and would, if inserted in the Bill, in modern conditions produce almost nonsense, or on the other hand they must suggest alternatives which in their essence would frankly depart from the original wording of the previous Acts. The Committee in their Report indicate very clearly the difficulties with which they were confronted; and having strictly kept to codification throughout they recommend, in addition to the alterations now inserted in the Bill, certain
284
other Amendments which are to be found in Appendix B of their Report and which they suggest Parliament might accept in a Consolidation Bill as representing three vital principles—first, that such Amendments will clear up ambiguities in the existing law; secondly, that they will confirm constitutional practice; and, thirdly, that they will remove provisions which through lapse of time have now become inoperative. The object and character of each of these Amendments is briefly but clearly described in Appendix B in notes appended to each of these respective Amendments. It would occupy your Lordships' time unnecessarily were I to attempt to go through these various Amendments or to elaborate the explanations already given; but if any noble Lord desires further explanation of any of them I will endeavour to the best of my ability to answer any question put to me upon them.
I will take, by way of illustration, one class of Amendment and make a few explanatory observations to show the kind of, alteration which is suggested. Your Lordships will notice that in ten different places it is proposed, where the words "British India" occur, to omit the word "British." Among those ten Amendments I will take the one in Clause 5. That clause states that the Council of India, under the direction of the Secretary of State, shall conduct correspondence with British India., and it adds that every order sent to British India shall be signed by the Secretary of State. I think your Lordships will agree that in this instance common sense suggests that the expression "British India" as we see India to-day would limit to a pedantic degree the provision in this clause. There is, as your Lordships know, almost daily correspondence between the India Office and those parts of India which lie outside British India—the territories of India known as the Native States; and the Viceroy himself, in the course of his official duties, has from time to time to visit these Native States. You will therefore realise what unnecessary delay and quite unnecessary embarrassment would be caused if, by retaining the word "British," correspondence were delayed either to the officials resident in the Native States or to high officials visiting those States. Therefore the omission of the word "British," I think your Lordships will agree, would be an advantage.

285
We are merely restoring the language of the Act of 1858, which habitually speaks of "India" and not of "British India." But in order to lie quite frank with your Lordships I think it is right to observe that the Act of 1856 defines India as "territories vested in His Majesty," no separate phrase for India in the largest sense existing in those days. Since 1858 the distinction has been sharply drawn as between India in the wider souse and British India in the more restricted sense, in the Interpretation Act of 1889. That. Act lays down that British. India constitutes those parts of India under British government, whilst India represents those parts of India under British government and the Native States. In codifying old Acts like these, therefore, the question must arise in the minds of those who are undertaking this difficult and delicate task, to what extent are they to interpret the practice of to-day and to what extent are they to leave the actual phraseology in the original state. I hope your Lordships will agree that the proposed Amendment in the instance which I have cited is one which only complies with the common practice. The other nine cases in which it is proposed to omit the word "British" are on similar lines, and I will not delay your Lordships by further explanation.
I might, perhaps, be allowed to say a word with regard to an important clause which has undergone considerable verbal amendment on the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee. I refer to Clause 121, which deals with the liability in connection with certain offences by officers under the Crown. This Amendment is carefully explained by the Joint Select Committee in their note appended to the Amendment, and the clause as proposed is in accordance with existing law. The clause in the Bill as it stood without amendment, would be necessarily incomplete in accordance with modern conditions, because there are several important officers whose positions have been created since those early enactments. There is certain phraseology was not made in the early days for the modern joint stock company which has come into existence since those measures were enacted. This has alt been now brought up to date in accordance with the spirit and practice of the law as it obtains to-day in India.
286
I will not detain your Lordships longer with the Amendments on the Paper which are specifically recommended by the Joint Select Committee, but I would ask you to observe that at the end of the marshalled list there are certain Amendments standing in my name dealing with the Fifth Schedule of the Bill. Although not specifically recommended by them for amendment in this Consolidation Bill the Joint Select Committee, in paragraph 7 on page ii of their Report, give many instances where the Schedule is susceptible of alteration to effect an improvement of the law. I propose, after consultation with my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India, to withdraw the Amendments on, Schedule 5 which I have placed on the Paper, with the exception of the one referred to at the bottom of page viii of the Joint Select Committee's Report which is merely consequential upon the Amendment to the clause with which I was dealing just now—Clause 121. My reasons for withdrawing those Amendments are two-fold. In the first place, there are so many provisions in this Bill in its consolidated form which must, to bring them in accordance with modern usage and practice, be amended that it is considered in the India Office advisable that no attempt should be made to deal with these amendments piecemeal. It has been considered that it would be much better to have this measure upon the Statute Book in its consolidated form, in order that it may then form a basis for comprehensive amendment throughout after deliberate consideration in the India Office and in consultation with the Government of India.
Lord MacDonnell has an Amendment on the Paper to omit the whole of the Fifth Schedule. I would ask him, and I hope he will favourably consider my suggestion, to withdraw his Amendment. I might, perhaps, be allowed here to point out that there are certain clauses in the Schedule itself which it would be most undesirable to have omitted from the Statute. For instance, there are certain clauses there—between 106 and 111—the omission of which from the Schedule would have the effect, I am given to understand, of withdrawing the authority of the Government of India Over the High Courts of India. It would necessitate the withdrawal of certain provisions in the High Court Act, which would have the effect of placing the High Courts independent of the Govern-

287
ment of India, and I am sure the noble Lord would be the last person in this House to desire to see such an infraction of the law. I only point out that there are clauses in this Schedule which it is most desirable should be retained, and therefore it is very necessary that most careful consideration should be given to each respectively before any proposal is made for their omission. That is the reason why I ask noble Lords who have Amendments down to-day with the purpose of improving the Bill to be good enough to forego their Amendments on this occasion, and to wait—I hope not for long—until an Amending Bill is submitted to your Lordships dealing with the whole matter comprehensively. I may say that already an Amending Bill has been drafted, that portions of it have been sent out to India for consideration, and that directly this Bill is on the Statute Book it will he dealt with throughout and an Amending Bill introduced bringing all these matters up to date. That is the first reason why I propose to withdraw the Amendments standing in my name to the Fifth Schedule.
My second reason is in deference to the very strong desire on the part of the Joint Select Committee who undertook the difficult task of consolidating these Acts to confine this Bill purely and simply to consolidation. I appreciate, with my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn and his colleagues on that Committee, the great importance of in no way infringing that principle, especially in view of the fact that there are so many other groups of Acts now under examination by that Committee the consolidation of which will be so important to Government in many departments of our public life. In conclusion, in submitting for your Lordships' approval the proposals both in the Bill and in the Amendments upon the Paper proposed by the Joint Select Committee, I would couple the hope that the noble Lords who have tabled Amendments which involve alterations in the law will on this occasion forego pressing their Amendments, and will leave them over to that more appropriate time—at no distant period, I should hope—when an Amending Bill will be presented to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Amendments made in the Bill by the Joint Select Committee for the purpose of bringing it into closer conformity with the existing law, agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
The Council of India.
3.—(1)The Council of India shall consist of such numbers of members, not less than ten and not more than fourteen, as the Secretary of State may determine.
(2) The right of tilling any vacancy in the council shall be vested in the Secretary of State.
(3) Unless at the time of an appointment to fill a vacancy in the council nine of the then existing members of the council are persons who have served or resided in British India for at least ten rears, and have not last loft British India more than five years before the date of their appointment, the person appointed to till the vacancy must be so qualified.
(4) Every member of the council shall hold office, except as by this section provided, for a term of seven years.
(5) The Secretary of State may, for special reasons of public advantage, re-appoint for a further term of five years any member of the council whose term of office has expired. In any such case the reasons for the re-appointment shall be set forth in a minute signed by the Secretary of State and hid before both Houses of Parliament. Save as aforesaid, a member of the council shall not be capable of re-appointment.
(6) Any member of the council may, by writing signed by him, resign his office. The instrument of resignation shall be recorded in the minutes of the council.
(7) Any member of the council may be removed by His Majesty from his office on an address of both Houses of Parliament.
(8) There shall he paid to each member of the council out of the revenues of India the annual salary of one thousand pounds.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, I wish to explain my position at once. Nothing is further from my intention than in any way to interpose unnecessary or unreasonable opposition to the passage of this Bill, because I think it is an achievement of the legislative department of the Government of India which cannot receive too much praise. It is the completion of a work which was undertaken over forty years ago, and I would be the last person to do anything unnecessarily to impede its progress. At the same time there are one or two points which I think it desirable to bring to the notice of your Lordships. One is in connection with the Amendment now before the House, to omit from subsection (3)

289
of Clause 3 the word "British." That Subsection runs as follows—
Unless at the time of an appointment to fill vacancy in the council nine of the then existing members of the council are persons who have served or resided in British India for at least ten years, and have not last left British India more than five years before the date of their appointment, the person appointed to fill the vacancy must be so qualified.
The omission of the word "British" would render it possible for a person who live the whole period in a Native State in which British law as current in the rest of India did not obtain, and who had no knowledge whatever of the system of British administration or of British law in India, to be appointed to the Council of I think that is a very serious matter. I submit that a gentleman appointed to the Council of the Secretary of State should have hail such a residence in India as had enabled him to become well acquainted with the system of British administration in India, the laws obtaining there, and the general practice. For this reason I think it would be unwise to omit "British" before the word "India" in the subsection in question.
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, I do not profess to offer any opinion as regards the propriety of appointing to the Council of India a person who had served only in a Native State. That is a matter for those who are Indian experts. But I think it desirable to state now, at the first stage in Committee on this Bill, what is the real nature of what we have before us and what is the real danger which I apprehend. That has been admirably stated by my noble friend Lord Islington, but as Chairman of the Joint Select Commit1w who took this Bill in hand perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words upon it. This is a most complicated, intricate, and difficult Bill dealing with the government of India. It is very difficult in itself, but there is also a certain what. I may call filigree work which the Statutes have encrusted upon them representing customs and practice. The language of the old Statutes is at sonic places almost antiquated. The conditions have changed. For example, India is an infinitely greater place than British India used to be in the early days, and the task of kneading together what has been enacted in the past so as to make the measure a photographic reproduction of what the law is at the present time
290
controlled by constitutional practice in India has been a most difficult one. What we have done may be illustrated by this particular Amendment now before your Lordships. In this particular case the question is who are to be allowed to sit on the Council of India. We have reported to the House that the law should he in the terms of this clause, unless at the time of an appointment to fill a vacancy in the Council nine of the then existing members of the Council are persons who have served or resided in British India for at least ten years. That is in the Bill as now before your Lordships. We present the clause in that form because that is the language of the existing Act. But the conditions have changed, and it has been thought that service in any part of India should be sufficient. The Government propose in this particular Amendment, as I understand it, to alter the Bill in pursuance of our recommendation—
Loan MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I understand that the clause with the word "British" in it is the recommendation of the Committee, and that it is the Government who wish to alter it.
EARL LOREBURN: On our recommendation the Bill stands with the words "British India" in it, and the Government propose, acting on our recommendation in Appendix B, to omit the word "British." To that my noble friend Lord MacDonnell objects. It is undoubtedly the case that if Lord Islington's Amendment were accepted it would to a slight degree alter the Statute as existing at the present moment. We certainly did recommend this, but we did so thinking the Amendment would be unobjectionable and uncontroversial, because if you keep all these things upon the footing of British India you will in most cases depart from the actual intention of the Legislature when the Act in question was passed. I may tell my noble friend Lord MacDonnell that I have no sort of bias in this matter. I have only tried, as chairman of the Joint Select Committee, to inform the House that it is the case that if the Government's Amendment were accepted it would constitute a slight alteration of the law. Whether my noble friend will think it necessary in this particular instance to press the. Amendment is more than I know, but as the proposal seems controversial I suggest that it might be better not to press the Amendment.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, this may seem an unimportant matter, but it does appear to me, as one who lived in India for five and a-half years and tried to study the conditions of life there, that it would make a great difference were you to render eligible for this high post one who might have lived during the whole of his time in India in Native States, for such a person would not be acquainted with the system and principles on which the administration of British India is carried on. I therefore hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD ISLINGTON: I hope that my noble friends will not press their objection, because this is an Amendment which was proposed by the Joint Select Committee and as such has been taken up by the Government and is now submitted to your Lordships. Lord MacDonnell suggests that there would be great danger in appointing to the India Council gentlemen who had occupied official positions in Native States, but in that he is assuming that the prerogative of the Secretary of State might undergo certain abuse. After all one must rely upon the Secretary of State, who has the authority for making these appointments, to see that proper appointments are made, and that those appointed are qualified not only from service in Native States but also from experience in British India.
I would point out a difficulty that might arise if the objection to this Amendment were insisted upon. There is a limitation in regard to appointment to the Council of India; an officer so appointed must not have left British India for more than five years before the date of appointment. If the noble Lord's objection to this Amendment were sustained, you might have the case of an officer who had served well in British India for fifteen years and had then been appointed to one of the important and responsible posts in a Native State and had resided there for five years, yet with all that accumulated experience lie would, by the limitation of British India being imposed, be disqualified from sitting on the India Council. I would ask the noble Lords who are opposing this Amendment not to press their objection on this occasion, because it seems to me that the Amendment only carries out the actual spirit and practice of the law as recognised in India to-day.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think that an important matter is involved in this Amendment. I was a member of the Joint Select Committee, but I do not go into the question of the merits as between the terms "British India" and "India." But if this Bill is to be a Consolidation Bill pure and simple, the word "British" ought to be retained unless there is general consent that it can be deleted. It. would be departing from the true principle of a Consolidation Bill to introduce an Amendment of this kind against the opposition of two noble Lords specially acquainted with Indian matters. I am most anxious to preserve the purity of consolidation work, and I think that in the circumstances my noble friend ought not to press the Amendment.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: Perhaps I may be permitted to say that so little ant I inclined to oppose the Amendments which the Under-Secretary of State for India has placed on the Paper that I intend to accept the whole of them, with the exception of this one; although I believe they are open to the objection which Lord Parmoor has just stated of being of a legislative character. But they all seem to me to be so reasonable and to be so required in the interests of India that I am determined to support all the Amendments down to and including Clause 19. Surely the noble Lord will recognise that on this point I would not raise an objection if I did not feel that you were incurring a great danger. The case which Lord Islington cited just now, of an officer who bad served for fifteen years in British India and then for five years in a Native State not being eligible for appointment to the Secretary of State's Council, is really not appropriate in any way. The danger which I have in my mind is not in connection with the appointment of British officials, but the appointment from a Native State of a gentleman who was not an official and who left England and went out to the Native State to make his fortune. I can recall an instance which occurred during the 'eighties where a gentleman, whose name I need not mention—it was a well known name in Indian politics at that time—came over here and afterwards became a Member of Parliament and obtained certain notoriety. It is quite possible that such a person in certain circumstances might be appointed to the Secretary of State's Council, and this qualification, were the Amendment agreed

293
to, would enable him to be appointed. It is against non-officials acquiring by this means a qualification for appointment to the Secretary of State's Council that I have raised objection to the deletion of the word "British" from this subsection.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I think we are all in agreement with what fell from the noble and learned Lord opt (Lord Parmoor) as to the proper limitations to be imposed upon a Consolidation Bill of this kind. My noble friend behind me (Lord Islington), however, endeavoured to point out— and I think was able to point out with not a little foree—that although this proposed Amendment does involve a certain change in the law as it stands and on that account may not appear to find a proper place in a Consolidation Bill but should rather be deferred until the time comes for the Amending Bill of which I spoke when I originally introduced this Bill when I was Indian Secretary, and of which my noble friend behind me has spoken to-day, yet as a matter of fact the spirit anti intention of the at it has stood during the period of our rule in India is on the whole more completely carried out by the Amendment than by the terms in the clause. That, I was the reason why my noble friend desired to ad here to this Amendment; and that is really the only question before us—whether an Amendment of this kind can be considered as properly relevant to a Consolidation Bill pure and simple, which it is the desire of us all that this should be.
I do not think, therefore, that a discussion on the merits is, strictly speaking, relevant. But as that question has been raised I should like to say that I do not find it easy to contemplate any practical danger which could arise from the adoption of this Amendment. The case which my noble friend Lord MacDonnell mentioned, that of the possibility of the addition to the Secretary of State's Council of some gentleman who had conducted a successful career, successful at any rate from his own point of view, in a Native State, is of course to the point; but if the case that he had in mind is the same as one which occurs to me—that of a gentleman whose name, at any rate, came before the Courts of this country in very notorious circumstances a good many years ago—it is, I think altogether impossible to suppose
294
that any Secretary of State could have selected that particular gentleman for his Council. But, however that may be, perhaps that side of the question is not altogether worth pursuing.
But in view of what has fallen from Lord MacDonnell and also from Lord Sydenham, whose Indian experience is both important and recent, I agree that it would be wise not to press this Amendment in this particular place. The subject will no doubt recur for consideration, or probably may, on its merits when the Amending Bill is produced; but meantime we are prepared not to insert this particular Amendment in this place. But I understand that my noble friend will move it in the other places in which the same words occur, and in those cases I understand no serious exception is taken to the proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Seat in council disqualification for Parliament. [1858, s. 12.]
4. No member of the Council of India shall be capable of sitting or voting in Parliament.
THE EARL OF CROMER: Your Lordships may remember that on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill I alluded to the fact that Clause l either excludes Peers from sitting on the Council of India, or at all events renders it very dubious whether they may sit on that Council. Lord Curzon, who is not in his place now, supported that view, and the noble Marquess who leads the House was by no means unsympathetic, but he pointed out—very reasonably, I think—that it was a point that could not be properly discussed in a consolidation measure. That view was also supported by Lord Loreburn and by Lord Haldane, and that was, of course, quite sufficient to put the matter altogether out of my mind if I had entertained any intention of moving an Amendment. But. the noble Lord now in charge of the Bill has said this afternoon that an Amending Bill will be subsequently introduced. I, of course, do not ask him to give any expression of opinion On the merits of this proposal now. But I hope this particular point will be considered when the Government of India are consulted, so that an opinion may be formed by the Government upon it prior to the Amending Bill being brought before the House.
LORD ISLINGTON: I will certainly take note of what the noble Earl has said, and when the Amending Bill is being dealt with the point that he has raised shall have due consideration.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 28, leave out ("British")
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 4, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 20, leave out ("British")
Page 6, line 22, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 33, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 36, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
39.—(1) The governor-general's executive council shall assemble at such places in India as the Governor-General in Council appoints.
(2) At any meeting of the council the governor-general or other person presiding and one ordinary member of the council may exercise all the functions of the Governor-General in Council.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, the Joint Select Committee as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Loreburn, has reminded you, profess to have produced the provisions of the existing law as understood and construed by existing constitutional practice. The constitutional practice in India, I believe I may say, since the enactment of the Indian Councils Act of 1861 is represented in Clause 41 of the third edition of Sir Courtenay Ilbert's Digest of the Statute Law relating to the Government of India. That clause runs as follows—
41.—(1) The Governor-General's Council hold ordinary meetings, that is to say, meetings for executive purposes; and legislative meetings, that is to say, meetings for the purpose of making laws.
(2) The ordinary and extraordinary members of the Governor-General's Council are entitled to be present at all meetings thereof.
In the Bill now before your Lordships it is stated that "the Governor-General's Executive Council shall assemble at such places in India as the Governor-General in Council appoints," and that "at any meeting of the Council the Governor-General or other person presiding acid one ordinary member of the Council may exercise all the functions of the Governor-General in Council."
Under this statement of the law it will be possible for the Governor-General to summon one member to his Council and not the rest, and to carry out with all the authority of the Government of India whatever business he pleases to place before himself and his colleague. I only plead that in this most important provision the constitutional practice of more than

297
half a century should he embodied in this Bill; and I venture to say that the constitutional practice a being such as I have read Sir Courtenay Ilbert's well-known book having stated it to be such, it will be considered by many to have been abrogated if this version of the law and practice is promulgated in India. I suppose that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the usual practice will be continued of communicating the Viceroy's invitation to the members of his Council when a Council is to be held. Of course, when the Viceroy goes on tour and it is not possible for his Council to go with him, a different procedure is provided in this Bill. It is possible for the Viceroy, when he goes on tour in that way, to act with the entire authority of the Governor-General in Council. But if he is on tour when grave discussions on very intricate and perhaps very exciting matters—matters involving a great deal of controversy, perhaps great opposition in the Viceroy's Councils—come up for discussion, it is only right and proper and in accordance with constitutional practice that the Viceroy should obtain the advice and assistance of the whole of his Council. I do not desire to make any imputations whatever, but in extremely acrimonious matters it is conceivable that the Viceroy, being convinced himself of the propriety of his conduct, might like to carry it over his Council. If he desires to overrule his Council there is a method for doing so—he places upon record his reasons, and the members of the Council place upon record their reasons. But the possibility of the Viceroy carrying out any project with the authority of the Government of India without making a record of his reasons caught to be prevented by the introduction in this place of the Amendment which I have the honour to propose.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 15, after ("appoints") insert:
(2) The ordinary and extraordinary members of the governor-general's council shall be entitled to be present at all meetings thereof.—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, this question is really one of first class importance. Though we who have Amendments on the Paper find ourselves in a difficult position because we are told that in a short time this Bill will be amended, yet we remember that this Bill has been nearly forty years on the legislative anvil,
298
and we do not feel quite sure that another forty years may not elapse before the Amending Bill comes to your Lordships' House, Even a layman like myself can perfectly understand the extreme, difficulties which faced the Joint Select Committee in dealing with this Bill, and I think we must all feel that they hare dealt with it in an exceedingly able manner considering the intricacy and magnitude of their task. I suppose the greatest difficulty with which they had to deal and constantly face was whether they should stand upon the letter of some old law or take a broader view and accept what Sir Courtenay Ilbert has called in his Digest the constitutional practice of long usage.
Some provisions in these old and unrepealed laws may have fallen into disuse, but if they appear in any form in this Consolidation Bill it will have the effect as it seems to me, of reviving them; in other words, it will result in making a new law, which we have been told on the highest authority was never intended in the case of a Consolidation Bill. Surely something of this kind has occurred in the clause to which my noble friend has brought forward an Amendment; and I really must say that I agree with every word he has said upon it. I think the change—for it is a change—in constitutional practice which the clause makes might he dangerous. I suppose in all Councils, even in the high Councils of the Viceroy, there may be and often is some one who would always support the Viceroy without pausing to consider the reasons why. As this clause stands power to do anything will vest in the Viceroy if he only summons one member to an important Council at which a grave matter has to be decided. I need not point out that grave results might follow from that course. It may well be that that would not happen, but I think we ought to guard ourselves against that danger in the meantime before the Amending Bill has been drafted and passed.
It is a well-known and salutary constitutional practice that every member of the Governor-General's Council should be entitled to be present at all meetings. And if this clause as it stands is passed, does it not have the effect of completely nullifying Clause 41 of the same Bill, which nearly follows it. That clause runs—
If any difference of opinion arises on any question brought before a meeting of the governor-

299
general's executive council, the Governor-General in Council shall be bound by the opinion and decision of the majority of those present and if they are equally divided the governor-general or other person presiding shall have a second or casting vote.
Those words can only mean that bona fide and not hole-and-corner meetings are held. If the Governor-General can select any member who happens to agree with him and hold a Council to deal with anything they agree upon, this salutary provision in Clause 41 becomes utterly worthless and what seems to me to be a considerable constitutional safeguard will disappear. Therefore I strongly support my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, I fully appreciate the point that has been brought forward by the two noble Lords and the arguments they have advanced in favour of the Amendment. The position of this proposal is that Sir Courtenay Ilbert, in all the three editions of his Digest I believe, has recommended that an addition to the clause should be proposed on these lines. But I would like to point out, on the other hand, that the words in the Amendment are in no existing Act, and therefore the addition of these words to Clause 39 would be a distinct amendment of the law. I do not think we need have the gloomy apprehension of my noble friend that the Amending Bill will take forty years to incubate. I trust it will be here long before that. Whilst admitting that there is a great deal to be said for the addition of the words proposed by the noble Lord, and whilst it would, perhaps, make the clause more complete when it is taken also with Clause 41, I at the same time place myself behind the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee and would ask the House and the noble Lords who have spoken to this Amendment to adhere to the principle on which we started out on this discussion—namely, that no amendments to the law should take place now, but that they should be reserved for an Amending Bill.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: Might I ask the noble Lord to refer to the concluding words of Paragraph 1 of the Committee's Report.
LORD ISLINGTON: Yes, I know what is at the end of Paragraph 1. But it is not suggested in that paragraph that this
300
particular clause does not come under the specific proposals of the Joint Select Committee. We are adhering to the specific proposals of the Select Committee. I hope that noble Lords will be satisfied with this undertaking on my part, speaking on behalf of the India Office, that when the Amending Bill is being drafted and alterations of the law are then specifically proposed, this proposal which they are making now will have very careful consideration. I hope that the noble Lords will be satisfied with that at this juncture, and will allow this Bill to stand as a Consolidation Bill, proposed as such by the Joint Select Committee.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords. I trust that you will not think it presumptuous of me to take part in this discussion, but having taken a great interest in India for many years and possessed property there for various charities and other institutions, I hope the noble Lord will press his Amendment to a Division. If necessary I could give details of cases in which certain individuals sometimes ride rough-shod over private rights; and when they get up to the hills and all the other people are away it is very difficult to get careful consideration, especially if several officials in the place happen to want the particular property for cantonments or other purposes which may be considered public purposes. In one case the property was taken away, and it required the intervention of the Viceroy himself to override the decision which was made by an official in a high place. I know of other cases which have come within my own personal experience during the last thirty years when I have been carrying on a certain amount of work there. Therefore I can assure you it is no imaginary danger of a Viceroy getting one member who agrees with him and doing these things. We all know on committees how tempting it is to have a sub-committee and have one or two with you who agree, and with no appeal from your decision. Under this clause as it stands something might be done which was very unfair and thus cause a bad impression of the justice of British rule in India.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, personally I am inclined to agree with what has fallen from my noble friends Lord Sydenham and Lord MacDonnell. But I would point out that if this clause were to be amended at all it would be absolutely

301
necessary to raise the question of the extraordinary anomaly which exists as between the Council of India assembled in and the Governor-General's Council. The Council of India is bound to meet once a week, whereas the Governor-General's Council need never be convened at all, or only at such intervals as may occur to a particular Governor-General. I very much doubt whether the old provision for the Council of India meeting once a week is a necessary one. On the other hand, I am certain that something ought to have been inserted in the Act which would more frequent statutory meetings of the Governor-General's Council, which on certain occasions has not been convened sufficiently often. But on the general understanding that we should not take anything that is contentious, I have not brought up that point. I cannot help however, that it might be well in a small supplementary measure to deal with both points.
EARL LOREBURN: My Lords, the Bill as it stands is unquestionably the Statute Law; it is not the Common Law. But it has been, I understand, the practice for all these gentlemen to be summoned. Can a Consolidation or any other Committee say, when that is the state of things, that the practice has been such that as a matter of constitutional law it has become equivalent to a Statute? When you are consolidating what you have to do is to find what the law is—that is, what the Statute is. This Amendment proposes to incorporate what is usually, and I have no doubt most properly, done; and if we were discussing what the law ought to be instead of what the law is, my own instincts would be very much to agree with the noble Lord behind me (Lord MacDonnell) and the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Sydenham).
The condition of the law in this country has been a subject of reproach for I do not know how long. We have done a good deal even in a few years, always by consent and always by avoiding every controversial point we can, towards putting the law in order, and we have a number of Consolidation Acts which are admitted to be thorough photographs of the law as it is. We treat amendments of the law as an entirely different thing. It is a very laborious task. It is undertaken for love by members of both Houses. The House of Commons is
302
very particular about any alteration of the law being made in Consolidation Bills; and if we, if I may so call it, take to improving the occasion by amending the law when this modest but most valuable work of consolidation is going on, we shall find that we have broken the unwritten convention between the two Houses of Parliament; and then the members of the House of Commons, who have taken without question every one of our Consolidation Bills for the last six or seven years and passed them even in that busy House without question on the faith that we are loyal to that convention, will say, "You are amending the law; we cannot he expected to give the First, Second, and Third Readings, and to negative Committee, in respect of a Bill which is admittedly altering, in however beneficial a way, the law, and we shall have to end all our valuable work." I should regret it because I have been associated with this work of consolidation from the commencement, and I believe it is most valuable. I think this Amendment might well be postponed, because after all there is nothing in the Bill which prevents the present practice from being continued.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, there can be no question that the practice in regard to this matter is as stated by the noble and learned Earl who has just sat down. No one questions that the ordinary and extraordinary members of the Governor-General's Council are by well-established usage entitled to be present at all the meetings of the Council. But when we are asked to add words of this kind to the Bill, we have to remember where we shall find ourselves carried if we attempt Amendments of this kind. This difficulty is the result of our scrupulous adherence to the pledge which has been given that this Bill shall be a Consolidating Bill and not an Amending or even a Revising Bill.
My noble friend Lord Sydenham suggested that we ought to take a broader view, and that where we find that the law has been interpreted in a particular manner we should frame this Consolidating Bill so as to make it accord, not with the Statute Law, but with the well-established practice. That, it seems to me, is a very dangerous suggestion. My noble friend Lord Midleton pointed out that this is by no means the only anomaly that might be dealt with if we once embark on the task of making this Bill a measure of revision. I hope, there-

303
fore, that we shall bear in mind the warning given to us just now by the noble and learned Earl, and that we shall remember how much additional difficulty will be thrown in the way of the work of consolidation if we step a single inch beyond the frontier which divides a measure of consolidation from a measure of revision.
One or two noble Lords have drawn an alarming picture of the kind of scandals which might arise if this Bill is not amended in this sense. It is suggested that the Viceroy might retire to sonic remote fastness in the hills, and that there, accompanied, perhaps, by one or two members of his Council upon whose support he could depend, he would pass measures of the most iniquitous description. My Lords, is that really a very real danger? I do not know whether any noble Lord with experience of India is able to cite cases in support of that suggestion, but I think it worth while to point out that the Governor-General, for his own sake, would be extremely careful not to pass a highly controversial measure in such circumstances. These are clays when there is great publicity in India and elsewhere, and no one would be more likely to suffer from an indiscretion of that kind than the Viceroy himself. I doubt extremely whether any harm will be done at all by leaving the law upon this point and the constitutional practice exactly as they are at this moment. And I venture to suggest to your Lordships that you may be content with the pledge which has been given by my noble friend who represents the India Office, that an Amending Bill will be introduced at the earliest possible date and that this point will be dealt with in that measure.
Loan MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: In consideration of the pledge to which the noble Marquess has referred, I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 51 agreed to.
Clause 52:
The province of Agra.
52. The Secretary of State in Council may, if he thinks fit, direct that the province of Agra be constituted a presidency under a Governor in Council and if that direction is given the presidency shall be constituted on the terms and under the conditions mentioned in section nineteen of the Government of India Act, 1853, and section our of the Government of India Act, 1854.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, the Act of 1833 which is involved in this clause directed the division of the Presidency of Bengal into two distinct parts; one was to be called the Presidency of Fort William and the other the Presidency of Agra. At; the same tine power I was given to the Government to suspend the operation of the Act, and, instead of creating a Presidency, to create a Lieutenant-Governorship. No action was taken upon that Act in regard to Bengal until three years ago, in 1912, when His Majesty the King went to India. Brit action was taken on it in regard to the Presidency of Agra, and a Lieutenant-Governor of Agra was actually appointed in the year 1836, and has remained up to the present day. By the action taken in 1912 the regulation was spent as regards Bengal; by the action taken in 1836 the regulation was superseded so far as the Province of Agra was concerned; and in these circumstances the whole regulation is very properly repealed by the Fourth Schedule attached to this Bill. The Act was 5 & 6 William IV, chapter 52, and the whole of that Act is repealed by the Fourth Schedule. But simultaneously with repealing the whole of the Act and also repealing the Government of India Acts of 1853 and 1851, which are referred to in the clause under notice—Clause 52—it is sought to keep alive by this clause the power of creating a Governor in Council for the Province of Agra. No person would for a moment consider that that was a likely thing to be clone by any school of politicians either in this country or in India, and I therefore think that the proper mode of procedure in this matter would be to omit Clause 52 altogether and rely on the repealing effect of the Fourth Schedule.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 52.—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I think the question with regard to this clause differs somewhat from that of the other. Any power to make this provision in respect of Agra must be derived apparently from the Act of 1833, and I think the noble Lord who has just sat down has made it clear that the Act of 1833 has really spent itself and therefore cannot be revived in this form. When your Lordships the other day decided that the

305
provision of an Executive Council for the United Provinces ought to be deferred as a highly contentions measure during the period of the was the idea suggested itself to some legal minds that that was what was called, erroncously as I think, the veto of the House of Lords. The House of Lords did nothing but reaffirm the very strong announcement made by the Viceroy in his Council. These, a people thought that by reviving the Act of 1833 a Presidency Government could be conferred upon the United Provinces. That was a very in, genious idea but it was clearly impracticable for this reason, that Oudh was not annexed until 1858 and therefore could not have been dealt with by any previous Act of 1833 or of 1854. The original Bill as laid before your Lordships' House conferred this power in the case of Agra and Oudh. It was a new power and a new legal provision that would really have had the effect, to my mind, of a new Act of Parliament which we are assured should not be. But now the clause has been altered, and has been made to apply solely to the provision of a Presidency Government for the Province of Agra. I think from what the noble Lord has said that your Lordships will see that this really is in effect, if not technically, the creation of a new law; and as I cannot conceive that the Secretary of State wishes for any power to create a Presidency within Agra, I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, I think the speeches of the two noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Amendment Hurst show to your Lordships the great difficulties that the Joint Select Committee have had in dealing with these old laws which are full of technicalities and of conflicting elements, and one extends a sympathy to the Committee in their attempt at unravelling from this jumble of the past anything in the nature of a coherent clause for a present. day Act. All I can say with regard to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord for the omission of Clause 52 is that I cannot accept it, because the clause is placed in the Bill as part of the statutory law of the past. It is merely a representation of the 1833 Act, an Act which I do not think can really be accurately described as having spent itself. If in the face of modern conditions it does not comply altogether with the present practice, the clause will
306
be susceptible of improvement and alteration in the Amending Bill. The power which was given to create the Governorship in Bengal three years ago, I am given to understand, emanated from the 1851 Act as distinct from the 1833 Act.
I would appeal again to the two noble Lords who have proposed the omission of this clause to forego their desire for the present and to allow the Bill to remain as it has been handed clown to us by the Joint Select Committee. I farther ask them to take account of the appeal which was made by my noble and learned friend Lord Loreburn just now, in the interests not only of this Bill but of all other Consolidation Bills, and adhere as strictly as possible to the law as it has been produced for us by the Joint Select Committee and in no way to attempt to amend it at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54:
Amendment moved—
Page 23, leave out lines 14 to 19 inclusive.—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 68 agreed to.
Clause 69:
Amendment moved—
Page 30, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("or the date on which the disallowance is signified by the governor-general to his council").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 70 to 81 agreed to.
Clause 82:
Amendment moved—
Page 37, lines 4 and 5, leave out ("or the date on which the disallowance is signified by him to his Council").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 88 agreed to.
Clause 89:
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 9, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 90 to 94 agreed to.
Clause 95:
Amendments moved—
Page 43, line 27, leave out ("British")
Page 43, line 28, leave out ("British")
Page 43, line 32, leave out ("British")
Page 43, line 34, leave out ("British")
Page 43, line 37, leave out ("British").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 96:
No disabilities in respect of religion, colour, or place of birth.
96. No native of British India, nor any subject of His Majesty resident therein, shall, by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them, be disabled from holding any office under the Crown in India.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name to this clause is really a very small one, but I ask you to believe that it is one of some importance. Every one who has recently resided in India knows well that educated Indians greatly dislike and resent the use of the term "native." Perhaps for that reason the term "native of India" does not appear in any other clause of the Bill. It seems to me that we ought to especially careful in these times not to do anything that may hurt the susceptibilities of our fellow-Indian subjects. I therefore move to insert the words, "No British subject resident in British India." That only restores the Bill to the form in which it stood when it first came before your Lordships' House. The Joint Select Committee, in giving their reasons for making this change, say that it was made in order that the provision should follow the phraseology of the Act of 1833. But India has changed in the eighty-two years that have passed since that Act was put on the Statute Book, and words which were suitable in 1833 may be inappropriate or even improper at the present day. Therefore I
308
earnestly hope that this small Amendment may be accepted by the Government. I have no doubt that the process of bringing in and passing the Amending Bill will take nothing like the forty years which I suggested as a joke, but we may infer that it will take several years; and meantime I think it is worth while that the words that I wish expunged should not be placed on the Statute Book.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, lines 38 and 39, leave out ("No native of British India, nor any subject of His Majesty resident therein") and insert ("No British subject resident in British India").—(Lord Sydenham.)
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, as my noble friend truly said, the Amendment which he proposes would restore the wording of the clause as introduced in this House. The words that are now in the Bill have been placed there by the Joint Select Committee because they follow exactly the phraseology of the Act of 1833. I am given to understand that there is little if any difference, from a legal point of view, in the meaning of the words now in the Bill and the words as proposed by my noble friend. But, as he must know full well, section 87 of the Act of 1833, of which this is an exact reproduction, is regarded in India as a charter under which Indians are entitled to hold office under the Crown. Certainly in the two years' experience I had in India on the Royal Commission investigating the Public Services nothing struck me more than the regard that was held for this particular provision, which all Indians looked upon as a sacred privilege that had been handed down to them from the year 1833; and any alteration in the wording of this particular section, however minute and trivial, would, I am sure, be regarded with the deepest suspicion by all Indians, who might read into it some insidious idea for an alteration and a withdrawal of that privilege. As I have already said, the alteration proposed by my noble friend makes no real difference; but it is regarded by those who advise me, apart from what I have said, that the words as proposed in the Bill are preferable. Under the British Nationality Act of 1914 "national born" has been omitted, but with that exception the provision is an exact reproduction of the 1833 Act. I am sorry, therefore, that for the reasons I have given I cannot see lily way to accept my noble friend's Amendment.
THE EARL or CROMER: My Lords, I suppose that view of the arguments advanced by the noble Lord it is impossible to have this Amendment accepted, but I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Sydenham said about the use of the word "native" When I was in Egypt one of my principal difficulties in official documents was to avoid the use of that word, and I used to use the word "indigenous" and all sorts of other words to get out of it. But I quite agree with the noble Lord that in view of the fact that we should stick absolutely to the previous wording in dealing with a Consolidation Bill it is impossible to accept the Amendment.
LORD SYDENHAM: I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clauses 97 to 108 agreed to.
Clause 109:
Amendments moved—
Page 49, lines 24 and 25, leave out ("or signifies to his council")
Page 49, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("or signification").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 110 to 123 agreed to.
Clause 124:
Amendments moved—
Page 54, leave out lines 28 to 37 inclusive.
Page 55, leave out lines 1 to 33 inclusive, and insert:
(4) if, being the governor-general, or a governor, lieutenant-governor or chief commissioner, or a member of the executive council of the governor-general or of a governor or lieutenant-governor, or being a person employed or concerned in the collection of revenue or the administration of justice, he is concerned in, or has any dealings or transactions by way of, trade or business in any part of India, for the benefit either of himself or of any other person, otherwise than as a shareholder in any joint stock company or trading corporation; or
(5) if he demands, accepts or receives, by himself or another, in the discharge of his office, any gift, gratuity or reward, pecuniary or otherwise, or any promise of the same, except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the Secretary of State as to the receipt of presents, and except in the case of fees paid or payable to barristers, physicians, surgeons and chaplains in the way of their respective professions,
310
he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour; and if he is convicted of having demanded, accepted or received any such gift, gratuity or reward, the same, or the full value thereof, shall be forfeited to the Crown, and the court may order that the gift, gratuity or reward, or any part thereof, he restored to the person who gave it, or be given to the prosecutor or informer, and that the whole or any part of any fine imposed on the offender he paid or given to the prosecutor or informer, as the court may direct.—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 124, as amended, agreed to
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First, Second, Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 7, column 1, leave out ("124 (5), (7), (8)") and insert ("124 (5)—so far as it relates to persons other than the governor-general, a governor, or a member of the executive council of the governor-general or of a governor").—(Lord Islington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the Fifth Schedule. The noble Lord said: After the plea which the noble Lord the Under-Secretary has made to me, I do not intend to move this Amendment. But no doubt the noble Lord is aware that the elect of the Bill will be to enable, for instance, the Governor-General in Legislative Council to free himself from all responsibility of giving any information whatever to the Secretary of State with regard to the government of India.
LORD ISLINGTON: I would say, in reply to the noble Lord, that I fully appreciate the anomalies that are produced here. But I am obliged to him for not moving the Amendment, and I can assure him that in drafting the Amending Bill due regard will be had to the various anomalies that exist.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 126.)

MAINTENANCE OF LIVE STOCK BILL.
[SECOND READING]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, I ask you to read this Bill a second time, and I will first briefly refer to its provisions. Clause I is to give the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries powers, for the purpose of maintaining a sufficient stock of animals to which this Bill applies, by Order applicable to England and Wales or any part thereof, to prohibit or restrict slaughter. Paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of this clause is, with a view to making that first prohibition more effective, to prohibit or restrict the sale or exposure for sale of meat of immature animals which has not been imported. Paragraphs (c) and (d) are auxiliary to (a) and (b), and enable the Board of Agriculture to authorise any local authority specified in the Order to execute and enforce within their district all or any of the provisions of the Order, and provide for the manner in which the expenses incurred by the authority are to be defrayed; and to authorise any officer of the Board or of a local authority to enter any slaughter-house or other premises on which animals are slaughtered for human food and examine any animals or carcases therein. And paragraph (e) gives the Board power to prohibit or restrict the movement of animals out of any area in which the slaughter of such animals is prohibited or restricted. The reason for that will be obvious to your Lordships, because were no such provision inserted it would be quite easy for a person to take the cattle out of the area in which slaughter was prohibited into the next area in which slaughter was not prohibited, and thus defeat the very purpose for which the Order had been Made. The second subsection of the first clause lays down that the animals to which the Bill applies are "cattle, sheep, and swine."
Clause 2 deals with the penalty for offences under the Bill, and provides that if any person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any of the provisions of an Order made under this Bill, or obstructs or impedes any officer in the execution of his powers or duties under any such Order, he shall, on conviction under
312
the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or if the offence is an offence committed with respect to more than four animals to a fine not exceeding five pounds for each animal. Clause 3 contains the application of the Bill to Scotland and Ireland. Clause 4 is the title clause. It repeals the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1914, which was passed last August and would expire next August, and provides that this measure shall remain in force "during the continuance of the present war and for a period of twelve months thereafter and no longer."
The whole justification for this Bill, which with some slight variation is identical with the Bill that was passed by your Lordships last August, is the fact that we are in a state of war. It is a war emergency measure, and not one which in any other state of affairs any Government would think of presenting to your Lordships. For no one can have had any experience of farming in this country without knowing that the less the Government interferes with the farmer in the execution of his business the better it is for the farmer and for the country. I am speaking to noble Lords who have had long experience of agriculture, and I claim this much qualification for the office which I have the honour to hold, that I have myself farmed on a fairly large scale for nearly thirty years; and I know that the business and science of farming is an extremely complicated and difficult one, and that the conditions under which the farmer carries on his industry vary very much in the South from the North, in one county from another county, and even within different parts of the same county. The business of the dairy farmer is wholly different from that of the farmer who fattens beasts for the market. The business of the sheep breeder is wholly different from that of the general farmer who follows out a mixed system of grass and arable cultivation. And I know that as the years go on so farming in this country tends to greater specialisation. I take it that a hundred years ago there was much less difference between the practice of one farmer and another in the same district than there is to-day. One man specialises on milk, another on cheese, another on cattle, another on potatoes, another on fruit, and so forth. I mention these facts, which are so well known to your Lordships, merely to emphasise

313
my assurance that I know that any interference on the part of the Government with the business of the farmer is in itself very regrettable and could not be justified except by the unfortunate fact that we are now engaged in war.
These considerations are heightened by two facts which must also be present to the minds of your Lordships. In the first place, the country has been suffering from a serious drought the effects of which cannot be entirely obliterated now even by the most abundant rain. The hay crop of this year must be a short one. Our pastures may contain a very abundant growth of aftermath in the later months of the year, but though this is of great advantage to the farmer it does not compensate him for the fact that he has only a short hay crop. In the second place, the price of meat is abnormally high. That is in itself an evil, and one which no Government would wish by any action that it took to increase. Therefore the case which leads me to ask your Lordships to accept such a Bill as this must be a really strong one. And indeed, my Lords, it is. It is one very simply stated, but I cannot imagine one of greater urgency or importance. During the course of this war the food supply of our people is a matter of paramount importance, and we should have no excuse if we allowed that food supply to be in any degree diminished owing to our want of forethought in not asking Parliment for such powers as would enable us, had we possessed them, to save our people from that diminution of their food supply. I put that down as a matter which requires no argument. There are some risks you cannot run, and one of those risks is that during this war there should be a diminution of one food supply.
In the matter of meat, as your Lordships know, this country is much more self-supporting than in the matter of cereals. Of the meat consumed in the United Kingdom about 64 per cent. is produced in the United Kingdom, and only the difference is imported front abroad. Now have we any reason to suppose that there is cause for anxiety about the constant transfer to this country of that 36 per cent, of the supply which we have been accustomed to import from abroad? In the first place, I cannot conceal from your Lordships that there is some danger of a shortage in that supply from abroad,
314
not because less will come, but because more is being consumed. The fact that you have these vast Armies in France and elsewhere causes it greater consumption of meat. The men who are now fighting are consuming more meat than they would have if they had not been fighting; and the result is, so far as we can calculate, that even if there is no diminution in our oversea supply there will be less to come to this country for the use of the civil population. Therefore it is of the utmost importance, from that point of view alone, that we should have the power of conserving greatly our own live stock in the United Kingdom.
But it would be improper if I did not remind your Lordships that there is an additional danger, a war danger, to our food supply from abroad quite independent of the fact that the fighting men are consuming more than they did when they were civilians—that is what I may describe as the submarine menace. I think, my Lords, that the degree to which our Navy and the daring and seamanship of our mercantile marine have thwarted the intentions of the German Navy is wonderful. If you bear in mind the boasts with which the submarine campaign against our commerce was launched by the German Admiralty and compare the results with those boasts, and if you compare the total number of losses, serious as it is, with the number of our ships which go to and fro about their lawful business safely, I think you will agree that I do not exaggerate when I say that the meed of praise to the Navy and to the mercantile marine should be very great. But although that is so, it is the fact that German submarines are taking a steady toll of our ships, and the longer the war goes on the more submarines there will be probably engaged in this task. So far as we can look into the intentions of the German Admiralty it is probable that they are now putting their whole shipbuilding strength into the construction of submarines, and therefore we must expect the submarine menace to our shipping not to diminish but to increase. It will not be the fault of the German Admiralty or of the German Government if they fail to deal a mortal blow to our carrying trade, and especially at that part of that trade which brings to this country the necessary food for the people. Therefore as sensible men we have to look that danger in the face.

315
There is no reason to exaggerate the danger, but it would be foolish on our part not to acknowledge its existence or calculate the consequences which might ensue were our Navy less successful in its vigilance and the German Navy more successful in its attack. Therefore the reasons for the powers for which we ask seem to me to be overwhelming. We ask that you should arm us with the power to take such steps as may from time to time seem to us to be necessary to avoid any premature or hasty diminution of our flocks and herds owing to the fact that at any given moment prices may be so high as to tempt farmers to part with their breeding stocks and so reduce our supply. But if you give these powers I can assure your Lordships that they will be used not only with an ever-present sense of responsibility but only after careful consultation with the best practical agriculturists available for this purpose. As your Lordships know, we have a Consultative Committee established by my predecessor for the purpose of this war, presided over by Sir Ailwyn Fellowes and containing within itself a very strong representation of the practical working farmers of England and Wales. We shall always go to them for advice in these matters, and even if you suppose, which would not be true, that the Board of Agriculture are not aware of the specialisation of agriculture, you may be quite sure that this Committee will not leave us unreminded of the fact. An order, for instance, such as was made the other day, which may be welcomed and praised by those farmers who want store cattle may be very unpopular with dairy farmers. We know that quite well. We know that in the cattle industry we have the breeders to consider, the men who fat cattle, and also the dairy farmers.
I should like to refer for a moment, as it bears on the powers I ask for under this Bill, to some of the protests which we have received on the subject of the Order issued the other day prohibiting the slaughter of calves—except those belonging to certain dairy breeds—under twelve weeks old. That Order was made after consultation with the Advisory Committee, and after every possible step hail been taken to ascertain the opinion of farmers throughout the country. We have, however, received a certain number of remonstrances and protests against it, but they all come from what I may call the dairy districts; they are largely from Somersetshire and Gloucester-
316
shire, the counties so fully represented by some of the noble Lords opposite. I am, indeed, sorry to cause inconvenience to the practice of those farmers. I know quite well that if you have to use milk to rear a calf you cannot sell that milk or make it into cheese. That is quite obvious. Therefore I can quite understand that these farmers should greatly dislike having the practice of their agriculture interrupted by their being prohibited from selling calves to the butcher when they had been accustomed to sell them and had been looking forward to continuing to do so. But I would point out to noble Lords opposite who may be said to represent those counties and those industries that there are other ways of disposing of calves besides selling them to the butcher—namely, selling them to some other fanner who is prepared to rear them. I agree that in a given district where every farmer is accustomed to sell his calves to the butcher and there are no rearers, it is not easy at once for the farmer to find a market for the calves which he cannot sell to the butcher and does not want to keep. But it ought not to pass the wit of man to devise a scheme by which a calf in, say, Herefordshire could be sent on to, say, the Eastern counties where there are farmers who are desirous of getting those calves. Surely if there was time that method of exchange would adjust itself, and I would suggest to noble Lords and those they represent that that is the real solution of the difficulty—that they should find a means by which the calves could be collected from the farmers who do not want to keep them and passed in truck loads to those markets where they could be readily disposed of.
I would say, in passing, that the curious part about the correspondence which we have received is this. In not one single protest that I have read with regard to the Order would you ever guess that we were at war. Whether the letter comes from a committee of a county council or from an individual farmer, there is not one simile reference to the state of war which was the only justification for the making of that Order. Those letters would have been a contribution to the merits or demerits of such an Order had they been written a year ago. But they make no allusion whatever to the only justification which exists for the Order, and it is therefore not easy to give them the weight one would wish.

317
I wish to say a word about sheep. We take powers under this Bill to deal with sheep, but, as your Lordships know, we have put no restriction on the sale of lambs or ewes in the Order which has been already published; and I take this opportunity of reassuring those who fear that the Board of Agriculture may not be aware that the rearing of fat lambs for the market is a particular branch of farming very successfully practised in various parts of the country. I am personally very familiar with this, as for over ten years I had a flock of horned Dorsets, and the only purpose of keeping such a flock is to get the lambs to the market at as early a date as possible where they do make a very real and important contribution to the food supply of the country. Therefore I would assure all sheep farmers that we are perfectly well aware of the special conditions of what I may call the fat lamb industry.
Then as regards pigs. Here the matter is constantly complicated by that scourge swine-fever, which never leaves us and with which all successive Administrations have hitherto failed successfully to cope. I should like to take this opportunity of stating that we are trying tentatively a new treatment—the serum treatment—which I hope the farmers will welcome. It is only in the stage of experiment at present. Pig treated with the serum does not thereby become permanently immune. But if swine fever breaks out on a farm and the pigs not yet infected are inoculated with this serum and then contract the fever from the infected pigs on the farm the great probability is that they will recover and ever after be immune. That is a very interesting contribution to our knowledge of the subject which has been made by the veterinary officers who have been working on this vexed question, and I very much hope that we may reap some real benefit from it and by our experience leant how to deal with swine fever much more successfully in the future than we have in the past. But it is necessary to take these powers in respect of pigs. There is no class of stock which reproduces itself so rapidly, and there might be at a given moment a very real necessity for checking the slaughter of sows in order that within a comparatively brief space of time the number of pigs in the country might be largely multiplied.
I ask for these powers because, quite frankly, your Lordships have already
318
admitted by passing so many emergency measures that in the condition of war in which we find ourselves it is necessary for the Government to have in some respects the powers of a dictatorship. I am very far from suggesting that I am competent to exercise even the twenty-second part of a dictator's powers, but some one must do the work; and I can only say that we shall endeavour, if you give us these powers, to exercise them with common sense and with sympathy and knowledge of the difficulties of the farmers of this country.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I am sure none of your Lordships will disagree for one moment with what the noble Earl has said as regards the necessity of maintaining our food supply. The only difference I have with him is that I am not convinced by what he has said—and I doubt whether the House is convinced—that this Bill is the only way of doing it, and that it is necessary under this Bill, as he says, to make himself and the Board of Agriculture a dictator. Certainly our experience since the war began, judging from other Departments of State, is that it does not do entirely to make them dictators. I will not put it higher than that. I am sorry that the noble Earl did not refer to what I regard as the principal consideration of this Bill. I am not one of those who in any Way wish to put difficulties in the way of the maintenance of a full amount of stock in this country or of increasing it. On the contrary, I am most anxious to do everything in my power as an agriculturist to help the President of the Board of Agriculture in the matter. But I think the noble Earl will find, when expressions of opinion are given throughout the country, that his proposals do not command anything like the unanimous sense of agriculturists generally. I am not talking of the gentlemen who compose his Consultative Committee—the only gentlemen he seems to have consulted in this matter. I admit their position as agriculturists, but they are not men who live by firming, whose bread and butter depends on raising stock. I would rather go to the men who are practical farmers, who live on the land and by the land.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Lord is quite mistaken. There is a large representation on the Committee of men who are making their living on the land.
LORD STRACHIE: I do not think there is one tenant farmer on it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, there is.
LORD STRACHIE: I will deal with that later. Now as regards the question of procedure. I wish the noble Earl had said something with regard to that, because to my mind, however much we approve of the principle and the idea of the Bill, the procedure is most objectionable. I mean the procedure which was found in the Act of last year—that is, that Orders made under that Act were not required to lie upon the Table of either House of Parliament. If the Order made under the Act of 1914 had lain upon the Table of this House, we should have had an opportunity of discussing it and pointing out its many objectionable features. But the Act of 1914 was a much smaller and simpler measure. That Act only allowed Orders to be made for one year, but this Bill goes a step further. It is the old story of the thin edge of the wedge. When the Board of Agriculture found that this House was willing to allow Orders to be made without their coining before it, no doubt they thought that it would be a good opportunity to ask that Orders in future made at any time during the war or a year after should not lie on the Table of the House. There is no doubt that it is most convenient for the Minister at the head of a Department and also for the officials of the Department to be able to make Orders without any control of Parliament over them.
I have not long had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House, but for nearly twenty years I was a member of the House of Commons. I have noticed how Parliament has gradually been losing its control, how we have constantly been met with the argument, "It is desirable to do this by reference," or, more often, "It is desirable to do this by Orders." Those Orders at first were laid on the Table of either House, but the practice is growing of not laving them on the Table. Of course, the war argument may be used again, but the war argument does not apply to Orders being laid upon the Table of either House of Parliament, because those Orders come into force at the moment they are laid, only if either House chooses to vote an Address to His Majesty upon one of them that Order
320
becomes null and void. The noble Earl may say to me, as an old member of the House of Commons, "Our Orders would be discussed and delayed, and there might be criticism." But the Government having taken the whole time of the House of Commons knows very well that that House would not have an opportunity of discussing these Orders, and they would only be discussed in this House. I am certain that no member of this House would ever do anything which would hamper the Government in carrying out an Order which they said was a national necessity. All Orders laid before this House would be criticised in a friendly spirit. Therefore the argument against Orders being laid before the Houses of Parliament is one that has not much substance in it.
The noble Earl referred to the differing interests of breeding, grazing, and so on, but I did not catch that he said anything with regard to those interests being dealt with separately, and certainly in the Order under the Act of 1914 no distinction is made between one area and another. I can assure the noble Earl that it is not only the agricultural interest in the West of England who object to the Order which has been made by the noble Earl and the powers which have been taken, but objection is also taken by the agricultural interest in Derbyshire, Cheshire, Lancashire, and the Midlands. The noble Earl honoured the County Council's Association the other day by addressing that body, and it may interest him to know that after he had left this Bill was referred to the Council's Parliamentary and Public Health Committee. That Committee was not able to meet until to-day and they unanimously passed a resolution approving of the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper. Not one member took objection. Every speaker laid strong emphasis on the importance of all Orders under this Bill being laid before both Houses of Parliament, so that they could be investigated and, if necessary, criticised. There was a feeling that much greater care would be taken in the framing of the Orders if those who drew them up knew that there would be strict scrutiny and criticism of such Orders by members of this House. It maw be said that this Bill was carefully considered in another place, but I have the authority of Sir Rim Spear, the Member for Tavistock

321
and a well-known agriculturist in Devonshire, that this Bill was not fully considered but as a matter of fact was rushed in another place. Old Members of the House of Commons know well how, late at night, a Bill is taken and rushed through.
Then the noble Earl talked about the Consultative Committee to which I have already referred. That Committee would have got greater weight if it had had the support of the Royal Agricultural Society or of the Bath and West of England Agricultural Society. But neither of those has up to now expressed any view in favour of the Order, and I notice that Mr. Acland, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, was not able to quote any of the great societies as supporting his views on the subject. All he did was to make an oracular statement. Speaking in the House of Commons on the Second Reading of the Bill, he said—
"I believe that that Order, although it does not go so far as a great many people wanted us to go, will be generally welcomed. Farmers have been particularly urgent upon us that something of this kind should be done. They foresee, very clearly, it may not be to their permanent interest, whatever may be the temporary and immediate interest of some, that the breeding stocks of this country shall be depleted, because, when once depleted, it is very difficult to build them up again. They have, therefore, pressed upon us the passing of an Order of this kind, and we are very glad to be able to follow their advice."
It is rather interesting that Mr. Acland, a West Country Member, should make such a statement, but he got his answer a week later when the Somersetshire County Council passed the following resolution—
"That this county council considers that the Order issued by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with reference to the slaughtering of calves, dated June 23, 1915, is contrary to the best interests of agriculture, and will defeat the object of increasing the supply of meat and dairy produce; and is of opinion that two weeks should be substituted for twelve as in the recent Order."
This body has not the slightest power to interfere with that Order, though it is very representative of agriculturists. Somerset is not only agricultural but industrial, with large coalfields, and of course this Council is representative of other interests besides agriculture. But there was not a single member who objected to this resolution. If they had thought that there was any question of reducing the supply of food I am sure that the industrial representatives would have protested most strongly. But not so; they were perfectly unanimous.
322
Again, Sir John Spear in the House of Commons complained of the farmers not being consulted and objected to the way in which it had been said that they approved of the Order. The noble Earl did not make any reference to the difficulties which farmers would experience under the prohibition of the slaughter of stock. As to the difficulties they would have with regard to the hay crop, it is true the noble Earl said that however much rain we had in the future he did not think it would help us in this case. That is true, because practically speaking the hay harvest is over. One of the difficulties from which agriculturists suffer when they are told to keep more stock is that they have less hay, and a lot has been commandeered by the War Office. In this connection I should like to call the noble Earl's attention to a resolution passed by the Somersetshire Chamber of Agriculture. It was as follows:
"That this chamber considers the commandeering of clover mixtures and hay of the best quality at £3 10 s. on rail is grossly unfair and ruinous to the farmers, who are dependent upon the same to maintain their proper head of cattle on the farms, being, through the war, face to face with a considerable increase in the cost of production and the extraordinarily high prices of all artificial feeding stuffs, and also the possibility of a very short crop of new hay."
So that I think the noble Earl will see that agriculturists have considered the state of things arising out of the war, and that they are perfectly prepared to keep as much stock as they can. Indeed, they would be glad to do it. They are most of them practical men. The noble Earl did not say anything as to whether there was a diminution of stock in this country, but as regards Scotland I notice that there has been a large increase there of cows and sheep.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: We have not the returns in yet, but shall have them very soon now.
LORD STRACHIE: I am informed that an answer was given in another place, with regard to England, that there would be a large increase of calves and cows.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: We have no information at present, but we shall get it in a few days.
LORD STRACHIE: Then I was wrong in thinking that such an answer was given in the House of Commons the other day?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have no recollection of it; not an official one.
LORD STRACHIE: In effect the noble Earl says to the House, "While all you say may be true about these things, while we understand the difficulties of the farmers who, of course, are practical men, you ought to trust the Board of Agriculture in this matter and give us a free hand." I admit that had I to think only of the noble Earl himself I should probably be perfectly ready to give him a free hand. But I would remind the House that Presidents of the Board of Agriculture come and go fairly frequently. We have had in the last few years four different Presidents and many Under-Secretaries. Though we might be willing to trust the noble Earl himself, and though we are fortunate enough to have him as president in this House at the moment to answer Questions, perhaps the position may be reversed in two or three months' time. The noble Earl may be given, say, a higher office and we may have the President of the Board in the House of Commons and there would thus be no opportunity of cross-examining him on any Orders. And I would remind the House that past Presidents of the Board of Agriculture have done things by a stroke of the pen. I refer to what was done by Mr. Runciman, who, by a stroke of the pen, made an Order by which the importation of store cattle was allowed into this country, thereby driving a coach-and-four through the Statute. Mr. Runciman in his wisdom broke that down and brought store cattle into this country, thus creating a most clangorous precedent with regard to our flocks and herds in respect to foot-and-mouth disease, as he allowed cattle to be brought over from a country where foot-and-mouth disease is more or less endemic. I trust that the noble Earl will make further inquiries into this matter and may be willing to assent to the proposal which, so far as any public bodies have spoken upon it, has received unanimous support—namely, that all Orders made by him under this Bill should be laid before both Houses of Parliament. That is the ground upon which I move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
To leave out all the words after ("That") for the purpose of inserting the following Resolution, viz.: ("This House regrets that no provision is made in the Bill for the laying of Orders made by the Board of Agriculture before both Houses of Parliament").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I desire cordially to associate myself with the noble Lord who has just sat down and to support the Amendment that he has put before the House, that Orders of this kind should be allowed to lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. Personally I should have thought that the noble Earl himself would have felt regret that he had not provided for something of that sort in the Bill. He told us at the beginning of his remarks of the various idiosyncrasies which govern agriculture and convert this country agriculturally into a great many Englands. For that very reason it is clear that these Orders should be accessible to Parliament. I quite recognise that this is an emergency Bill, but on that account I think it wants very close scrutiny.
Perhaps I may state my credentials for saying something about this matter. I own and work, under a fifteenth century Charter to my family, a large auction mart at Gisburn, the centre of a great grazing and rearing district. In that auction mart 25,000 cattle of all kinds, 70,000 sheep, and 2,000 pigs, change hands. I am also here to-night because I have been asked to represent the views of the Craven Farmers' Association, whose headquarters is Skipton and who consist of 700 tenant farmers. So far as I know, we have not any one on the Committee upon which Lord Selborne has relied for information who represents that part of the country in any way, and although this association are perfectly willing to put up with the Bill because we are in a state of war, they have certain points which they have asked me to bring before the President of the Board of Agriculture to-night. Craven is a fine district; it is all grass and fell, and all cattle and sheep. I see the noble Duke on the Cross Benches who owns a large property at Bolton and who will corroborate that; and I venture to say that if he had gone up there ten days ago he would have heard very much the same sort of views from his tenants as I am putting before you to-night on their behalf. I ride about all that country a great deal, so that yon can take it from me that I am not talking of what I do not, at all events, know something about.
Now, this is what these people suggest to me. In the first place—and this has reference to what the noble Earl said of the peculiarly local characteristics which

325
govern all agriculture in England—these people say that the most important point is to emphasise the absolute necessity of the officer of the Board or of the local authority mentioned in the Bill being a local and practical man, as no stranger can possibly understand the needs of a particular district. That, I think, is a very important point. In prehistoric days I used to answer in this House, only as a mouthpiece, for the proceedings of the Board of Agriculture, and I knew enough about the kind of answers I gave to know that they were boiled down, as it were, for the general consumption of the House but quite outside the local conditions. They represented the sort of boiled-down wisdom of an arm-chair official in the Board of Agriculture. But I do not want to go further into that.
Another point arises on the Order to which the noble Lord alluded just, now. Though the Craven farmers recognise that this is a war emergency Bill, they have not asked me to say very much more than I have said about the point of the officer of the Board being a man who knows his business and who knows the country. But they are very much opposed to the Outer, which no one had the opportunity of looking at, which prohibits the slaughter of calves. In our view, your local man ought to have power to select calves and to have all those branded, just as you are branding the Canadian horses, which in his opinion are unfit for keeping. This brand would free the butcher from any responsibility for slaughtering the calf; but if the officer of the Board of Agriculture or the local authority found any hides unbranded, either in the butcher's possession or in any tanyard, the butcher or the owner of the tanyard ought to have a large penalty imposed upon him. In our view the age limit of twelve weeks on the slaughter of calves ought to be removed, and a limit of twelve months adopted as to branding. In twelve weeks an animal is neither veal nor beef, but it would be perfectly possible that up to twelve months these animals could be inspected by the officer of the Board or the officer of the local authority, and up to twelve months they could be branded.
I do not know that I need dwell upon the evils of an accumulation of calves, but they are very present to us. Two
326
of my tenant farmers have now twenty cows calving every week, and in the Skipton district there are from 40,000 to 50,000 calves bred every year. I need not point out to you—Lord Harris put the point the other night, and Lord St. Audries put two or three practical points also—that an over-accumulation of animals on land which cannot keep them for want of accommodation creates an insanitary condition of affairs altogether, and in some ways this emergency remedy of yours may be worse than anything which exists at present. I may also tell you this—and I say it on my own authority as one who knows a great deal about the land—always riding about, and always talking to stock raisers—that in our part of the country we have no fear of the right number of calves not being kept for breeding purposes. If I may say so, stock rearing is not only the taste but it is very nearly the talent of that district. We have had three or four very fine strains of short-horn blood, but; I need not go into that. We have stuck to cattle-raising, and I believe in that way we are second to none. I believe as a matter of fact that, tempted by the look of things all round and prices being good, more animals are being kept for breeding than there were, and I also hear from my agent that more cattle are being sold in the neighbouring markets for rearing and breeding. I do not want to trouble your Lordships further. I may in the Committee stage have an Amendment to suggest, but in the meanwhile, for the reasons I have given, I cordially associate myself with the Amendment of the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, we must all admit the desirability of maintaining the flocks and herds of this country, and at the same time we are perfectly willing to agree to an emergency Bill of this sort being carried. But I rise to bring before your Lordships and especially before the noble Earl in charge of the Bill one or two points which I think, if given some consideration, wilt help to reassure people in the country. It is perfectly well known to all breeders of stock that it is no use keeping cows that you cannot fatten for beef. That has been admitted in this Slaughter of Animals Order. I allude especially to the Channel Islands, Ayrshire, and Kerry breeds. I think it would very much reassure people

327
if they knew that it would he practically a certainty that no Order would ever come out that these animals should be necessarily kept as calves. I think it would he better, after "immature," if the word "male" were inserted, except in the case of the three breeds I have specially mentioned, and I propose to put down an Amendment in Committee to that effect. I am told that in special dairy counties it is very often the custom to use a bull of any description so long as the cow will get a calf. The noble Earl spoke of the desirability of farmers in certain districts buying calves out of dairy districts. What has militated so much against that is that the farmers in the non-dairy districts do not go there as they do not think they can get a calf that is fit to fatten hereafter. I do not know whether it is possible in any definition for the noble Earl to add to the three breeds I have already specified.
We have in this Order itself, if I might call the noble Earl's attention to it, a very curious definition. It says "animals visibly or obviously in-calf." I do not know whether the Board of Agriculture see any difference between the two words "visibly" and "obviously," or whether the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would like to give a legal interpretation of them. But if I were asked to explain the difference at a county council meeting, I am afraid I could not do so. Non-dairy farmers should be assured that if they buy calves out of a dairy district they will get calves fit to fatten for beef.
The noble Earl said a word with regard to the question of interfering with the flocks of ewes. It is perfectly well known that every autumn a certain number of ewes have to be drafted, and if he will give some assurance that no Order is contemplated dealing with the sale of ewes it will reassure people who are doubting very much whether their flocks may not he interfered with. Certainly it seems to me to be worth consideration by the noble Earl whether, bearing in mind the great specialisation that is in existence with regard to stock-breeding in the different parts of the country, it would not be better for him, instead of issuing one general Order for the whole of England and Wales, to use some discrimination between those counties which are wholly dairy and those which are ordinary farming—mixed arable and grass counties. If the noble Earl gives
328
this point some consideration, and gives some assurance that he will not interfere with the breeding of cattle, sheep, or swine, it would be welcomed by a great many people and have a beneficial effect.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: My Lords, I am sure we have all the same object in view—namely, to maintain and increase the amount of home-grown food in this country. Speaking at all events for the farmers in the West of England, I can assure the noble Earl that we are ready to make any reasonable sacrifice to secure that end. All we ask is that that sacrifice should be justified by most careful considerations. I think we must look at the Order and the Bill together as embodying part of the policy of His Majesty's Government in securing production of home-grown food. With regard to prohibition of the sale of pregnant animals, and the prohibition as to the sale of females, I think that is a wise course. But when we come to the prohibition of the sale of male calves, I am bound to say I do not think the exceptions made by the Order are sufficient. The noble Earl talked about cross-bred calves, to which we have heard reference made in debates several times. These cross-bred calves which come from dairy counties, the offspring of third or fourth cross cows, sired by bulls which are worthless from a beef point of view and are only of any use at all because they are able to get calves, are absolutely worthless for beef. The object of this part of His Majesty's Government's policy is to produce more beef. What is the real economic value of these calves? The most economic view, I believe, is to hang them directly they are born. The next most economic thing to do is to sell the worst of them when they are a few clays old—they will go to Birmingham and be made into veal pies—and to keep the better ones a little longer and sell them for veal. But I can assure the noble Earl that there is no demand whatever for calves of this kind as store animals to make into beef, for the simple reason that they do not pay. They consume more than the beef-producing breeds, they put on flesh very much slower, and when they are slaughtered their meat is of very inferior quality. Really, as regards those particular calves, I do not think they ought to be exempted from slaughter in the economic interests of the country.
Then we come to what the position of the farmer is if you compel him to keep this

329
particular class of calves. There is no sale for them, and two things must happen. In the first place, there will be a shortage of milk and cheese throughout the country; and, in the second place, there will be an increased consumption of grass and of hay. As regards milk, the demand has not fallen off. The supply must be to a certain extent restricted. For instance, we do not get as much milk imported from abroad as we did. It is quite true that a vast number of the male population of this country have gone abroad, but no one will ever contend that that portion of the population was a large milk-consuming portion. They may have consumed other liquids—I dare say they did—but no one will contend that the Army and Navy were large consumers of milk. On the other hand, the unfortunate men who come back wounded from abroad are, and will be, large consumers of milk. Therefore the demand has not gone down, but the supply has been considerably reduced.
Next there is the question of cheese. We are asked to eat cheese rather than meat, so as to economise the meat supply. That is all very well, but if you reduce the supply of milk you reduce the supply of cheese as well. Therefore we are placed in this dilemma. We were asked last autumn by the Government to grow more wheat and potatoes, and I think as a whole the farmers did their best to meet that demand, and they would have done more had the Government guaranteed a minimum price for wheat. However, they did not take that course. But we were asked to grow more wheat and more potatoes, and at the same time we were asked to plough up grass for that purpose. We all know that a great amount of home-grown oats and hay will be required for the Army, and that must mean less production for food for cattle and for sheep. And yet we are going to be compelled to rear more stock. Rearing that increased amount of stock involves a reduction in the supply of milk and of cheese, and therefore we are embarked on a vicious circle.
Each of these agricultural operations is inter-dependent on the other and requires most careful consideration. I am bound to say that the noble Earl seems to me to be a cross between Pharaoh and Aaron. In the character of Pharaoh he orders us to produce beef and stubble; in the character of Aaron he sets up a calf which he compels us to bow down to and worship. Really, I
330
do not think that this policy has been properly thought out, and I am bound to say that I agree with those bodies who have pessed resolutions to the effect that the Order will defeat its own object and ought to be revoked. The noble Earl might revoke that Order quite easily, because this Bill which we are now considering gives him adequate powers to carry out his object.
In carrying out this Bill two things are essential. First, very wide discretion should be given to the local authority; and, secondly, there should be a correct interpretation given to the word "immature." We are not told what the local authority is to be. I presume it will be the county council or a committee of the county council—the Diseases of Animals Act Committee, or some body of that kind—but I would impress upon the noble Earl that in carrying out this Bill it is absolutely necessary to give the local authority wide powers, and for this reason. Their local knowledge and local experience will be of the greatest value in enabling them to enforce the provisions of the Bill in some districts and to exempt from the provisions of the Bill other districts in which the local conditions are entirely different. I should like a definition of the word "immature." I know what the meaning of the word "mature" is. The word "mature" means ripe or ready, not, as many people think, full-grown. In the agricultural sense it means an animal which has come to its best, and which will not pay for keeping any longer. In that sense there are, as the noble Earl said, certain breeds of sheep which come to their best as lamb, and which are relatively more valuable as lamb than they ever would be as mutton. The same principle is true, to a certain extent, of the calves to which I have referred, and of other calves as well. It does not pay to keep them after a certain age, because you are keeping them at a loss to the farmer, and consequently at a loss to the nation. The fact that in two years time they may be inferior beef does not make up for the loss the farmer and the nation sustain because those animals are not sold when they come to maturity; and I think it would be sound economy to give to the local authority—assuming it to be the county council—power to permit slaughter according to their local knowledge and experience.
The noble Earl told us a week or so ago that if t here was a shortage of food in this

331
country owing to his neglect to take precautionary measures, he ought to be one of the first to be hanged. Well, that is an incident which I can assure him we should all deeply regret, and I have not the smallest fear that it is likely to happen. But I would remind him that there is nearly as much danger in trying to do too much without careful consideration as there is in doing too little; and I would also remind him that it is a very difficult thing to carry out a hard-and-fast system with a business like agriculture, which is so dependent upon climate, upon labour, and also upon the fact that unlike other people the farmer has to decide, under unknown conditions of weather and so on, months ahead as to what his policy of dealing with his farm is to be. Interference no doubt is necessary in time of war. We have to submit to interference in many ways which we do not like. But what I say is that any attempt to carry out a hard-and-fast system by a central Committee in London—however eminent or scientific its members may be, or however worthy may be its president, Sir Ailwyn Fellowes—is predestined to be a failure. The only way in which we can increase end maintain the supply of our home production of food is by putting a wide discretion in the hands of our local authorities.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I have only one or two words to say. I should hope that Lord Strachie is satisfied with the discussion that has been raised, and that he will not press his Amendment to a Division, because I think no one wants the Bill to be lost—and I fancy that the carrying of the Amendment would kill, the Bill. But I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord for placing his Amendment on the Paper. One argument that was used by my noble friend opposite I do not quite follow. I understood the noble Earl to say that although calves might not be sold for slaughter there were people in the country who would be willing to buy them for the purposes of rearing.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes.
LORD HARRIS: I do not think that is so. The wording under the Order, or, at any rate, under this Bill seems to me to prohibit the sale of the animal up till twelve weeks old for any purpose whatever.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No.
LORD HARRIS: Are you quite sure that that is the effect of the Order?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, quite sure.
LORD HARRIS: If that is so, it makes a great deal of difference. But as I read the Order it seemed to me that the animal could not be sold at all up till twelve weeks old.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My noble friend is wrong. I am quite certain of it.
LORD HARRIS: I am glad to hear that. But it cannot be removed out of the area.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, it can.
LORD HARRIS: Then the Order is very much milder than I had imagined. I am sure the noble Earl will feel that he has a multitude of counsellors, and he ought to be a very wise man after all the advice that has been given him, not only here but in the various bodies he has summoned to his aid. There is Sir Ailwyn Fellowes's Committee, Lord Milner's Committee, and the Development Board which I am aware is seriously discussing agricultural matters. So that my noble friend ought eventually to be pretty sure of the views, not only of practical persons, but also of the theorists amongst those Committees. But I venture to express the hope that at the Committee stage of this Bill the noble Earl will make some provision for laying on the Table of Parliament any Orders that he may find to be necessary.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, my noble friend who has just sat down said that I had the advantage of a multitude of counsellors. He was quite right. I think I have had the advantage to-night of a multitude of very good counsel, and I am much obliged to noble Lords for the great contribution they have made to the discussion of what is a very difficult subject, made in each case with real personal knowledge of the matters discussed. I can assure my noble friend Lord St. Audries that he cannot himself be

333
more impressed with the necessity of flexibility in this matter than I am. It is quite impossible to direct British agriculture by any hard-and-fast rule. I can assure him that no member of your Lordships' House can be more sensible than I am of the truth of the doctrine' which he laid down; and if I might be permitted, in the few moments that remain to us, I would go through some of the criticisms which noble Lords have made.
I can assure Lord St. Audries that the Board of Agriculture is in this matter, as every other agricultural body must be, a constant learner. We make no hard-and-fast law of the Modes and Persians. We make according to our responsibility, acting not hastily but after very full consideration and after having been the recipients of an immense amount of advice, what we think is the right Order for the moment. That is how we made the Order to which the noble Lord not wholly objects but to parts of which he objects. But that Order will be under the most constant scrutiny and revision. None of the criticisms or protests winch are sent in are thrown away; they are all considered and weighed as against other evidence we may receive of a different kind. And I would say in answer to Lord Strachie, while am still on that point, that the Advisory Committee contains two or three of the best practical working farmers of the country, not men who may be held to he not drawn from what I may call the "fanner class." I know, of course, whom he had in his mind when he spoke—Mr. Edward Strutt. Although he is one of the best farmers in the country he is not drawn from that class.
LORD HENEAGE: He is one of the best men in the Farmers' Club.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is so.
LORD STRACHIE: Is he a tenant farmer?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No, he is not; but there are men on that Committee who are tenant farmers in the strictest sense of the term. The Order in question was made after we had been
334
the recipients of requests from an immense body of farmers all over the country, not asking us to do merely what we did, but to go much further. The Order is mild in comparison with what we were asked to do by a great number of people.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: Graziers mostly?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes, mostly graziers; just as the objectors were dairymen. And all we can do is as far as possible to hold the scales level between the contending interests. Both Lord St. Audries and Lord Ribblesdale alluded to a very important point. It is this, that many dairymen use utterly inferior bulls to put to their cows, and the produce of those cows from such bulls can never be of any value for rearing, fattening, and turning into meat. That is perfectly true. But it is a lamentable fact, and I think it is an extraordinary pity that such bad bulls should be used to such an immense extent as Lord St. Audries tells us they are when the same results from the point of view of the dairymen and much better results from the point of view of the country would be produced by the use of good bulls. Therefore if an indirect effect of the action which we have taken should be to discourage the very bad agricultural practice of using any bull for the purpose of the dairy cow I shell not personally be sorry. But I admit that this does not absolve me front considering the difficulty which exists from the prevalence of that practice. That was the exact case which Lord Ribblesdale meant, and I am much obliged to him for his suggestion. He said that some authority ought to examine the calves and put aside those which could never be of any value to store, and that those should be branded and exempted from the Order and allowed to be slaughtered. All I can say is that that suggestion will be very carefully considered. But Lord St. Audries rather gave us to imagine—I am sure he does not mean it—that the calves from cows belonging to this class of dairy farmers are all from bad bulls. That is going too far, I think.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: I did not mean that. But I saw a resolution passed by the Fanners' Club only last week in favour of using better bulls in future.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This vicious practice—I think your Lordships will agree that I am not using too strong a term—is happily not universal, and although there may be only too large a proportion of these calves that are not much use for turning into meat, there is a very large number that we have endeavoured to save which are fit by their parentage to become beef hereafter; and that is the exact reason why the age of twelve weeks was chosen. It is true that at twelve weeks the animal is neither veal nor beef; but at twelve weeks it cannot go back to veal, but it may go on to beef. That is the object with which this particular period was chosen. Lord St. Audries will admit, I think, that I have already dealt with his point as to the necessity of exception when I said that I would carefully consider the matter mentioned by Lord Ribblesdale. Lord Galway alluded to the same point, and therefore he will pardon me if I do not repeat myself.
With regard to the meaning of the words "obviously and visibly in-calf," mentioned by Lord Galway, I would say that I am not a Parliamentary draftsman, but I can state what was intended. We are told by veterinary surgeons and by others that there is a moment when no man accustomed to deal with cattle—the farmer, the middleman, or the butcher—has any real doubt as to whether a cow is in-calf or not; whereas in the early stages of pregnancy you cannot he so certain and mistakes might happen with men not so experienced. "Obviously and visibly in-calf" is the legal method of putting on paper what I have told you the veterinary surgeons said.
I pass to the criticisms of Lord Strachie. I have already pointed out that the Advisory Committee does contain an adequate representation of the tenant farmers. I can assure the noble Lord that any such resolution as the one to which he referred, proceeding from the County Councils Association would naturally carry great weight with me. I am myself a member of that Association and know what a great volume of opinion it represents. Also I should regard with the greatest respect any opinion coming from the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society or from the Bath and West of England Agricultural Society. But it is not possible for the Board of Agriculture, any more than for
336
any other Government Office, on the eve of executive action to write to every possible authority in the country and ask them their opinion. It welcomes, and will welcome, all expressions of opinion as from time to time tendered by authorities so eminent. But all it can do is what my pre decessor endeavoured to do—namely, to establish a Committee representative of them all, the existence of which should be known to the whole agricultural public and to which officially any question that arose from time to time could be submitted for advice.
I would like to allude to the point made by Lord Strachie as to the commandeering of hay. It is not strictly germane to the matter under discussion, but it is so important to farmers that I do not like to pass over his observations on the subject. When the War Office first took powers to commandeer hay, opportunity of appeal to the County Court was given to the farmer as against the price offered by the War Office. That was a tribunal not very popular with the farmers. They did not like the bother of going to the County Court; and whereas a great many of them protested vehemently against the price offered, only a few of them entered an appeal before the County Court. The only appeal that has been heard, I may say, went entirely in favour of the War Office. But acting on the representation of the Board of Agriculture, the War Office have now agreed to supplement that procedure, and Committees are being established, one for the South and one for the North of England, consisting of a representative of the War Office, of the hay merchants, and of the farmers—using such bodies as the Farmers' Union and the Central Chamber of Agriculture for the purpose of selection—to whom an appeal may be made by the farmer against the price offered by the War Office. If the farmer succeeds in his appeal to this Committee the War Office will go no further; but if the Committee gives its decision against the farmer, the farmer is still left with his appeal to the County Court if he wishes. I think that disposes satisfactorily of the question of price. But there is something quite as important—namely, whether the hay ought to be taken at all; because, especially in this year when there has been a comparative drought, the old hay as well as the new may be of importance to the farmer, and it is no use urging the farmer to keep more

337
stock if the War Office conies down and makes it impossible for him to do that by commnandeering his hay. Therefore I am urging on the War Office that the farmer should have au appeal also against having the hay taken at all, so that he should not be placed in the cruel position of not having all the keep he requires for the winter when he is at the same time prevented by the Board of Agriculture from parting with his stock. The matter is not settled yet with the War Office, but I shall do all I can to that arrangement.
It only remains for me to say that I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord. As Lord Harris pointed out, to accept this Amendment would mean the killing of the Bill. But although I am not saying my last word now, I should with great reluctance accept any such Amendment in Committee, because I do think that under war conditions it is very necessary that the Board should be able to act promptly and decisively. At all times it will be possible for your Lordships to raise such a discussion as has taken place to-night, and such discussions, I think you will believe after what I have said, will never be thrown away upon me or the Board of Agriculture. We do not profess to be infallible in what is an extremely difficult question. We know how complicated is the whole science of farming, and we shall at all times be prepared to learn by experience, to listen to your Lordships' arguments, and to review the situation and if necessary revise our Orders.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: Could the noble Earl tell us what the local authority is to be?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will give a full explanation in Committee.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, as the acceptance of my Amendment at the present stage would kill the Bill—the last thing that I desire—I ask leave to withdraw it now; but I give notice that I shall bring it forward again in Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then the original Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
(Southampton (Extension) Order.)
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the London County Council (Tramways and improvements) Bill and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill (Southampton (Extension) Order); read, and agreed to: 2k11 Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Tea o'clock.