Sitting of 13 July 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Port of London Authority Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
South Staffordshire Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Wolverhampton Corporation Water Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Glasgow Corporation (Parks, Harbour Tunnel, Gas, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of Orders in Council, dated 6th July, 1915, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Fifty-first detailed Annual Report of the Registrar General of Marriages, Births, and Deaths in Ireland, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY (IRELAND).
copy presented of Sixty-fourth Report of the Inspectors of Lunatics in Ireland for the year 1914, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Report from the Joint Committee in respect of the Indictments Bill [Lords],
pending in the Lords, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Report from the Joint Committee in respect of the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Bill brought up, and read.
Special Report brought up, and read.
Report, with Minutes of Evidence and Special Report, to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BRITISH CONSULAR OFFICERS (COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS).
    Mr. WINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in the rearrangement that may arise as the result of the War in the Embassies and Consulates representing the British peoples in foreign countries, he will recognise the large numbers of eligible and capable men engaged as commercial travellers whose technical skill in the arts of salesmanship fit them especially for position of Consul, Commercial Attaché, and other positions in our Embassies in countries where British manufacturers need special representation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): A Royal Commission recently reported upon the Diplomatic and Consular Services, and made certain recommendations which are engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government. It is not possible at this time to make any statement. Admission to these services on a permanent basis is at present suspended. But when the Government are able again to give practical consideration to this subject, the suggestion

    733
    contained in the question will not be lost sight of. I shall be happy to furnish to my hon. Friend a statement of the duties of Consular officers, from which he will see that they are a good deal more varied and complex than is sometimes thought.

  ARMY CONTRACTS (MESSRS. MAHONY).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why no Army contract was placed with Messrs. Mahony, of Blarney, until they had required their employés, under pain of dismissal, to withdraw from the Irish Volunteers; whether any such condition with respect to the Ulster Volunteers has been imposed upon Ulster firms before placing Army contracts with them; if not, seeing that the latter body was organised expressly to resist an Act of Parliament, will he account for the difference of treatment; what wages are being paid by Messrs. Mahony; and whether they are in accordance with the Fair-Wages Resolution?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The contract placed with Messrs. Mahony, of Blarney, was allotted in the ordinary way after competitive tendering. I have no knowledge of their employés having been required to withdraw from the Irish Volunteers, No firm has been required, as a condition of obtaining Army contracts, to secure the withdrawal of its employés from either the Irish Volunteers or the Ulster Volunteers, or any other volunteers. No complaint has reached me as to the wages paid by Messrs. Mahony. Their contract contains the Fair-Wages Clause, and I have no reason to doubt that they are complying with its requirements.

  COMPULSORY TRANSFER OF MEN.
  Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-Secretary for War whether Form 624, dealing with the compulsory transfer of men from one battalion to another, has been or will be withdrawn; and whether he will now take steps to remove the injustice which has been done to many men by the compulsory transfer from the Royal Army Medical Corps to fighting units, in view of the fact that many men joined the Royal Army Medical Corps for
  734
  the sole purpose of helping sick and wounded men at the front?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): As I stated yesterday, instructions have been issued that it will be no longer necessary for members of the Territorial Force undertaking Imperial service obligation to also agree to liability to be transferred to another corps. The transfers referred to in the latter part of the question are apparently those of Regular soldiers. It it not proposed to reconsider them.

  RECRUITING.
  Mr. KENYONasked the Under-Secretary for War, whether his attention has been drawn to the case of D. Saunders Davies, No. 22521, G Company, 3rd Battalion King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, who enlisted at Chesterfield in April last at the age of 17; whether he is aware that the recruiting sergeant told the lad to state his age as being nineteen; whether he is aware that the parents have made application for their son's release and have proved his age by the production of the birth certificate; and will he state why the application has not been acceded to?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have not yet received a reply to the inquiry I have instituted regarding this case.
  Mr. KENYONasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Michael O'Reilly, a bound apprentice to the house-painting trade, who enlisted in the Royal Irish Rifles in August last at the age of seventeen years; whether he is aware that O'Reilly's mother has written, to the commanding officer drawing his attention to the fact that her son was, under age, but has received no reply; whether he is aware that the mother has objections to the lad being retained, in: view of the circumstances and of the fact that she has already given two sons to the Army; and whether he will state the policy of the War Office in cases of lads who are under age enlisting without the, consent of their parents?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir; the attention of the War Office has not been drawn to

  735
  this case, but if my hon. Friend will furnish we with details as to the regimental number and number of the battalion to which the man belongs I will have inquiry made. The policy of the War Office is to allow parents to claim the discharge of their sons who are under seventeen years of age and who are serving at home. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to King's Regulations, paragraph 392 (6). I have given an answer once before, but it was misquoted in the newspapers as being nineteen and not seventeen, and I have had a shoal of letters on that point.
  Colonel WHITEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether there is any insuperable objection to accepting as recruits men, otherwise qualified, who are suffering from astigmatism and who require to be provided with a cylindrical or sphero-cylindrical lens?
  Mr. TENNANT: Astigmatic men have always been accepted as recruits provided they possess one-quarter of the normal vision without glasses.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that for every recruit sworn in or attested by a justice of the peace a fee of 1s. is paid; and whether, in view of the amount of recruiting there is and the need for national economy, he will take steps to abolish the payment of this fee?
  Mr. FORSTER: The fee is statutory under the Army Act and is paid to the clerk to the justices when the clerical work connected with the attesting is done by him. The recruit is only attested by a magistrate in cases where he cannot be taken before a commissioned officer. It is not considered necessary to make any alteration in the system at the present time.
  Mr. WILSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday recruits were sworn in by magistrates?
  Mr. FORSTER: No. I had no idea of that.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is it within the power of a magistrate to charge this fee? One week I attested over 700 myself.
  Mr. SPEAKER: These are personal reminiscences.

  SS. "ANGLO-CALIFORNIAN" (GALLANT ACT OF MR. PAR SLOW).
  Sir JOHN HARMOOD-BANNERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the gallant act of Mr. Parslow, second mate of the ss. "Anglo-Californian," who, on the death of his father, the captain of the steamer, by a shell from a German submarine, took charge of the ship and conducted her safely to Queenstown through continuous fire; and if he will recognise in some form his bravery?
  The SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): A report of the incident has been received. The Admiralty fully concur that Mr. Parslow and his father behaved most gallantly, and the question of recognising their conduct is now under consideration.

  HARBOUR FACILITIES (STROXSAY, ORKNEY).
  Mr. COWANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Admiralty to allow a Norwegian steamer to enter the harbour of Stronsay, Orkney, to load a cargo of herring for direct shipment to Archangel, thus compelling the curer, William Downie, of Fraserburgh, to charter a local steamer to convey these herring to that port for shipment thence to Archangel at a loss of £100; and whether, having regard to the fact that the action of the Admiralty was necessitated by considerations of naval policy, he will consider the question of compensating fish curers for losses arising out of the War and imposed upon them in the interests of the State?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter is receiving attention, but I can give no undertaking as to the possibility of admitting claims to compensation in such cases.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that this vessel was prevented from going into the harbour while a chartered vessel was permitted?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: All I can say is that the whole matter is receiving attention.

  MUNITIONS.

    CANADIAN FIBMS AND ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that the National Car Company, of Hamilton, and the Canada Foundry Company, of Toronto, Canada, who have contracts for the manufacture of munitions of war for the British Government are employing a number of Austrians and Germans on this work; whether he is aware that these two firms are paying their workmen from 25 per cent, to 45 per cent, less than the standard rate of wage; and whether he will instruct his agent in Canada to take steps to prevent the employment of alien enemies on the manufacture of munitions of war for this country, and also see that the proper rate of wage is paid?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland): I have no information with regard to the particular circumstances referred to, but I have full confidence that the Canadian Government will take any steps which may be necessary.
    Mr. WILSON: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate with the Canadian Government on the matter?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will consider that. It is a matter for the Canadian Government.

  RETAIL GOODS (DELIVERY).
  Mr. JOSEPH PEASEasked the President of the Board of Education whether, with a view to prevent the injury suffered by children of school age by their employment in errand work, admittedly one of the blind alley occupations, and in view of the shortage of labour in retail trades, he will issue a circular to local education authorities recommending that the attention of retail traders within their areas should publicly be drawn to the importance of employing women and elderly men in preference to children in the work of delivery of goods, and that purchasers of retail goods should be invited, so far as possible, to carry their own parcels during the currency of the War?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. A. Henderson): I am in complete sympathy with my right hon. Friend's desire that the employment of school children for excessively long hours in unsuitable and unpromising occupations should be discouraged as far as possible.
  738
  On the other hand, I am bound to recognise that at the present time a limitation of the resources out of which the working classes have to meet the increasing cost of living might involve hardship. Before taking the course suggested in the question the Board would have to be satisfied by careful investigation that the effect of their recommendations, if generally adopted, would not be adverse to the present interests of the children themselves.

  CHEAP RAILWAY TICKETS.
  Mr. GORDON HARVEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has succeeded in arranging with the railway companies for the issue during the summer months of cheap tickets to holiday resorts for boys' clubs and similar bodies?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Cheap tickets are now being issued in the normal way to societies or institutions who, undertake to arrange holidays for poor children under fourteen years of age. The use of these tickets is available for members of boys' clubs or other similar organisations. I may add that youths over fourteen years of age who belong to any of the cadet corps (about 130 in number) which are approved by the War Office obtain the benefit of the cheap railway facilities granted to those bodies.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will boys' clubs and boys' camps have this year, under the terms of the reply just given, the same facilities that they enjoyed in former years?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, subject to the conditions named in the reply that I have just read out.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any hope of these tickets being extended to adults as in former days?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Not until the War is over.

  UNDER-SECRETARIES OF STATE.
  Sir JOSEPH WALTONasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the French Government have appointed two additional Under-Secretaries of State for War and have under consideration the question of similarly strengthening the staff in other Departments affected by the

  739
  War; and whether, in this time of pressure, he will consider the advisability of the adoption of the same methods in this country?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Government are constantly alive to the necessity of making provision that the Departments dealing with the War shall be adequately staffed.

  GENERAL ELECTION (POSTPONEMENT).
  Mr. KINGasked when the Bill dealing with the possible postponement of the General Election will be introduced?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will make a statement in a day or two.

  INTERNED ENEMY SHIPS.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked what is the number and tonnage of enemy merchant ships at present interned in the United Kingdom harbours which are not made use of for Government purposes?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: All the interned ships referred to are being used.

  COAL DISPUTE (SOUTH WALES).
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I desire to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question, of which I have given him private notice: What steps do the Government propose to take to deal with the situation in South Wales?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret to say that the negotiations on the subject of the dispute in the South Wales coalfield, which towards the end of last week appeared likely to have a happy termination, have for the time proved unsuccessful, and as a result of a conference of delegates of the South Wales miners, held at Cardiff yesterday. This conference rejected the terms of settlement put forward by the Government, and passed the following resolution: "That we do not accept anything less than our original proposals, and that we stop the collieries on Thursday next until these demands are conceded." In view of the serious situation thus created, the Government have decided to apply by Proclamation the provisions of
  740
  Part I. of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, to the difference which has arisen in the South Wales coal-mining industry, on the ground that the existence or continuance of this difference is prejudicial to the manufacture, transport and supply of munitions of war. The Proclamation, which will be issued to-day, will have the effect of making it an offence to take part in a strike or lock-out unless the difference has been reported to the Board of Trade, and the Board have not within twenty-one days of such report referred it for settlement by one of the methods prescribed in the Act.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: What steps are the Government going to take to bring the Proclamation before the notice of the men who are actually engaged in the industry?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: A statement is being made to the Press simultaneously with the statement which I have now made to the House, and I hope that by that means the men in the South Wales coalfields will realise what action is being taken.
  Mr. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that copies of the Proclamation are sent to-morrow to the coalfields?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Certainly. We shall take every means to make known in the coalfields exactly what has happened.

  Post Office Air Space.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General what is the smallest airspace allowed to be used in this country for the business part and the living part, respectively, of a sub-post office?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): No definite rule has been laid down.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is there any minimum given?
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: No definite rule has been made in regard to that.

  National Insurance Act (Undistributed Balance).
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, when the balance of the original sum of money, representing the premiums of those insured persons who had neglected to choose a doctor, which was in the hands of the London insurance

  741
  committee and amounts to about £13,000, will be divided among the doctors on the London panel in accordance with an arrangement made in 1913 with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Charles Roberts): Final payments to doctors on the panel in London in respect of the period in question are now being made.

  Spirit Duties (Hospitals).
  Sir P. MAGNUS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice: If, having regard to the disappointment that will be caused if no relief from spirit duty is provided for hospitals in the course of this financial year, it is his intention to introduce a Clause into this or the next Finance Bill to give such relief in the form of a Grant which will be based on the duty paid on spirits by hospitals last year, subject to investigation of an Advisory Committee working in connection with the Board of Customs and Excise?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I agree in principle to a Grant from public funds of the kind referred to in the question. I understand that this proposal meets with general approval, and I regret that time will not allow me to deal with the matter now. I propose, however, to do so on the first suitable opportunity.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  AIRCRAFT AND BOMBARDMENT INSURANCE.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): By leave of the House I have to make a statement with regard to the Government scheme for insurance against aircraft and bombardment risks. On 21st June I appointed a Committee, consisting of the following gentlemen:—Mr. Frederick Huth Jackson, Sir Raymond Beck, Mr. Cuthbert Heath, Mr. Roger Owen, Sir Gerald Ryan, "to consider, without prejudice to the question of policy, whether a scheme can be devised to cover loss and damage by bombardment and aircraft in so far as such loss and damage are not covered by the terms of the ordinary fire insurance policy. Any scheme prepared must be on the basis of reasonable contribution being paid by the owners of property insured towards the cost of insurance." That Committee have now formulated a scheme which the Government are prepared to adopt. The Committee found that the best practicable method of dealing with the problem would be to invoke the assistance of the fire insurance companies. They accordingly approached a number of the large fire insurance companies, and as the result of their inquiries they based their report on the assumption that a sufficient number of the fire insurance companies would be prepared to act as agents for the Government in the issuing of policies and the collection of premiums, and in the initial proceedings in connection with loss assessments. They reported that it would also be necessary to establish a special State Insurance Office to supplement the work of the fire offices which act as agents for the Government.

  RISKS COVERED.
  The scheme would cover loss and damage to the property insured (with the exception of deterioration, loss of market, or loss of profit) caused directly or indirectly by aircraft or bombardment in so far as the loss or damage would not be covered by an ordinary fire policy containing a clause in the following words:—
  "This policy does not cover loss or damage occasioned by or happening through invasion, foreign enemy, riot, civil commotion, or military or usurped power."
  Rent may be insured as well as specific loss or damage to the property.
  Insurance against bombardment is optional. Two policies have been drawn up, one against aircraft risks only, the other against aircraft and bombardment risks. (The terms of these policies are shown in Schedules I. and II. of the Report.)
  The insurance of goods on board ship would not be covered under the scheme, nor would ships on the slips.
  In the case of bombardment the cover is limited to bombardment by hostile guns not landed on British territory.

  PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT WITH THE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  It is proposed that the State should enter into an agreement with any approved fire insurance company, authorising the company to issue policies on behalf of the State and to collect the premiums thereon.
  The principle of the arrangement is that persons insured against fire in an approved company can take out through the same company a policy against aircraft and bombardment. A remuneration of 10 per cent, on the gross premiums would be paid to the companies to cover all expenses connected with the issue of the policies, the collection of premiums, and the expenses of the initial proceedings in connection with the adjustment of claims, with the exception of the assessors' fees, which would be paid by the Government. All claims to be finally settled and paid in cash by the State Insurance Office within thirty days of the adjustment of the claim. The accounts between the Government and the companies to be settled monthly. Any company which elects to act as agents for the Government may not accept risks on its own account.

  STATE INSURANCE OFFICE.
  The State office will insure property which is insured against fire elsewhere than with the approved companies acting as agents for the Government, and it will also insure property which is not insured against fire at all, and also the property of the persons who elect to deal direct with the State Insurance Office.
  The office will be under the administration of a committee of experts, including representatives of Lloyd's, fire insurance offices, and the Government. In addition to issuing policies of insurance, the State

  751
  Office will receive the monthly accounts from the approved insurance companies, and will finally settle and pay all claims. The State Office will not accept reinsurances.

  RATES.
  The rates to be charged will be the same for all districts, and are as follows:—

  Against Aircraft only.

  Against Aircraft and Bombardment

  1. Building, Rent and Contents of—

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  Private Dwelling-houses and Buildings in which no trade or manufacture is carried on

  2

  0

  3

  0

  2. All other Buildings and their Rents

  3

  0

  4

  6

  3. Farming Stock (live and dead)

  3

  0

  4

  6

  4. Contents of all Buildings other than those specified in 1 and 5

  5

  0

  7

  0

  5. —(a) Merchandise at Docks and Public Wharves, in Carriers' and Canal Warehouses and Yards, in Public Mercantile Storage Warehouses, and in transit by Rail

  7

  6

  10

  0

  (b)Timber in the open

  (c) Mineral Oil Tanks and Stores (Wholesale)

  N.B. (1).—Insurances under Class 5 may be accepted for short periods at the following rates:—

  Six months

  Three-fourths of the annual premium.

  Three months

  One-half of the annual premium.

  One month

  One-fourth of the annual premium.

  All the other rates are for twelve calendar months or any shorter period.
  N.B. (2)—Buildings, Rent and Contents must be specified separately.
  I am inviting some fifty of the larger fire insurance companies to co-operate with us in working this scheme by acting as agents for the Government, and if, as I hope and expect, this invitation is accepted, it should be possible to commence the scheme at the beginning of next week. It is not proposed to limit the scheme necessarily to these fifty companies. If any other fire insurance companies would be willing to act as agents for the Government in working this scheme, and will be good enough to send me their
  752
  names, their application to be placed on the list of approved companies for this purpose would be welcomed and carefully considered.
  Mr. FELL: Will Lloyd's continue to issue insurances?
  Mr. LOUGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any arrangement with regard to insurances already effected?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Government do not propose to take over insurances already made. Lloyd's will be able to conduct their business if they can attract custom at cheaper rates than those provided by the Government.
  An HON. MEMBER: Have any arrangements been made with regard to personal injury?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No; we have not provided for personal injury.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of considering these terms? I am quite sure that those connected with insurance think that many of them are very absurd.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I will consider that.
  Sir W. PEARCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman including the risks from incendiary fires by enemy agents?
  Mr. PETO: How does this affect compensation already granted from insurance premiums in previous air raids or bombardments?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: In so far as compensation has already been granted, it obviously will not be interfered with. In reply to my hon. Friend behind me, we do not provide against incendiary fires. We are only asked to provide a scheme against damage done by aircraft or bombardment.

  WAR LOAN.

    STATEMENT BY MR. MCKENNA.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): With the leave of the House, I desire to make a statement as to the result of the subscription to the new War Loan. Since the lists were closed on Saturday, statements have appeared in some newspapers that subscriptions have been received to an amount of between £700,000,000 and £800,000,000.

    753
    I would like to say at once that such a total as that was neither expected nor desired. It would have created quite an unnecessary disturbance in our business financial arrangements, and, indeed, I will go further and say that had any such amount as £800,000,000 been in view, I should have found it necessary to close the lists.
    The actual number of subscribers to the Loan through the Bank of England has been 550,000, and the actual amount subscribed for is £570,000,000. I would like to remind the House that this gigantic total represents new money; it does not include stock to be issued for conversion. I would also like to remind the House that it does not include any subscriptions through the Post Office.
    As regards the Post Office, we must not forget that the applications did not close on Saturday, and that consequently the figures up to last Saturday do not by any means include the whole amount of subscriptions. But up to Saturday last, through the Post Office, 547,000 persons had applied for a total sum of £15,000,000.
    I regret to say that I am not able to give the House any figures at the present time in regard to the number of vouchers sold. But here, again, as this selling of vouchers is a continuous process, I shall probably be able to give the House a more accurate statement and forecast in two or three weeks' time than it is possible to give now. This huge total of nearly £600,000,000, far and away beyond any amount ever subscribed in the world's history, has been obtained only through the patriotic response of the whole people.
    I cannot speak without emotion of the efforts which have been made by every class of the community to scrape together all the resources upon which they could lay their hands in order to subscribe to the Loan. We must not forget that when an application of this kind is made, it can be made only in respect of available resources. We must remember that the markets have been practically closed for the sale of all securities; that thousands of people who were willing to sell securities were unable to sell because there were no buyers; and, consequently, this sum represents actual subscription of everything that is available.
    It has been obtained not only by the patriotic response of the whole nation, but by the unanimous assistance of the whole Press, and I wish, on behalf of the House to express our thanks to the efforts which
    754
    the Press have made to secure the success of this great national effort.
    All classes have been equally concerned. The private individual, the trading interests, and the great banks, joint stock and private, all have contributed to this gigantic total, and we owe the nation's thanks to all.
    I would like, also, to refer in the most appreciative terms to the work which has been done by the Bank of England. Those who consider what it means to receive in this short space of time applications from 550,000 subscribers—to get work down, to deal with all the variety of applications, and with the gigantic correspondence which they entailed—can understand what the great labours of the Bank of England have been, and how successful they are.
    This has been an exhibition, a necessary exhibition, of the unrivalled financial resources of the British Empire. They have been thrown into the scale of this War, and it is a declaration to our Allies, and to our enemies alike, that this United Kingdom will prove faithful to its trust and to the cause of the Allies.

  BILL PRESENTED.
    PRICE OF COAL (LIMITATION).
    "Bill to provide for the limitation of the price of Coal." Presented by Mr. RUN-CIMAN; supported by Mr. Pretyman; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]
  SOUTH-WEST AFRICA.
    TRIBUTE TO GENERAL BOTHA AND GENERAL SMUTS.

      APPRECIATION or UNION FORCE OPERATIONS.
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I beg to move, "That this House desires to place on record its grateful appreciation of the distinguished skill and ability with which General the Right Honourable Louis Botha planned and conducted the recent military operations in South-West Africa, and of the eminent services rendered by him and by General Smuts, and by the officers and the forces of the Union of South Africa under their command."
      In making this Motion, I would point out that the attention of our people here has naturally been so concentrated upon

      755
      the development day by day of the operations on the Western and Eastern theatres of war in Europe, they have probably not been able to follow with that close interest which it would otherwise have commanded the details of the remarkable campaign which has just been brought to such a triumphant conclusion in South-West Africa. I would indicate in a few sentences its leading features. Let me say, first, that His Majesty's Government early and very urgently requested the Government of the Union of South Africa to undertake this expedition, as in our opinion it was and is the most effective contribution for the time being that the Union could have made to the War.
      The first objective of the Union troops was the capture of the German wireless stations on the coast at Luderitzbuch and at Swa-kopmund, which was to be followed by an advance on the capital Windhoek. Luderitzbuch was occupied as long ago as the 21st September. The force established there has ever since displayed vigorous and useful activity. Owing to the defection of Maritz, and the necessity of dealing with the rebellion that broke out within the Union, the expedition to Swakopmund had to be for the time abandoned, but by the second week in December the Union Government were, again in a position to take the offensive.
      The Army was divided into four forces— Northern, Central, Southern, and Eastern. General Botha himself took command of the northern force, and the other three were eventually put under General Smuts. On the 14th of January of this year the northern force occupied Swakopmund and there followed during the succeeding months a series of sweeping and converging movements on the part of the various columns, which were admirably conceived and most skilfully carried out. May I note in passing, the heavy defeat inflicted on the enemy on the 1st of May at Gibeon, after a remarkable forced march by the central force under General Brits. On the 12th of May General Botha entered Windhoek with the northern force. The enemy fled to the north, and the whole German Colony south of Windhoek was placed under the Union administration. The pursuit which followed was rapid and most effective, and in it General Brits' column was reported to have marched forty-five miles in sixteen hours, and General Lukin's forty-eight miles in twenty hours.
      756
      By the end of June, the situation of the enemy had become desperate, and on the 8th of July General Botha brought the campaign to a glorious end. Three thousand five hundred prisoners were taken in the final surrender, with thirty-seven field guns and twenty-two machine guns, and the German Dominion of South-West Africa had ceased to exist. I may say on behalf of the Imperial Government that we have co-operated in every possible way by the convoy of troops, and by the provision of rifles and guns and ammunition. It must be remembered that the theatre of these operations was at once vast in extent, and singularly unsuited to military movements. Deserts of shifting sand, waterholes rare and often poisoned by the enemy, mines thickly strewn, no pasture for the baggage train, railways torn up and destroyed—those are a few of the obstacles that had to be encountered and overcome.
      The striking success of our Army at a comparatively small cost, I am happy to say, in casualties, is due to two main causes—in the first place, the admirable strategy of General Botha, which secured the concert and cooperation at enormous distances of the various columns; and next, and perhaps most of all, the combined mobility and endurance and valour of the Union troops, which made effective resistance at any point impossible. I ask the House, at this the earliest opportunity, to testify the admiration and gratitude of the whole Empire, first to the illustrious General, who is also Prime Minister of the Union, and who has rendered such inestimable services to the Empire which he entered by adoption, and of which he has become one of the most honoured and cherished sons; and to his dauntless and much enduring troops who, whether of burgher or of British blood, fought like brethren side by side in a cause which is equally dear to all of us—the broadening of the bounds of human liberty.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): Although I am now a member of the Government, I hope the House will not think it inappropriate that, as still representing one of the parties in this House, I should have the privilege of seconding the Resolution which has been moved by the Prime Minister. The part taken by the Overseas Dominions in this War has come, not to us, but to our enemies, as the greatest of all surprises. They said, and I think

      757
      they believed, that the outbreak of war would be the signal, for the beginning, at least, of the dissolution of the British Empire. They have been mistaken, and their mistake goes to the very root of what I believe to be the main issue of this War. We had no power—and if we had had any slight power we would never have dreamt of exercising it—of compelling any one of the self-governing Dominions to give us the smallest help. Yet from every part of the Empire—from India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada — have come Armies, which, in any other war, would have been regarded as great Armies. They have come entirely of their own free will, not merely to help us in our quarrel, but to take part in what they regard as their quarrel, and to defend the Empire which was assailed, which was theirs as much as ours.
      Nowhere was that mistake more marked than in South Africa The Germans remembered that only fifteen years ago we were engaged in a war in that country. They could not understand—General Botha has enabled them now to understand— that a brave foe who had pledged his word would keep that word. They now find that instead of South Africa falling away from the British Empire, the Forces of South Africa have won a notable victory in the cause of that Empire. I am incompetent to judge of the military qualities displayed in this campaign, but it seems to me— and everyone in the House, after listening to the account given of it by the Prime Minister, will I think agree with me—that they are very great. It has been a fight, and it has been a victory, not so much over men, though we know that the men were formidable, as over the forces of nature; and it has been a complete victory. I think the House may draw a good omen from the course of these operations. At first there were reverses; there was long delay with no success; but the end has come, and it has come completely. To-day the whole Empire, and not the House of Commons alone, regards General Botha as a man whom it delights to honour. I am sure of this, that no Resolution ever submitted to this House has secured a greater measure of support than that which will be given to this Resolution by every section of the House of Commons.
      Mr. CHAPLIN: I am sure that on this occasion I shall be permitted, both on behalf of the right hon. Gentlemen sitting by me on this bench and on behalf of many Friends behind me, to say how heartily we
      758
      endorse the tribute which has just been paid by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the great and heroic feat which has been accomplished in South-Western Africa by the great soldier and statesman, General Botha. That has been an event which cannot have failed, as a great and notable victory of British arms, already to give great encuoragement to all the Armies of Great Britain who are fighting at this moment, and some of them far apart from each other. That General Botha should have been able to effect this great triumph so early in the proceedings of the present War, in which we are engaged against one of the most powerful enemies in the world, will be no surprise to those who are aware of the great qualities which he possesses and which the Prime Minister has so well described. Everyone will remember how, when not very long ago a very serious occasion arose, full of danger to his own country, General Botha came forward at once as a great man in the hour of his country's need, and by his courage and decision, his resolute determination and his prompt action, averted what might easily have been a great disaster to his country. British people throughout the world—the children of the Empire, if I may so describe them, in all quarters of the globe—will bless and praise him—and he would wish for nothing better—for all that he has done on their behalf. We wish him joy with all our hearts, and—I am sure it is the case with me—when we think of what this great man has accomplished already our hearts are very full indeed. It will always be a pride and satisfaction to me that I have been permitted on this: occasion to support the Resolution which has been moved and seconded by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
      Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I hope the House will excuse me for intervening in this Debate. I cannot hope to add anything to the admirable speeches which have already been delivered, but my colleagues and my countrymen think that on this occasion the voice of Ireland should add itself to the chorus of admiration and respect of all parts of the Empire to-General Botha, the great soldier and statesman. I take part in this Debate as an Irishman, because Ireland, like South Africa, has passed in generous wisdom an oblivion over past misunderstandings and quarrels with this Empire, and has recognised that in this great struggle in which

      759
      we are engaged the fundamental principle, as the Prime Minister has said, is the broadening of human liberty. In the action of General Botha and our fellow citizens in South Africa, I recognise the conviction that that broadening of human liberty is the real issue between us and our enemies; that he and they wisely saw in that great principle the vindication of the struggle, and the explanation of the passionate loyalty with which all the people of this Empire have rallied to the flag:
      Resolved, nemine contradicente,
      "That this House desires to place on record its grateful appreciation of the distinguished skill and ability with which General the Right Honourable Louis Botha planned and conducted the recent military operations in South-West Africa, and of the eminent services rendered by him and by General Smuts, and by the officers and the forces of the Union of South Africa under their command."

  FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Repayment in Certain Cases of Tax on Interest Paid to Banks.)
    Where interest payable in the United Kingdom on an advance from a bank carrying on a bonâ fide banking business in the United Kingdom is paid to the bank, without deduction of Income Tax, out of profits and gains brought into charge to Income Tax, the person by whom the in-interest is paid shall be entitled, on proof of the facts to the satisfaction of the special Commissioners, to repayment of an amount equal to Income Tax on the amount of the interest.
    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. McKENNA: I move this new Clause in fulfilment of the promise made in Committee. I think the Clause carries out in its entirety the understanding which was arrived at. The Clause is quite simple, I think, and clear.
    Mr. PETO: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting so fully the point which I put before him in the Clause which I put on the Paper in Committee. As he says, this Clause fully
    760
    meets the point in regard to bankers' loans to private individuals. I should not have risen had it not been that I desire just to point out the particular bearing of this Clause upon the great National War Loan, the successful issue of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has this afternoon announced in the House. In regard to that, I should like to be allowed to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, as he congratulated the country, upon the magnificent result of this, his earliest effort in his new office. There is one other thing I must point ont, and that is of a technical nature. The right hon. Gentleman has met my point fully in regard to bankers' loans. Of course he has hedged that around, very properly, and limited it to bonâ fide banking business in the United Kingdom. Although I do not want to be greedy, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there is another class of loan which, although I shall not press it this year, I may refer to in future. It is much larger in extent. Here the grievance—and it is a real grievance—is exactly the same, and that is in connection with the habitual lending by stockbrokers against the stocks they hold Here again Income Tax on the interest is undoubtedly received by the Treasury twice over, just as it is in the case of a loan made by bonâ fide bankers.
    I do not think it would be appropriate to press that point now, but I just want to mention it to the right hon. Gentleman. In order to complete the symmetry of this Clause and remove this grievance altogether, I hope that next year the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to somewhat extend the limit so as to include all bonâ fide loans, whether made by bankers or by Stock Exchange firms, against securities which are really not the property of the persons who are the nominal owners, and who do not really derive the benefit of them. There is only one other point. I take it that this Clause is strictly limited to the present year. I should like, just to avoid any possible doubt, and to know positively from the right hon. Gentleman whether, on this Clause being enacted, it would be within the rights of anyone to claim arrears of Income Tax that they have wrongly paid over the usual period of three years?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think arrears will be recoverable, although I cannot speak positively.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to Warehouse Certain Spirits of Wine on Drawback for Home Consumption or for Delivery Duty Free for Use in Arts, etc.)
    (1) Notwithstanding anything in Section ninety-five of the Spirits Act, 1880, a rectifier may, subject to the provisions of that Section—

    (a) warehouse for home consumption spirits of wine of a strength of seventy-four degrees over proof or upwards rectified by him from spirits on which duty has been paid; or

    (b) warehouse for delivery to a person entitled to receive spirits duty free under Section eight of the Finance Act, 1902, or under this Act, spirits of wine of a strength of fifty degrees over proof or upwards so rectified.

    (2) The Commissioners of Customs and Excise may make regulations with respect to the conditions under which spirits of wine of a strength of seventy-four degrees over proof or upwards may be warehoused by a distiller or a rectifier, and may by any such regulations modify as respects any such spirits any of the provisions of the Spirits Act, 1880, or any other enactment relating to the warehousing of spirits.
    (3) If any person contravenes or fails to comply with any regulations made under this Section he shall be liable to an excise penalty of one hundred pounds.
    (4) Notwithstanding anything in Section twenty-one of the Revenue Act, 1889, the allowance payable under Section three of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, in respect of spirits of the nature of spirits of wine shall, in the case of any such spirits as are mentioned in Sub-section one of this Section, be payable only on the exportation of the spirits and not on the deposit of the spirits in the warehouse.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. McKENNA: The matter is extremely complicated. We propose to allow the warehousing of spirits as suggested. It must not be forgotten that duty has been paid upon the spirits from which the spirits of wine are obtained by rectification, and that it is only reasonable that the same facility should be given for the use of spirits of wine to the
    762
    home manufacturers as are now given to those for export This Clause, introduced into the present Finance Bill, is in response to a question put by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, and I think the House generally will agree with it. I propose to move it in a slightly different form to that upon which it appears upon the Paper. I propose, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the words "or under this Act." These words were inserted because at the time the Clause was, drafted it was thought that an amendment of the law might be secured by the hon. Member who is sitting beside me in relation to spirits of wine used in the hospitals. I propose still further to amend the Clause.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We had better take these Amendments as Amendments to the Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), omit the words "or under this Act."
    In Sub-section (4), after the word "spirits" ["on the exportation of the spirits"], to insert the words "or on the spirits being used in the warehouse."— [Mr. McKenna.]
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
    Mr. DENNISS: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether those manufacturers of absolute alcohol who have recently applied themselves to that industry in this country—because, previously, the whole of the absolute alcohol was supplied to this country by Germany and none of it was manufactured here—come within this Clause and will be allowed to warehouse duty free the absolute alcohol on their premises. When the War broke out absolute alcohol, especially for the manufacture of medicines and for a great many purposes connected with munitions and other matters, was a great necessity, and it was so scarce that manufacturers had to have special pressure put upon them to get them to make this alcohol at a loss. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can inform me whether or not they will come within the Clause in question. They are rectifiers of spirits.
    Mr. McKENNA: As I understand, absolute alcohol is a description of rectified spirits differing only from the ordinary

    763
    description in the fact that it is more fully dehydrated, and it would, therefore, come under the provision of paragraph (a) of the new Clause. I can briefly answer my hon. Friend, therefore, in the affirmative.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON and Sir FREDERICK BANBURYhad the following on the Paper:

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal of s. 2 of the Finance Act, 1912.)
    Section two of the Finance Act, 1912, is hereby repealed.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Clause imposes a charge.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Of course, I accept jour ruling upon that, but I should like to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out the promise made by his predecessor.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman would be out of order in going into that here.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. This Clause was put into the Rill in 1912. It was put in by my hon. Friend, and it did then undoubtedly impose a charge, but the authorities of the House and Members at that time did not notice it. If this Clause is repealed the Bill will be in exactly the same position as in 1910, and the consequence is that the illegal action of my hon. Friend will have been put right. The point I want to raise is whether it would not be in order to put the Bill back in the state in which it was originally, when it was brought in by the Government, and from which it was altered by an illegal Motion.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know how it came about that the Clause was improperly put in, but there is the fact, and, if this Clause were inserted in the Bill, it would impose a new charge on a new set of people. We cannot do that on Report, and probably not in Committee without a Resolution.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It would redistribute the charge.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If I am entitled to recover from the hon. Baronet a particular sum of money, and an Act comes in which prevents my recovering it, he may call it a "redistribution," but I should call it a charge imposed upon me.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Relaxation of Duty in the Case of Spirits Used in Hospitals.)
    (1) The Commissioners of Customs and Excise may authorise a person to receive spirits without payment of duty for use in the preparation in a public hospital of tinctures and other articles to be used for medical purposes in the hospital in the like manner and subject to the like conditions as they may authorise the receipt of spirits for use in art or manufacture, and Section eight of the Finance Act, 1902, shall have effect accordingly.
    (2) The like allowance shall be paid in respect of spirits received for use in a public hospital as aforesaid as is payable under Section one of the Revenue Act, 1906, in respect of spirits received for use in art or manufacture, and the provisions of that Section with respect to the payment of such allowance shall have effect accordingly.
    (3) If the treasurer or other responsible officer of a public hospital shows, to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, that any tinctures or other articles which contain spirits or in the preparation or manufacture of which spirits were used have within the preceding six months been used for medical purposes in the hospital he shall be entitled to obtain from the Commissioners repayment of such amount as he shows to their satisfaction to have been paid by way of duty in respect of the spirits contained in or used in the preparation or manufacture of the said tinctures or other articles.
    If any person, for the purpose of obtaining any repayment under the foregoing provision, knowingly makes any false statement or false representation he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months with hard labour.
    (4) For the purpose of the foregoing provision the expression "public hospital" means a hospital supported by any public authority, or wholly or partly out of any public or charitable funds or by voluntary subscriptions, but does not include any institution carried on for the purposes of gain.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: I beg to move. "That the Clause be read a second time."

    765
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, this Clause was in his own name in Committee. The object of pitting it down, which I have done in a slightly different form to meet certain difficulties raised in the old Clause, is to obtain an understanding from the right hon. Gentleman as to the form of words arrived at with regard to hospitals by his predecessor. I have no doubt he is prepared to give us an undertaking that some concession in that direction will be given. In that case I would be prepared to withdraw the Clause.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: I sincerely trust that my right hon. Friend will not accept this Amendment until it is very seriously considered. I have received strong representations from many in hospitals, and I trust he will not accept the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have already answered a question, in the course of questions, which I believe thoroughly satisfies all parties, opponents as well as supporters of the Clause. I repeat, it is subject to general agreement that the undertaking is given.
    Sir H. CRAIK: In these circumstances I will not press the Clause.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: I do not think my right hon. Friend must take it that the principle of the Clause is accepted by all parties I have received representations from many quarters that there are strong objections to the principle of the Clause, and I am not sure that those objections can be met by any form of words that can be brought forward. I have found it is not considered altogether a wise policy to cheapen alcohol in hospitals. I only want to say that the Clause requires most careful scrutiny, and my right hon. Friend must not take it for granted there will be general agreement until he is told so by all the parties.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGERhad the following on the Paper:

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 2 of the Finance Act, 1912.)
    (1) The increase of the duty payable under the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, payable in any year on any retailer's licence described in the First Schedule to that Act shall be borne by the persons who in such year receive the pecuniary benefit accruing from such licence in
    766
    proportion to the benefit so received by them respectively.
    (2) Such benefit shall include rent and the annualised value of any premium or other consideration for a lease or tenancy agreement of the premises in respect of which such licence is granted, so far as such rent or the benefit of such premium or other consideration is in such year received by any such person.
    Provided that no person who, before the passing of the Finance Act, 1912, assigned his interest in the reversion of such premises shall in any event be liable for any payment under this Section.
    (3) The person so liable and the amount to be so borne by them respectively shall, in default of agreement, be determined in manner directed by rules of court, by a county court in England or Ireland, and by a sheriff court in Scotland, and such court shall have jurisdiction to enforce payment of the amount so determined by the persons found to be liable.
    (4) Section two of the Finance Act, 1912, is hereby repealed.
    (5) This Section shall have operation as from the date of the passing of the Finance Act, 1912, and shall apply to all claims under Section two of that Act, whether the same have been agreed or determined or not, but without prejudice to any claims under that Section in respect of which payment has actually been made, whether by deduction or otherwise.
    (6) This Section shall not apply to cases coming within the provisions of Section forty-six of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The same objection applies to this Clause.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I should like to say that I put this Clause on the Paper with a view of trying, if possible, to get rid of some of the unfortunate cases of hardship which have arisen under the other Clause, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able in the next Bill to meet the case.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Restriction of Hours (Extension of Relief.)
    Section nine of the Finance Act, 1914 (Session 2), (which provides for a reduction of licence duty where hours of sale are curtailed) shall, in addition to the cases therein specified, apply to cases in which

    767
    the holder of any retailer's on-licence proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that, during the continuance of and in connection with the present War, the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor on his premises has been suspended during any normal hours of sale either—

    (a) voluntarily at the request of any-naval, military, or civil authority; or

    (b) under any order made under Section sixty-three of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, Section twelve of the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, Section twenty-one of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1833, or Section thirty of the Refreshment Houses (Ireland) Act, 1860.

    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I beg to move, after the word "apply" ["in addition to the cases therein specified, apply to cases"], to insert the words "to cases of off-licences, and."
    4.0 p.m.
    This Section makes further provision for relief of licensed houses by reason of the time they are closed by the operation of the Defence of the Realm Act or by voluntary closing or otherwise; but in all these cases care has been taken, by that strong representation the brewers have in this country, to limit it to on-licences. My object is to allow a rebate to be made in favour of off-licences as well. I do not know why, but the grocer's licence is a heavier licence than the publican's licence. It is far heavier for small rents. When the rent is £20 the publican pays a licence of £5 for selling on or off; the grocer pays £14 for selling off. These restrictions affect the grocer just as much as they do the on-licence holder, and yet you have a man who pays £14 getting no relief, while a man who pays £5 gets it. I think that is absolutely wrong. It may be said, and I believe it is said, that a man will not drink so much if the public-house is only open till 10 o'clock. Whoever advances that argument forgets that the public-house has an off-licence as well, and if a man wants to drink he could get the drink to take away just in the same way as he would from a grocer. I do not see the slightest ground for suggesting that the grocer should not have the same rebate if he can prove "to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that
    768
    during the continuance of and in connection with the present War the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor on his premises has been suspended during any normal hours of sale." I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to meet this case and include the off-licence as well as the on-licence, and thus give them both the benefit they are entitled to when they can show the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that they have lost trade by these various restrictions.
    Mr. WATT: I wish to say a few words in support of this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen-shire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) has dealt very fully with the cost of these licences, and he has shown that the off-licensee has frequently to pay more than the on-licensee. My hon. Friend has dealt with the financial aspect of this question, but I desire to deal with another aspect, namely, the question whether a loss of trade is sustained by a restriction of hours in the case of off-licence holders. I have in mind the case of grocers' licences in Scotland. I brought this point before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman last year, and after due consideration he came to the conclusion that the off-licensees suffered no loss by the restriction of hours, and he pointed out that the hours which were cut off from the off-licensees were hours when very little or no trade was done. He also pointed out that the trade which used to be done under the old hours would be done during the hours the shops were open. If his contention is right, then the-off-licensees would be unable to prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that they have suffered a loss. Therefore last year's arguments and last year's circumstances do not apply on this occasion. If these off-licence holders who are suffering this injustice in view of the restriction of hours can prove a loss—and the onus of doing it is on their shoulders—then they are entitled to the compensation granted to on-licensees. If the right hon. Gentleman, who is not paying the slightest attention to my argument, will point out to the House the difference that exists between on-licence holders and off-licence holders in this respect, and if he can make it clear that the loss in one case is greater than in the other, I will submit to his contention. I think, however, that he will be unable to do so, because if the hours of one class of trade are restricted, and they incur a loss, the other class is; precisely on all-fours.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): It has been said that the holders of off-licences have not the same weight of influence, but that is a poor compliment to my hon. Friend's powers of advocacy judging by the many legislative triumphs which he has achieved during the time he has been in this House. On this occasion I am afraid that the hon. Member has failed to convince me of the merits of his case. As he knows, I have taken some pains to investigate this matter, and I have had the honour of receiving a deputation on the subject. There is one fundamental difference between on and off-licences in this respect. It does not necessarily mean a diminution in sale if you keep your shop open a fewer number of hours for the sale of something which has to be carried away from the shop. On the contrary, it may mean that you do the same amount of business more economically because you concentrate your business into shorter hours, and therefore the expenses of administration become less. On the other hand, if you carry your mind to a public house and see a man consuming liquor for consumption on the premises, and you suddenly turn him out at eight o'clock when he would be accustomed to go on drinking until ten o'clock, however well disposed he may be, however gallant his efforts, or however Scottish he may be by descent, he cannot consume as much by eight o'clock as he could have consumed if he sat there till ten o'clock. That is the difference in principle between the on and the off-licence. There is no analogy between the two cases, and I therefore suggest that this relief was properly confined to the on-licence holder, and in spite of the eloquence of my hon. Friend, I think the House would do well to resist his arguments.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Undoubtedly there is a great deal of force in the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, but may I remind him that he is dealing with the question from the English point of view, and he forgets that the Scottish grocer carries on a wholly different kind of business. One very important difference between the two is that the English off-licence holder is obliged to sell a bottle at a time and he cannot sell any less, whereas in Scotland he can sell the smallest possible quantity he can divide into a glass. They have a habit in Scotland, not perhaps a very good one, of going repeatedly to the grocer, not only
    770
    for their food but for their drink, and they take away the drink in small quantities because a great many object to having a stock of drink in the house, and therefore they desire to obtain it in small quantities and do not like it left about the house as a temptation to anybody else. I once heard the hon. Member for Inverness say that it was a dangerous thing to keep whisky in a Scottish house, because it was one of those articles that did not keep. Probably the Financial Secretary to the Treasury does not know that there has been entire closing in certain parts of Scotland for three or four weeks, and this applies to all licences. Does he suggest that the grocer has no complaint in that case? Whatever the right hon. Gentleman's argument is, it does not affect that state of things, and therefore I think there is a good claim for consideration provided a man can show that he has suffered, and no doubt the off-licence holder can show that he has suffered. I do not think this Amendment can be fogged off so easily as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think. I believe if he knew the difference between the two cases he would agree that the Scotsman has a strong claim for relief, because the off-licence holder often pays a larger licence duty than the on-licence holder.
    Mr. DENNISS: It is somewhat surprising to me that the Treasury never seem to grasp the fact that there are other licences besides grocers' off-licences. I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I told the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer that there were thousands of premises in this country, in every village and in every town, in which there are off-licences which are not held by grocers at all, but which would ordinarily be called beer-houses or public-houses with only a licence to sell beer off the premises. They are open for the same hours as ordinary on-licence public-houses, and therefore all the arguments that apply to the on-licences apply to the off-licences of the small public-houses, and therefore what the right hon. Gentleman said does not apply to them. They are the smallest and the poorest of the people upon whom these heavy duties fall the hardest, and this is a case where if relief is given to the on-licences it should in logic and fairness be extended to them. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has never contemplated these off-licences. I pointed this out to the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he seemed to be surprised to hear that

    771
    there are thousands upon thousands of these public-houses which have only an off-licence. I know the grocers have been able to interview the Treasury, because they are people who are very well off, but I am pleading on behalf of small people who have no organisation and no money to spend in order to come to London to address the Treasury, and therefore they are not in a position to make any impression upon the Government. Therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this case. In these cases they do not drink beer upon the premises, and as a rule they do not take it home, but they drink the beer within a certain distance of the licensed house and take it away in a pot. If you shorten the hours during which that drink can be sold in this manner, then you are diminishing the income of these off-licensees, and if you give relief to the on-licence people because the amount of drink that can be drunk is diminished you should give the same relief to the off-licences because their hours are also diminished. I have brought my case directly within the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman which he put so forcibly just now. As regards the grocers, there is a good deal to be said which I know he has thrashed out with the trade affected, but he has not had the case of the off-licence holders put before him, and I ask that these people should be put upon the same basis and treated in the same way as the on-licensed public-houses.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson), to leave out the word "on" ["retailer's on-licence"], is consequential.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I should like to say the late Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that if the hon. Baronet and myself would give him some hard cases he would consider them. We gave him some forty hard cases, but no amount of hardness apparently has any affect upon the Treasury or softens them at all.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Income Tax for 1915–16.)
    (1) Income Tax for the year beginning on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen, shall be charged at the rate of two shillings and sixpence, and Super-tax shall be charged, levied, and paid for that year at double the rates mentioned in Section three of the Finance Act, 1914.
    (2) All such enactments relating to Income Tax, including Super-tax, as were in force with respect to the duties of Income Tax granted for the year beginning on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and fourteen, shall have full force and effect with respect to any duties of Income Tax hereby granted:
    Provided that—

    (a) Sections four and six of the Finance Act, 1914, which confer relief with respect to earned income and small incomes respectively, shall have effect as though the rates mentioned in those Sections were doubled; and

    (b) Sub-section (1) of Section twelve of the Finance Act, 1914 (Session 2), shall not have effect with respect to any duties of Income Tax hereby granted.

    (3) The annual value of any property which has been adopted for the purpose either of Income Tax under Schedules A and B in the Income Tax Act, 1853, or of Inhabited House Duty, for the year ending on the fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen, shall be taken as the annual value of such property for the same purpose for the next subsequent year; provided that this Sub-section—

    (a) so far as respects the duty on inhabited houses in Scotland, shall be construed with the substitution of the twenty-fourth day of May for the fifth day of April; and

    (b) shall not apply to the Metropolis as defined by the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869.

    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "except upon the pay of sailors and soldiers serving in the armed forces of the Crown, on which Income Tax shall be charged at the rates mentioned in Section three of the Finance Act, 1914."
    On the Committee stage of the Bill an Amendment designed to give a certain amount of relief from special war taxation in respect of the pay of officers who are serving in the Army and Navy was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Leamington (Mr. Pollock). Certain arguments were put forward by the two right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench in opposition to that Clause, and I think I have in my Amendment entirely avoided them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer criticised the Clause of my hon. and learned Friend as not being very ably

    773
    drafted to correspond with the arguments which were put forward in support of it. I frankly admit the justice to some extent of that criticism, because we really wished to relieve officers in the Army and Navy from the exceptional war taxation; in fact, from the additional 1s. 3d. Income Tax imposed in large measure to meet the cost of their own pay and that of the men of the Army and Navy. I would like in justice to my hon. and learned Friend to point out that by his Clause he would have done rough justice; he would have given something more than relief from war taxation to those officers below the rank of major who were in receipt of quite small pay, less than £400 per year, and he would have done something less than justice to those officers of higher rank in respect of their pay. The first objection to that Clause made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was that it actually increased the pay in the case of junior ranks of officers. That was so. His second objection was that the cost to the Treasury would be £970,000; and his third objection was that it would be unfair to the privates. I think his third objection has been sufficiently dealt with in Committee, but I would remind the House that the main additional war taxation which is borne by the working classes, who roughly represent the privates in the Army, is upon alcohol, tobacco, and tea, and, except in respect of the third, those who are serving at any rate in the Expeditionary Force not only do not pay the additional taxation, but they get off practically the whole of the taxation on the consumable article which was imposed in peace time.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend did not propose to relieve officers of the extra Income Tax during the War, but to relieve officers with incomes under £400 of all Income Tax, and it was therefore in effect and in intention a proposal to increase the pay of officers. I concluded from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that had we drafted our Amendment in a somewhat different form and had we simply asked him to remit the extra 1s. 3d. Income Tax which was imposed subsequent to the Finance Act of 1914 he would have willingly, and I may say joyfully, met us. He admitted by the whole tenor of his speech that there was a genuine and obvious grievance and hardship. He said, in effect, that in peace time we raised our Income Tax at an equal rate upon all salaries and pay and profits
    774
    and gains of all sorts which are earned by the civil population and the military alike, because all alike benefit pari passu in the expenditure of the revenue derived from the ordinary peace taxes. He would also admit that it is obviously unjust, and I think I may say without exaggeration absurd, when it is necessary to double the Income Tax and when one of the extra charges which necessitates that doubling of the Income Tax is actually the pay of the military forces of the Crown, to ask the officers—who in many cases are new men who have left their civil vocations and have volunteered for this novel form of duty to defend their country—to pay the full rate of war Income Tax, and to say to them, in effect, that although in peace time they were entitled to the pay of, say, £1, with a deduction of 1s. 3d., yet when they are risking their lives in war we think it right to pay them £1 with a deduction of 2s. 6d. That is what we are doing if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Clause 9, which I propose to amend, raises the Income Tax to 2s. 6d. in the £. and provides for its being deducted from all profits and gains and so forth at that rate. I make the exception that it shall not be deducted from the pay of soldiers and sailors serving in the armed forces of the Crown, on which Income Tax shall be charged at the rates mentioned in Section 3 of the Finance Act, 1914. I leave the pay of soldiers and sailors serving the Crown subject to the ordinary Income Tax as it was levied before the declaration of War. If it is contended that some officers in the Army are in receipt of very large private incomes, which perhaps make their pay quite a negligible part of their total income, and that men of that kind really do not require any relief such I propose and would not welcome it and even would not care to accept it, I quite agree that there are those exceptional cases, but I had to consider what was practicable, and it would enormously complicate and render more difficult the actual deduction from the Income Tax to make any such restriction. If the right hon. Gentleman, however, feels that the principle of the Amendment is right, but that it ought to be hedged round by a provision that the remission should not apply to anybody in receipt of an income, we will say, at such a level as would subject it to Super-tax, I will very gladly see the Amendment restricted in that sense, but I know from

    775
    many representations made to me that large sections of the civil population feel very strongly that this burden ought to fall upon them and not upon those who are actually carrying on the fighting of the country. With that proviso, I move the Amendment, feeling confident that as it meets the whole of the objections the right hon. Gentleman put forward to the Clause moved in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Leamington, he will accept it.
    Mr. MACMASTER: I understand the effect of this Amendment would be that the Income Tax as respects soldiers and sailors would remain exactly as it is. The proposal is that they should not be subjected to the increased taxation proposed in the present Bill. When it is proposed to exempt any section of the community from taxation, of course I recognise at once that there must be some special consideration for it. In the present case there is the all-important consideration that those in respect of whom it is proposed are serving the country on sea and on land. But there is more than that. There is in addition the very important consideration that although we are all living in the presence of death at any moment, yet the soldiers in the field and the sailors on the sea are in much closer proximity to it, and are, in fact, contending with the forces of death. They are at any moment liable to death in battle, and in that contingency, which is a contingency to which we are not subject, the estate which goes to their relatives or friends immediately becomes liable to Estate and Probate Duties. For these reasons, I do think, especially at a time of great stress when our soldiers and sailors are fighting a battle for our very existence, a battle which we trust will soon be terminated, we might safely and in discharge of our full duties exempt our soldiers and sailors from the extra taxation imposed upon others.
    Mr. McKENNA: I regret that this subject has been raised again after the full discussion we had upon it in Committee. It is quite true that in Committee I raised an objection that the form of the Amendment did not support the speeches of the hon. Members who supported it. But I also gave what I thought were strong objections in principle to any Amendment of this kind, and the House will remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member
    776
    for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) made an appeal to hon. Members not to discuss a proposal of this kind, which, in his opinion, might be disagreeable, or, at any rate, not agreeable, to the officers themselves. The objection to an Amendment of this kind is one of principle. If this Amendment were accepted it would impose on the Exchequer a loss of £375,000 a year. What does that mean? It means that on a Finance Bill, by a side wind, we should be increasing the effective pay of certain soldiers and sailors by £375,000 a year.
    Mr. PETO: Not above what it was in peace time.
    Mr. McKENNA: We should be increasing their pay, and if we accept this Amendment the soldiers and sailors this year would receive an increased amount of £375,000. But mark the distribution of this money! Of the additional money which would be distributed amongst soldiers and sailors, not one penny would go to any soldier or sailor whose pay was less than £160 a year! It would go to those whose pay was above £160 a year, and it would be distributed amongst those officers, not according to their means but wholly disproportionate to their means—the higher the pay the greater the relative increase would they get on the total distribution. It would mean, in fact, an alteration of the pay of officers in the Army and Navy. If any alteration is to be made in their pay during war or peace, the proposal should come from the Admiralty and the War Office, and it is not proper that this House should, by a sectional relief of a particular tax, give advantage to sections of individuals. It is not the proper way of dealing with the question, and if hon. Members who support the proposal really think the pay and allowances of our officers in the Army and the Navy are insufficient they should make their proposal in Committee. It is not proper that they should effect their object by a side wind in this way. I really must appeal to hon. Gentlemen not to press this point any further. If they think the pay of these officers ought to be increased, let them make representations to the Secretary for War or to the Admiralty. Any increase which is made in the general rate of pay would never take this form, or any form at all like it. You would never begin to increase the rate of pay above £160 a year. It never has been done, and certainly I am not prepared to give a higher increase, not in proportion to the scale of pay, but

    777
    a higher rate of increase on the higher scale of pay. I hope hon. Members will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. BIGLAND: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to me to be very sound or solid. I hold in my hand a measure entitled "An Act to extend the relief from Death Duties, given under Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1900."
    Under that Act exception is made in favour of the estates of officers who are killed in the present War, and surely if such a rebate is made in that Finance Act there is no reason why it should not also be made in the Bill we have now before us. The logic of the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not seem to me to be very clear.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. That rebate is not limited to the estates of officers only. It applies to all estates down to the smallest.
    Mr. BIGLAND: The right hon. Gentleman is, I think, absolutely wrong. I am the executor of the estate of an officer who has just been killed. If that estate is valued under £5,000 I shall not have to pay any Death Duties on it.
    Mr. McKENNA: That Act does not apply to officers only. It applies to others beside officers.
    Mr. BIGLAND: The ordinary man in the Army does not possess an estate of £5,000 as a rule.
    Mr. McKENNA: Under £5,000.
    Mr. BIGLAND: Yes, that is so. It is under £5,000, but there is a further rebate for officers whose estates are over £5,000.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Act applies to everybody.
    Mr. BIGLAND: It mainly affects officers who have estates of under £5,000. I really feel that the Amendment is solid and right, and provides a righteous rebate. These gentlemen before the War were paying Income Tax at the rate of 1s. 3d. in the £. The War comes on, and while they may have had a slight increase of pay, it is not commensurate in any way. We who stay at home feel that this little rebate should be allowed to these officers under the Finance Act. We could not bring this proposal forward in the way suggested by the right hon.
    778
    Gentleman because the Estimates have already been passed for the Army and Navy, but I do put it that this is a reasonable proposal. The right hon. Gentleman talks in grandiloquent language about the amount involved—£375,000. I have worked it out and, on his own estimate, it represents but one-eighth of one day's cost of the War, and therefore he is not going to lose such a stupendous amount after all. I really think that this is an Amendment which should be accepted.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Application of 38 and 39 Vict., c. 45, s. 3.)
    (1) Sections three and five of the Sinking Fund Act, 1875 (which relate to the application of the Old and New Sinking Funds), shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied, to any securities under the War Loan Act, 1914, or any Act extending or amending that Act in like manner as they apply to annuities charged on the Consolidated Fund.
    (2) Any securities issued under the War Loan Act, 1914, or any Act extending or amending that Act, or any other enactment authorising money to be borrowed for the purposes of the present War, shall be and shall be deemed always to have been included amongst the securities transfer of which may be accepted by the National Debt Commissioners as consideration for annuities granted by them under the Government Annuities Acts, 1829 to 1882, and amongst the securities in which any money received by the Commissioners as consideration for such annuities may be invested; and the provisions of those Acts relating to such consideration as aforesaid shall apply and shall be deemed always to have applied to such securities in like manner in all respects as they apply to Two and a half Consolidated Stock.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ["amending that Act"], to insert the words "or any other enactment authorising money to be borrowed for the purposes of the present War."
    This is a purely drafting Amendment. When the War Loan Act of this year was originally drafted, and when this Bill too was drafted, it was thought that the War Loan Act of 1915 would be purely an amendment of the 1914 Act. But it took quite a different form. All this Amendment secures is that the National

    779
    Debt Commissioners shall have power to invest in the War Loan issued under that Act, which otherwise they would not be able to do. The words I propose are simply intended to carry out the intention of the Clause.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Sir J. D. REES: I beg to move at the end of Part III. of the Schedule to add the following words, "Where a blend consists of spirits of different ages the additional duty shall be levied on the average age of the spirit included in such blend, and not on the spirit of the lowest age, which may be so included."
    The effect of this would be to impose the duty on the average age of the blend. I will give a concrete instance to illustrate the point aimed at by the Amendment. It is a blend in which you have twenty-four gallons over seven years old, 387 gallons seven years old, 180 gallons from six to nine years, 200 gallons over eight years old, 800 over two years old, and ninety gallons under two years. You there have a blend of 1,681 galons, of which only ninety gallons come under this restriction. The officers of Customs in assessing for duty the ages of the blend, condemn the blend to be of the age of the youngest whisky included. In this particular case the average age of the blend works out at upwards of four years, yet this is condemned, under the present practice of Customs officers, to be a blend of under two years, and it cannot be removed from bond for nearly three years. I have given this concrete case in order broadly to illustrate my Amendment. It is really quite an average case. It is not at all exceptional, and I could easily bring other cases of a like character under the notice of the House. The provisions embodied in Part III. do not touch this case because they only refer to blends made before the 17th day of June in the current year. The Amendment is meant to apply to the manner in which blends can be assessed for the additional duty in future. Any blend made subsequently to the 15th June would come under it. I have another case in which the average age is five years and upwards, but because there is a mere trifle which is under two years it comes under the same hard and drastic—I will not call it law, but administration of the law.
    It is in the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do justice in this matter
    780
    under the existing law; but, at any rate, the Customs officers at present proceed in the manner I have indicated. When interviewed on this subject and asked why they cannot charge on the average age, which appears to be the natural thing to do, they answer that to carry out the proposal would necessitate a large increase of staff. I cannot understand such a plea being put forward after the way in which every staff of every description has of late years been increased to the uttermost limit. I had hoped that my Amendment would have met with the approval of hon. Members from Ireland, but I am sorry I have to face the powerful opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy). There is no hon. Member in this House better provided with good reasons for the faith which is in him than the hon. and learned Member, but I would suggest to him, if I may be allowed, that in this matter the feeling of the spirit blenders of Ireland would be with me rather than with him.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: It has taken us twenty-five years to get an Act which this Amendment proposes practically to shatter. During that period, time after time, we have endeavoured to induce this House to agree to this small modicum of honesty which is secured under the Bill that has recently become law. Since it became law only six weeks have passed, yet now we have an attempt on the part of the hon. Member who has just spoken to endeavour to secure that the sale of immature spirits shall be allowed to continue, and that the duty shall be charged on the average age of the spirit, which would mean that all kinds of fanciful concoctions would again come on to the market. The hon. Member has spoken of what he says is the practice of the blenders. I deny it altogether. I say that the wholesome provision which this House has made for compelling people who use immature spirits to pay an extra duty is one of the most salutary things that the House has done, at any rate in late years. Why should anybody use immature spirits in a blend? Why should anybody go through that process and then have the whole thing marked on the bottle "seven years old"? Remember that the Government used to lend the moral sanction of His Majesty to what was really a fraud upon the public, namely, by allowing these messes to be made up and the bottles or barrels sent out fraudulently marked. That has been done away with through the

    781
    activity of private Members, and not through any action on the part of the Government. There is one other thing I hope ultimately to see. When this question was taken up my ambitions went still further. My hope was that certain materials should not be allowed to be sold as spirits, and that only pot-still whisky made from malt and grain should be allowed to be called whisky. If that is done, I do not care what you blend into your spirit, and you can have it at the mature age of one month. The hon. Gentleman (Sir J. D. Rees) said that a very small quantity of immature spirits is going to be used by blenders. It is the old story of the baby being only a little one, and it is exactly the defence made on all these occasions. These moral and innocent blenders are only going to use an extremely small quantity of immature spirits.
    The Bill recently passed was not for merely taxing purposes but for temperance purposes. It was struggled against by a large body of Members from the North of Ireland, and it was fought to some extent by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Attorney-General for England, yet such was the wave of emotion which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer caused to surge through the country that the Bill was floated into law. After that, are we to be told that the Government should yield on this question? Give us at all events six months or six years to see how it turns out. If any injustice is being done the admirable body of blenders, who have received such a high testimonial from the hon. Member, can knock at the door of this House next year or the year after, and their complaint will be duly considered. This experiment is not two months old, and this is not the time to tear up the plant to see how it is growing.
    Sir J. D. REES: This provision is not in the Act.
    Mr. HEALY: I know. My plea is that this is not the time to disturb the settlement. Perhaps I might remind the right hon. Gentleman—I know it is is not quite in order to do so—of another matter, and ask him whether he will make a statement as to why the Amendment to which I called attention three or four days ago, a Government Amendment, has not appeared on the Paper?
    Mr. McKENNA: I can at once relieve my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) of any anxiety as to the Govern-
    782
    ment's attitude on this Amendment. We do not propose for a moment to recommend the House to accept it. It is precisely the same proposal which was before the Committee on this Bill. It was very fully considered, debated, and rejected, and I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) should have raised the question again. There must be some finality in these matters. A settlement was come to, and I really cannot recommend the House to accept the present proposal.
    Sir J. D REES: Was there any settlement, or was it not merely a promise to consider the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; an Amendment was passed on the previous stage of the Bill. I promised, if the Amendment did not go far enough to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman, to consider any cases of hardship he brought to the notice of the Treasury. We have not had any particular cases brought to our notice, therefore I am not in a position to deal with them. I did not quite gather from my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) what he meant by the Government proposal which had not appeared on the Paper. We have no further Amendments.
    Mr. HEALY: Are you going to take the Third Reading to-night?
    Mr. McKENNA: No.
    Mr. HEALY: Then I will mention it on the Third Reading.
    Mr. McKENNA: Was it upon another matter?
    Mr. HEALY: Yes. It was an Amendment which the Government promised last year, because a little injustice is being done.
    Mr. McKENNA: I will consult my hon. and learned Friend privately on the subject.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: As I took part in the last Debate on this subject, I desire to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the hon. Member who proposes the Amendment is perhaps not aware of the fact that the promise which the right hon. Gentleman made to the Committee was to consider the case of those who had blended immature spirits before the Bill was introduced, in ignorance of the fact that the Bill was to

    783
    be introduced, and that he would see that in the administration of the Act they were reasonably considered.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 120.]

  NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS (EXTENSION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS (EXTENSION) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of Notification of Births Act, 1907.)
    (1) The Notification of Births Act, 1907 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act), shall, on and after the first day of September, nineteen hundred and fifteen, extend to and take effect in every area in which it is not already in force, and in the case of an area for which it could be adopted either by the council of an urban or rural district, or by the county council, shall take effect as if it had been adopted by the council of the district.
    (2) Where by virtue of this Act the principal. Act comes into force in any county district in which it is not already in force, the medical officer of health shall send duplicates of any notices of birth received by him under that Act to the county medical officer of health as soon as may be after they are received.
    (3) Where by virtue of this Act the principal Act comes into force in any area in which it is not already in force, it shall be the duty of the local authority to bring the provisions of the principal Act to the attention of all medical practitioners and midwives practising in the area.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "as soon as may be," and to insert instead thereof the words "within five days."
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Walter Long): I hope my right hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. I know that his object is to secure the prompt enforcement of the measure, but our experience shows that when the law as it now stands has been enforced these steps are taken immediately. If we put the words "within five days" into the Bill those who have to
    784
    enforce the law are apt to take advantage of the full limit, and are more likely to extend two days into five days. The Bill as it stands is more likely to secure the rapid enforcement of the law.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Arrangements for Attending to Mothers and Young Children.)
    Any local authority within the meaning of the principal Act (including in any county district both the council of the county and the council of the district) may make such arrangements as they think fit, and as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board for attending to the health of expectant mothers and nursing mothers, and of children under five years of age who are not being educated in public elementary schools; and any expenses incurred in carrying out those arrangements shall be defrayed in the same manner as expenses of the local authority are defrayed under the principal Act.
    Provision may be made, as part of any such arrangements, that the arrangements may be carried out in such manner as the authority direct by a committee comprising, if it is thought fit, persons who are not members of the authority.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the word "Any" ["Any local authority within the meaning of the principal Act"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Every."
    This Amendment is moved with the object of making this Clause compulsory. I do not believe in a Bill making the notification of births compulsory for the whole country unless it is followed up and made really effective by making this Clause also compulsory. I do not know how the President of the Local Government Board is going to regard this Amendment. This Bill aims at securing that every child born in this country should from the start be well cared for and have the very best possible chance of a healthy existence, both as a child and later on as a man or woman. To secure that, the best thing is to make the Clause compulsory.
    Mr. LONG: I think I can convince my hon. Friend that this Amendment will really defeat the object which he and I and the Government have in view. We

    785
    all want the notification to be universal. At present, under the adoptive Act, 80 per cent, of our people apply the Act. We want to bring in the remaining 20 per cent. If we tell the local authorities that they shall do this particular thing we are much more likely to put them up in arms against us than if we gave them the powers to make it effective. It is not enough to put the Act into operation to say to the local authorities, "You shall do this," unless the local authorities will pursue the work with vigour, intelligence, and determination when they put it into operation. The successful operation of a Bill like this depends more upon the subsequent action than it does upon the actual powers conferred by the Bill. We are all at one in agreeing that these powers shall be universally applied. We are willing to do what we can, in reason, to improve the conditions under which children are brought into the world, both by caring for their mothers before birth and seeing that the health of the children after birth is as carefully looked after as it can be. I am convinced that it is far better to leave the local authorities to carry out the powers as they think fit. By not making it applicable to the whole country in the end we shall get what the hon. Member desires.
    Mr. DICKINSON: Clause 1 makes the notification of births compulsory all over the country, and takes away from local authorities the option as to whether or not they will apply the Act. Clause 2 gives new powers to local authorities. I agree with the Mover of the Amendment, that it would be much better if we could make them of universal application all over the country. I was rather astonished when the right hon. Gentleman said that 8 per cent. had already done this work. I am very glad indeed to hear it. If that is so, why should we not compel the remaining 20 per cent. the recalcitrant bodies, to do it? It is very much better, where the condition of the people all over the country depends upon every local authority doing this particular work, to compel them to do it. No objection could be taken by those who are already carrying it out, and those who are not carrying it out might have an excuse if it were not made compulsory.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. DENNISS: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not made this an adoptive Bill, and I am extremely pleased he has not made this Clause compulsory. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that if a
    786
    Clause like this were made compulsory upon every local authority, a great deal of money would have to be spent at once, and it would mostly be spent by people who have no enthusiasm for a compulsory Act, and no experience of how it ought to be spent. That is the general rule in the case of functions imposed upon local authorities who have to exercise them against their will. I am extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not made it compulsory in the first instance. As time goes on, and when the benefits of the Act have become apparent and the way in which it ought to be worked is ascertained, then might be the time to make it compulsory, and then it could be made compulsory without waste of money and energy and with the full benefit that the Act is expected to attain. I therefore oppose the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. LONG: I beg to move to leave out the words "(including in any county district both the council of the county and the council of the district) may make such arrangements as they think fit, and as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board for attending to the health of expectant mothers and nursing mothers, and of children under five years of age who are not being educated in public elementary schools; and any expenses incurred in carrying out those arrangements," and to insert instead thereof the words, "(whether a sanitary authority or not) may, for the purpose of the care of expectant mothers, nursing mothers, and young children, exercise any powers which a sanitary authority has under the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1907, or the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, as the case requires.
    (2) Any expenses incurred in the exercise of these powers."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions upon this Amendment.
    Mr. DICKINSON: May I ask when my Amendment to the Amendment comes in?
    The CHAIRMAN: When we have removed the words proposed to be left out.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There is a good deal of legislation by reference to this Amendment. It incorporates the Public Health Acts from 1875 to 1907, and the Public

    787
    Health (London) Act, 1891. The Public Health Act, 1875, comprises 344 Sections. I have not read them because I have not had time, but I have the Act here. I have also the Public Health Act, 1891. That comprises 144 Sections. I have not read that either. I have left out any other of the Public Health Acts which deal with this question, because I have not had time to find them, and those I have found, as they comprise 488 Sections without counting the Schedules, make it very difficult for anyone to understand what the Amendment means. I should rather like a little explanation with regard to that. I should also like to know what my right hon. Friend thinks it is going to cost. I did not see that anyone asked any question about that on the Second Reading. A great many hon. Members were very pleased to do something for someone else at the expense either of the ratepayer or of the taxpayer, but I did not see that anyone asked what it would cost. The days which are past are gone, and it will be very difficult to find money for all these very excellent objects. I do not say that the object is not excellent, but I am afraid it will cost a considerable sum of money. I am not at all sure that we should be really doing very much good even if we encouraged that want of self-reliance in our people which used to be the backbone of this country. I object very much to all this sort of dry nursing. I believe people ought to look after themselves, and at present when the working classes are in receipt of higher wages, and when there is more employment than there has been for very many years before, I do not quite see why it is necessary to do this. However, I am afraid I am rather the voice of one crying in the wilderness, although I think my prophecies are coming home to roost, and that there is at last a slight turning in the direction which I have advocated for so many years. We are going to have a meeting in the City to discuss economy within two or three days. I should like to ask whether anything very dreadful is incorporated in all these different Acts and whether my right hon. Friend has made any estimate of what the cost is going to be.
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I think my right hon. Friend may be reassured because I think this Clause as proposed to be amended really does very little. All it says is that any authority, whether a sanitary authority or not, may exercise
    788
    certain powers which are already possessed by the sanitary authorities. All these powers under the Public Health Acts are already possessed by the sanitary authorities. My difficulty is in really knowing what the effect of this Clause will be, and what the authorities really will be able to do, because it is very difficult, if anyone reads the Public Health (London) Act, which I did this morning, to find any powers relating to the care of mothers and of children. I should like to know exactly where the local authorities are going to stand in the matter, because I know a great many things have been done by the local authorities for which it is very difficult to find any express local authority. I suppose it has been done by straining the powers of the Act, but it is rather important when a new Clause of this kind is introduced to know exactly what it is that the local authorities will be able to do. For example, people have been appointed as sanitary inspectors under the Public Health Act who were really acting in quite a different capacity, as birth visitors. I should like to know whether this Clause will give local authorities power to carry out the scheme which was suggested in the circular issued by the Local Government Board on 30th July last year. They then contemplated the establishment of public clinics and houses of visitation for children not on any school register, "school" including not only the ordinary public elementary schools but also schools for mothers and other similar institutions. I do not know whether the words now introduced in the Amendment "for the purpose of the care of expectant mothers, nursing mothers and young children," actually have the effect of extending the powers of the Public Health Acts, but I feel that it is rather desirable to know exactly what the powers of local authorities will be because I find it difficult to ascertain. I quite understand the reason for the proposed Amendment of the Clause, but it leaves the matter a little vague.
    Mr. KING: I want to thank the President of the Local Government Board for trying to meet objections, which were at once stated when this Bill was printed, by introducing this Amendment. I am sure we realise that he is trying to bring together all different parties and to produce a Bill which will carry the united support of the House, but there will be now, as I understand it, three different

    789
    authorities, all with certain powers to look after children when they are born and to bring them on to a healthy life. First of all there will be the local sanitary authorities under this new Amendment. What exactly their powers are I do not know. I spent half an hour at the Public Health Act, and got out the standard work, of 2,000 pages, and looked through several pages of the index, but at the end of it I cannot find out exactly what powers the sanitary authorities have under the Public Health Act to look after expectant mothers and children apart from the appointment of inspectors who may, though appointed sanitary inspectors, really be doing health duty, probably of a very wide and nebulous kind. The second authority you will have will be the officials under the local education authority exercising the powers which have been already largely exercised, and very advantageously in some cases, and perhaps rather more extensively than the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) would support. But I believe it is money as well spent as any public money can be. They would be carrying on the schools for mothers and advice for children of any age whatever which has already been going on under the medical work of the Board of Education. Now you have, also, a third authority which can do the same sort of work, and that is the board of guardians under the Children Act, 1908, who can appoint for any child what is called an infant protection visitor. The authority for this infant protection visitor is the board of guardians everywhere, except in the City of London, where it is the Common Council. There you have actually three authorities entrusted with looking after the health of young children from the earliest age. You say to any one of these authorities, "You may do something," and you do not prevent all three authorities getting to work, and there may actually be, therefore, some districts in which you have three authorities getting to work under three separate Acts and three different Departments. In other places, as this is a purely voluntary Clause, and does not impose duties absolutely on anyone, there may be no work done at all. That I call uncertainty, inefficiency, overlapping, and really not good organisation. I have no doubt that if the President of the Local Government Board issues proper letters and orders and instructions to local authorities he may do away with the possibility of overlapping and duplication, but really I do not think the Clause as it stands, though I welcome it, and thank
    790
    the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which it is introduced, is good legislation as it stands.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I regret very much, in the interests of public health, and in the interests of the Local Government Board itself, that the right hon. Gentleman has been so very desirous of making friends with the President of the Board of Education. The position is this. When the Bill was brought in by the Government for the first time it was definitely stated in Clause 2:
    "Any local authority within the meaning of the principal Act (including in any county district both the council of the county and the council of the district) may make such arrangements as they think fit, and as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board for attending to the health of expectant mothers and nursing mothers, and of children under five years of age who are not being educated in public elementary schools."
    That was hailed by everyone interested in these matters as a great advance, because for the first time the sanitary authorities were going to have actual words in an Act of Parliament giving them the powers which they sought and which everybody thinks they ought to possess, namely, the powers of assisting to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children who die from want of proper nourishment on the part of the mother or from want of proper care on their part, or from the hundred and one causes during the early months of their existence. This Bill was brought into the House of Commons and was hailed with great satisfaction by those who were anxious that something should be done; but a right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House opposed it and the result is that the President of the Local Government Board brings in an Amendment which, as my hon. Friend opposite has shown, means absolutely nothing at all. It simply says that some authority, that is to say, the county councils in other counties not in London may do what the municipal councils have already the power to do. In London that merely means nothing at all, because the county council under this Clause does not come in. It says that the borough councils shall have the powers which they already possess under the Acts cited by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. B anbury). That, of course, means that the original idea has gone by the board.

    791
    The moment the President of the Local Government Board puts down the Amendment for England the two right hon. Gentlemen who sit next to him (the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Lord Advocate for Scotland) immediately put down Amendments on behalf of Ireland and Scotland to reinsert in this Bill for Scotland and Ireland the very words which we are now asked to take out of the Bill as affecting England. They see perfectly well that this change is not going to do good in Ireland or in Scotland. It is not going to do good in England, but is going to do a great deal of harm, and it is simply put in because the Board of Education have, very properly and very energetically, taken up the question of teaching mothers and young mothers. They have given Grants for the purpose and have been very much interested in this subject. I would point out, however, that the greater part of this work is work of a health character; it has a good deal to do with the antenatal condition of the mother. Public health authorities have to do with infantile diseases; they have the power of dealing with cases of tuberculosis or the provision of children's hospitals, and all these powers are closely connected with this one power which they hoped was going to be given to them by this Bill, namely, the power of looking after and of making arrangements for attending to the health of expectant mothers and nursing mothers and of children under five years of age. I suggest that the President of the Local Government Board has made a very great mistake in accepting the views of the Board of Education.
    I know that those who have been engaged in the local administration of this work are of opinion that it is much better left to the medical officer of health than to the medical officers of the school boards under the county councils and the education authorities. The work consists of visiting poor mothers in their homes. At the present time the borough councils all over the country, or at any rate most of them, have their own health visitors. These health visitors have made a practice of going into the homes of the mothers, and have then communicated with the various philanthropic institutions which have been started for the purpose of assisting mothers. The inspectors of the Board of Education do not inspect the homes; they do not go to the homes of the mothers, but are simply concerned with the
    792
    very laudable desire of teaching mothers. I do not know why they should teach mothers in regard to their children, because it seems to me they have quite enough to do in teaching children. I repeat that the very fact that both in Scotland and in Ireland those who represent those two countries have refused to have this new arrangement put upon them, and have insisted that the original words of the, Bill should stand part, is proof of my contention that the Amendment proposed now by the President of the Local Government Board is undesirable, and I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider further the wisdom of making that Amendment The Local Government Board have been extremely active in this matter recently. They have issued a very valuable circular to the local authorities, and they have issued a still more valuable volume, of advice prepared by one of their own inspectors. I think the subject has been far better dealt with in these documents and generally by the Local Government Board than it has ever been dealt with by the Board of Education, with all its good intentions. Therefore, I ask the President of the Local Government Board to stick to his own words. I do not see in the least why the old words should affect the Board of Education. The old words simply gave definite powers to the sanitary authorities. That would not, I submit, have affected the right of the Board of Education to do what it is doing now, namely, to give Grants for the purpose of education. That is all they do at the present time. They give Grants to these schools for the purpose of this kind of education. They may go on with that with very great advantage to the mothers without this Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a great disappointment to the sanitary authorities—I have been approached by my own borough council on the subject—that the powers which they would like to exercise are not to be given to them by this Amendment. I beg, therefore, to oppose the deletion of the words proposed.
    Mr. LONG: In regard to the Bills or Acts for which I have been responsible, I have often realised how even the best of intentions fail to satisfy everybody. My hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) has declared this Bill to be absolutely worthless, and that it is going to do nothing, while, on the other hand, the hon. Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) said that it offended his time-honoured prejudices because it

    793
    was going to do too much. It appears, on the whole, that we have hit the happy medium even better than I anticipated. The Member for the City has set me a task which I am not quite prepared to accomplish in the time at my disposal, and that is to go through all the Sections of the Public Health Act, 1875, and all the Sections of the amending Acts, and then embark with him upon an interesting investigation of the Public Health (London) Act. In the first place, there are only two Sections of the Public Health Act which really apply in this particular case, and as they are not applicable to London, because it has its own public health laws, they are really only in respect of certain limited matters: first of all, the provision of hospitals, and secondly, the provision of medical assistance under which we enable local authorities to give aid to expectant mothers and to children—powers which we think they need. The hon. Member for Paddington was almost as severe in his criticisms as my hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) who has been good enough to tell the Committee all the secret history of the last few weeks. He has described the terrible conflict between my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education and myself, in which I got much the worst of it and was heavily downed and had to submit. It does great credit to the hon. Member's powers of imagination. He has drawn a brilliant picture. I hope he thinks that I do not look very bad after my maltreatment at the hands of the President of the Board of Education.
    My hon. Friend has called attention to the difference that is made as to the application of the Bill to Scotland and Ireland, compared with England. I have often had occasion to say in this House when we have been discussing local government questions that Scotland, at all events, is far more fortunate than England in her code of local government laws and her system of education. It is true that Scotland and Ireland were not satisfied with the Clause as arranged, and they desired to have it in its fullest form. It is true that the Clause as amended does go as far as it did in its original form. It is true that the Bill in its present form will not do all that many of us who are advocates of local government reform desire to see attained, but I do not admit that it will not do anything. It extends the powers now enjoyed by sanitary
    794
    authorities, it applies the Bill to the whole country, it gives new powers in regard to expectant mothers and young children, it enables local authorities to do what they cannot do now—to exercise powers conferred upon them by the Public Health Act for the benefit of expectant mothers and children. Therefore, if it does not go as far as many of us would wish, it goes a very long way. My hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) and my hon. Friend opposite have both accused me of surrendering my principles in consequence of differences between the President of the Board of Education and myself. I hope they will forgive me for saying that I am old-fashioned enough to believe that the floor of the House of Commons is not the place upon which any difference of opinion, should they exist between Departments, should be fought out. The proper place to adjust any differences that exist between Departments is before the Bills get into the House of Commons. There has been a different view taken in the two Departments, the Local Government Board and the Board of Education, about this question for a very long time. I am strongly of opinion that that difference ought to be settled finally, and can only be settled in all probability by legislation; but we thought it better to so alter the Bill as to give powers which will be useful and which will be beneficial both to mothers and infants, rather than take this opportunity of dealing at this particular moment with questions as to which there is a difference of opinion, and in regard to which the action of the sanitary authorities and of the education authorities has varied, and in regard to which their powers are to some extent conflicting and overlapping. I entirely agree, and so does the President of the Board of Education—because we are' in entire agreement and we speak with one voice in this matter—that the country should be satisfied with a modest measure of reform now, with a view later on, if he and I are responsibe in happier times for these two Departments, of producing legislation to cover the whole ground, legislation which will be the result of an agreed policy on the part of these two Departments which are so closely connected with the care of the children of the country and of the mothers upon whose health, immediately before birth, so much of the future of the children must depend. That is really the whole story, and I am sure the President of the Board of Education will confirm me in what I have said.

    795
    As regards the question of expense I may tell the hon. Member (Sir F. Banbury) that our estimate is that in all probability if this power is wisely exercised the total cost will not amount to more than £100,000, and so confident are we that that estimate is fairly accurate that we have provided a sum of £50,000 as our contribution, because the State is to provide one-half. I can assure the hon. Member for the City that he need have no alarm in regard to the expenditure of money in this direction, and for this reason: It is the duty of our sanitary authorities to care for and look after our women and children, and if the population of a district becomes unhealthy, if the lives of the people become precarious, it is eventually upon the local authorities that they have to fall for their maintenance. Nothing could be more costly, not only in what is a most valuable possession of this country, namely, the health of its country, but in actual cash, than the existence in any local area of a large number of people who are in such a bad state of health that they cannot maintain themselves and have to look to the Poor Law of the country to maintain them. Therefore, I believe that we are not only doing something in the best interests of the community, but by spending money in this direction we are very likely saving expenditure in the localities. I hope, under these circumstances, the Committee will be good enough to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "for the purpose of," and to insert instead thereof the words "provide for."
    I think that we are entitled to know what new powers are going to be conferred on the sanitary authorities, and I should like, instead of saying "may for the purpose of the care of expectant mothers," to say "may provide for the care of expectant mothers," etc. That says what I believe the right hon. Gentleman intends to say, namely, that the sanitary authorities shall have the powers which they imagine they have in some cases and which they have been asking for. The only effect of my words would be to give them the powers of providing for the care of expectant mothers.
    Mr. LONG: I am afraid that I cannot add to in any way the full answer which I gave to my right hon. Friend just now. I admit that the new powers do not go as far as I should like to see them go, but at
    796
    the same time they are a step in the right direction. I am advised that the language in the Clause, which was very carefully considered, is appropriate, and in those circumstances I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Mr. HARRIS: The speech which I made was for the purpose of getting a statement from the right hon. Gentleman. I think that I am satisfied, as to the powers in the possession of the local authorities, that I have learned all that I desire.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.
    Original Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words, "Provision may be made, as part of any such arrangements, that the arrangements may be carried out," and insert instead thereof the words, "(3) Any such powers may be exercised."
    Mr. KING: I beg to move to leave out the words "in such manner as the authority direct."
    If a committee is appointed by an authority it must carry out the necessities of work which that authority gives it, and it seems to me that the words in the Bill cause difficulty and tend to hamper the work of the committee. I trust, therefore, that this Amendment will be accepted.
    Mr. LONG: The hon. Gentleman has moved this Amendment under a misapprehension. I am not a lawyer, as he knows, but I am advised that the effect of this would be to transfer power from the local authority to the committee. That is not what we want at all. The power and the responsibility must rest with the local authority, while their exercise through a committee would be provided for.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "committee," to insert the words "or committees."
    It is quite obvious that a county council or the council of a county borough could do its work better by having different committees for the different districts.
    Mr. LONG: I will accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move to leave out the word "comprising," and to insert instead thereof the words "which shall include women and may comprise."
    Mr. LONG: I will accept that Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add the words,
    "Any such committee may be empowered by the authority by which it is appointed to incur expenses up to a limit for the time being fixed by the authority, and, if so empowered, shall report any expenditure by them to the authority in such manner and at such times as the authority may direct. A committee appointed for the purposes of this Section shall hold office for such period not exceeding three years as the authority by which it is appointed may determine."
    Mr. KING: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add,
    "(2) Where the Local Government Board are satisfied that an authority for the purposes of this Section are refusing or neglecting to discharge their duties thereunder to the satisfaction of the Board the Board may exercise in respect of the area of that authority all or any of the powers of the authority, and may recover from the authority any sums expended by them in relation to such exercise.
    For the purposes of any inquiry into any supposed refusal or neglect, as aforesaid, the Board may apply by Order any enactments relating to the holding of public inquiries, and the enactments as so applied shall extend accordingly."
    Suppose that you have a case in which the local authority is absolutely neglecting its duty with the result that there is a great loss of child-life, and so on, I do think that you want the Local Government Board to be in the strongest position to exercise its powers and insist on action being taken by the local authority, and I think that this Sub-clause would add to the power of the Local Government Board in such a district where there is an obvious need of dealing with the problem under the Bill.
    Mr. LONG: As far as the Local Government Board is concerned, my hon. Friend knows very well, better than I do, as he knows these questions so well both inside the House of Commons and out of it, that the power of compelling a local authority by mandamus is of no effect whatever in such a case. What we want is to get these
    798
    local authorities to approach this work with a good will and to take it up with enthusiasm. If you begin to threaten people with compulsion or do not trust them, but strive to compel them, you are much more likely to deter them and to urge them in the opposite direction. I am sure that my hon. Friend, remembering his own experience in local administration, will agree that it is better not to put these powers into the Bill.
    Mr. KING: I do not quite agree, but I shall withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend has said that the expense would not exceed £100,000, and that he was going to provide out of the National Exchequer a sum of £50,000. How is he going to provide it? It is not in the Bill, and I think that it will require a Financial Resolution and probably an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. LONG: I do not desire to embark on a discussion with my hon. Friend as to the Rules of this House with regard to finance. This, of course, is done under the existing system by which money is voted by Parliament for the relief of certain local expenditure, and repayment is made to the several authorities, but the money for the purpose is taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when we are voting the Supplies.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Application to Scotland and Ireland.)
    (1) In the application of this Act to Scotland—

    (a) the expression "children under five years of age who are not being educated in public elementary schools" means children under five years of age within the meaning of Section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908;

    (b) Sub-section (2) of Section one shall not apply: Provided that the Local Government Board for Scotland may, if they think fit, by order, authorise any two or more local authorities to act together for the purposes of the principal Act and this Act, and may prescribe the mode of such joint action and of defraying the costs thereof.

    (2) In the application of this Act to Ireland—

    (a) the expression "public elementary schools" means national schools;

    (b) Sub-section (2) of Section one shall not apply;

    (c) the provisions for the extension of the principal Act shall not apply as respects any rural district; and

    (d) the expression "medical officer of health" means, for the purposes both of this Act and the principal Act, as respects any district for which there is a medical superintendent officer of health that officer, and elsewhere the medical officer of health of the dispensary district.

    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, after "(1)," to insert the words "In the application of this Act to London the following Sub-section shall be substituted for Subsection (1) of Section two:—
    Any Metropolitan borough council may make such arrangements as they think fit and as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board for attending to the health of expectant mothers and nursing mothers and of children under five years of age who are not being educated in public elementary schools."
    Clause 2, as now drafted, does not affect London at all, because though it gives the right to the county councils to come in and do this work, yet under the Act of 1907 the County Council of London was expressly excluded, and therefore it gets no powers under Section 2 of this Act. I therefore ask that the original words should apply to the borough councils of London, which at the present moment are doing this work, and I think are doing it very well.
    Mr. LONG: This is merely a question of draftsmanship. I am advised that the provision already inserted in the Bill reserves all the powers of the Metropolitan and borough councils and that the Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend is unnecessary and even wrong. Under the existing law the borough councils have got certain powers, and these are preserved to them. The Local Government Board administer the Grant in the usual way, having approved of the scheme; all these powers of the borough councils are preserved, and this is altogether inconsistent with the form which,
    800
    we were advised, is the best form in which to draw the Bill. I hope, therefore, that with this assurance my right hon. Friend will be satisfied.
    Amendment negatived.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): I beg to move to leave out paragraph (a).
    Sir H. CRAIK: I would like the Lord Advocate to explain why these larger powers are introduced for Scotland.
    Mr. MUNRO: This particular Amendment is being made because it concerns the definition of a phrase which, in consequence of the alteration made in Clause 2 by my right hon. Friend, now disappears from this Bill. I am not sure that I should be in order on this Amendment in dealing with the matter referred to by my hon. Friend.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Perhaps you will explain it on the other Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to add at the end,
    "(b) The following Sub-section shall be substituted for Sub-section (1) of Section two:—
    (1) Any local authority within the meaning of the principal Act may make such arrangements as they think fit, and as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board for Scotland for attending to the health of expectant mothers and nursing mothers, and of children under five years of age within the meaning of Section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908."
    Sir H. CRAIK: As I understand, this enacts for Scotland the original Clause which was altered.
    Mr. MUNRO: The position of the matter is simply this: Under the Bill as drafted, Clause 2, as applied to Scotland, enables the public health authorities to make such arrangements as they might think fit, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to carry out the purposes of that Clause—that is to say, make such arrangements as they may think fit for attending to the health of expectant and nursing mothers and children under five years of age. As the Committee is aware, my right hon. Friend has varied the phraseology of Clause 2, and

    801
    consequently, so far as England is concerned, Clause 2, as now adjusted in Committee, invokes certain powers conferred upon sanitary authorities in regard to public health in England. Those powers are already in existence, so far as the sanitary authorities are concerned, and are now invoked for the purposes of this measure. Those powers under the Public Health Acts of England are considerably wider powers than are enjoyed under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, and it was thought desirable in these circumstances, rather than legislate by reference to these English Statutes which contain wider powers than we have in Scotland, to retain, so far as Scotland is concerned, the direct grant of powers which was contained in Clause 2 as originally drafted. The Amendment which I am moving now is for the purpose of giving effect to the intention which I have described, and I hope my hon. Friend will in these circumstances think that it is an acceptable proposal.
    Sir H. CRAIK: As I understand, the matter stands thus: You have not the power in Scotland which you have in England, under the Public Health Act, and you are now going to introduce not only all that you had in the original Clause but a good deal more, although the powers vested in Scotland at the present moment are less than those in England. Under this proposal larger powers will be given to Scotland than are given in England under the Public Health Act, although the powers at present given in Scotland are smaller than those which exist in England.
    Mr. MUNRO: I think my hon. Friend is mistaken. Scotland would have narrower powers than England possesses under the Bill, and in order to avoid that we propose that the original Clause should be applied to Scotland. Under that Clause our powers will be just as wide, if not wider, than those exercised in England.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Henceforth they will be much wider.
    Mr. MUNRO: So much the better.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "may" ["may make such arrangements"], to insert the words "provide such buildings, and may."
    802
    The Amendment of the Lord Advocate would then read, "any local authority within the meaning of the principal Act may provide such buildings and may make such arrangements as they think fit," etc. The Committee are aware that this Subsection now proposed for Scotland is the original Clause as introduced into this House. When that Clause was proposed for England and Wales the hon. Gentleman the Member for Paddington put down an Amendment to the same effect as mine, and I hope I will get his support for mine in regard to Scotland. The reason for my Amendment is that the local authorities for Scotland are exercised in their minds as to their powers under this measure, particularly the local authority in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. They are in doubt as to whether, under the Clause we are now dealing with, the local authorities could provide such buildings, or take over existing undertakings and continue the work. If the Lord Advocate can assure me that the Clause as proposed to the Committee would enable the local authorities in Scotland to do these two things, to erect buildings for this purpose, and to take over buildings which are already being utilised, then there would be no necessity for my Amendment.
    Mr. MUNRO: I have no hesitation in offering to my hon. and learned Friend the assurance for which he asks. The words which are in the Clause have been deliberately and carefully selected because of their width, and I have no hesitation in saying to him that those words which are already in the Clause are sufficient, without the addition of the words which he proposes. The Local Government Board in Scotland understand the words in that sense, and they will be administered by the Department in that sense. I am further fortified in the view I have expressed by finding that the same view of the meaning of these words was taken by my right hon. Friend with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Paddington.
    Mr. WATT: The local authorities in Scotland had an opportunity of studying this measure for some length of time, and they have been unable to come to the conclusion just communicated to me that those two things could be done. Of course, we all know that lawyers differ, and apparently the legal advisers of the

    803
    authorities have taken a different view from that of the Lord Advocate. After his assurance, however, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Proposed words inserted.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out paragraph (a).—[Mr. Birrell.]
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), at the end to insert:—
    "(b) The following Sub-section shall be substituted for Sub-section (1) of Section two:—
    (1) Any local authority within the meaning of the principal Act may make such arrangements as they think fit and as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board for Ireland for attending to the health of expectant mothers and nursing mothers and of children under five years of age."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not going to object to the Amendment, but I observe that there are no Irish Members present. I did not say anything in regard to the application of the Bill to Scotland, because they will not spend very much money there, but in Ireland they are very fond of spending money. I am sorry there is no hon. Member from Ireland present, but under the circumstances I do not offer any opposition.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Short Title and Repeal.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915, and the principal Act and this Act may be cited together as the Notification of Births Acts, 1907 and 1915.
    (2) The enactments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed (except as respects Ireland) to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "respects" ["except as respects Ireland"], insert the words "rural districts in."—[Mr. Birrell.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    SCHEDULE.
    Question, "That this be the Schedule of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments.
    As amended, considered.
    Question proposed, "That the Bill be read the third time."
    Mr. KING: I made a few remarks in Committee which I am sorry did not receive attention from the President of the Local Government Board. I pointed out that there were three authorities the local sanitary authority, the board of guardians, and the local education committee—that could all do separate work, and in certain cases might be put to work at once looking after the well-being of the children. I think that is unfortunate, while there is no controversy upon any one of these powers under Clause 2 of the Bill to do the work. I hope that in the circulars or orders which are sent out by the Department in connection with the measure, due notice will be taken of the possibilities of overlapping, and that you will secure harmonious working for the very excellent objects which this Bill has in view.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I rise in order to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board on the passage of this measure. At a time when such stupendous efforts are being put forward for the destruction of human life I am sure it will always be a gratification to the right hon. Gentleman that he has been able to find time to pilot a Bill through the House, the object of which is to preserve and prolong life.
    Mr. LONG: We will do our best, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the President, and the officials of the Board of Education, to avoid overlapping. No doubt we shall gain experience which will enable us at no distant time to put the law with regard to this question in a thoroughly satisfactory position.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1913–14.
  Committee to consider the Surpluses and Deficits upon Navy and Army Grants for

  805
  1913–14, and the application of Surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments which were presented on the 2nd February last be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  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 Six o'clock.

WAR.
  MUNITIONS.
    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
    MATERIAL FOR WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
    MATERIAL FOR WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  OFFICERS' KIT LOST (ALLOWANCE REGULATIONS).
  OFFICERS' KIT LOST (ALLOWANCE REGULATIONS).
  MALT EXPORTERS.
  MALT EXPORTERS.
  PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL GOVERN MENT REGISTERS.
  PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL GOVERN MENT REGISTERS.
  NEWSPAPER REGISTRATION.
  NEWSPAPER REGISTRATION.
  Fishing and River Preservation.
  Fishing and River Preservation.
  Proof of Birth (Ireland).
  Proof of Birth (Ireland).
  Irish Creamery Butter Industry.
  Irish Creamery Butter Industry.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

London County Council (Money).

London County Council (General Powers No. 1).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

WORKSOP AND BAWTRY RAILWAY BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered, That the Bill be not further proceeded with.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Cardiff Order was withdrawn: Bill committed for To-morrow.
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS EXTENSIONS, &c.) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES' FACILITIES BILL.
Read 2a, and committed for To-morrow.
SOUTHEND WATER BILL.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TRENT NAVIGATION TRANSFER) BILL.
    BARNOLDSWICK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 130.)
PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SUTTON DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
ABERDARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
  NORTHWICH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
INDICTMENTS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and to be printed as amended. (No. 129.)
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Second Report of the Joint Committee made, and to be printed. The Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out. (No. 131.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Trade Reports (Annual Series)—
No. 5445. Japan (Nagasaki, 1913);
No. 5447. Siam (Consular District of Senggora. 1st April 1913 to 31st March 1914):
Board of Education—
1. Regulations for the training of teachers for elementary schools (in force from 1st August 1915);
2. Special Regulations for grants in aid of instruction for housewives in economical cookery (supplementary to the Regulations for Technical Schools, &c:, 1914–1915):
Public Services in India (Royal Commission)—Appendix to the Report of the Commissioners. Volume XIX. Minutes of Evidence relating to the railway department, taken at Delhi, Calcutta, and London, with appendices:
Lunacy (Ireland)—Sixty-fourth Annual Report of the Inspectors of Lunatics in Ireland for the year 1914:
Marriages, Births and Deaths (Ireland)—Annual Report of the Registrar-General for the year 1914:
Local Government (Scotland)—Return of the Areas, Population and Valuation of Counties, Burghs and Parishes in Scotland:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Ministry of Munitions—Regulations made by the Minister of Munitions in pursuance of Section 4 (5) of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, with respect to the general ordering of the work in a controlled establishment:
Army (Disability Pensions for Soldiers)—Royal Warrants, dated 21st May 1915:
Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865—Four Orders in Council, dated 6th July 1915, made under the Act:
Superannuation—Treasury Minute, dated 5th July 1915, granting a retired allowance to Edward. Churchill Killeen, Sub-Postmaster, Clara, Athlone, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed for To-morrow.
DUNFERMLINE AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.

MAINTENANCE OF LIVE STOCK BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to make orders for the maintenance of Stock.
1.—(1) The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, for the purpose of maintaining a sufficient stock of animals to which this Act applies, by order applicable to England and Wales or any part thereof—

(a) prohibit or restrict the slaughter of animals;

(b) prohibit or restrict the sale or exposure for sale of meat of immature animals which has not been imported;

(c) 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;

(d) 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;

(e) prohibit or restrict the movement of animals out of any area in which the slaughter of such animals is prohibited or restricted;

(f) revoke, extend, or vary any order so made.

(2) The animals to which this Act applies are cattle, sheep, and swine.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: My noble friend Lord Galway has asked me to move the Amendment standing in his name to paragraph (b), after the words "immature animals," to insert "except male calves of Channel Island, Ayrshire, and Kerry breeds." I understand from the noble Earl opposite that though he cannot accept this Amendment the object of it will be carried out in future Orders in Council. If that is so, I should not move the Amendment.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): What Lord St. Audries has stated is the case, and I am

355
very glad that he does not propose to move this Amendment. As the law stands I have complete discretion in the administration of the Orders, but if the proposed words were inserted in the clause they would tend to real difficulty and to a loss of flexibility. For instance, the question would have to be settled legally as to what constitutes a breed, whether it is to mean pure bred, or, if not, what degree of a cross. I have complete discretion in that matter now, and I can assure the noble Lord that the Order is being administered so as to allow to go to the butcher any animals that can be said to be in any degree dairy breeds of the classes named.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: I do not move the Amendment.
LORD O'HAGAN: I move to amend paragraph (b), after the words "immature animals," by inserting "except calves eight weeks old." The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that farmers shall not be prejudiced by being prevented from disposing of their calves at a time when some profit can be made out of them. In a great number of cases the making obligatory of the retention of calves in the hands of the dairy farmer would result in loss to him individually, and the consumption by the calves instead of by the public of large quantities of milk, with a consequent shortage in the by-products of milk, such as cheese and butter. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture must be aware that a great deal of feeling has been caused among agriculturists in this country by the recent Order.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Among some of them.
LORD O'HAGAN: I have the honour to hold the office of president of the British Dairy Farmers Association, a body the importance of which will be recognised by at any rate one of the occupants of the Front Ministerial Bench—I refer to Lord Crewe, who was for some time himself president of the association. A resolution on this point in the same direction as my Amendment is to be discussed at a meeting of the council of the association to-morrow. At a meeting of the council of the Central Chamber of Agriculture held this morning it was proposed that the President of the Board of Agriculture should be asked to
356
receive a deputation to urge that "eight weeks" should be substituted for "twelve weeks" in the Slaughter of Animals Order, and that with a view to assisting the sale of calves agricultural organisers should ascertain where there is a demand for calves and where a surplus exists. The resolution was not carried in exactly those terms, but an amendment was inserted in the direction of shortening the period. I have had perhaps only a short but still a considerable experience of dairy farmers in the Eastern counties, and I can assure your Lordships that there is very great fear that if this clause passes in its present form quite unnecessary hardships may be placed upon men living by an industry the importance of which, from the point of view of the milk produced, cannot be gainsaid. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will be willing to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 11, after ("immature animals") insert ("except calves eight weeks old").—(Lord O' Hagan.)
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I troubled the House on the Second Reading of the Bill with several observations on this point, and I made suggestions which I said I should embody in an Amendment. Since then, however, I have had some communication with the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, and I should like to say that the very kind official reception which he gave on the Second Reading to my observations has to some extent induced me not to move an Amendment. I can quite see that the insertion of this Amendment would have an unfortunate effect; it would make the provision less flexible, and tie the noble Earl's hands in a way that might be inconvenient. As I believe the Calf Order is more elastic than I thought it was when first I looked at it, it is possible that the suggestions which I made could be dealt with by modifications in the instructions given to the local authorities who are to administer the Orders issued. As I am not going to move an Amendment I should be grateful to the noble Earl if he would state whether the proposal that I made in regard to some method of branding, which would pick out calves that were fit and proper subjects for slaughter, could be carried out with a view of avoiding what I think will otherwise create a good deal of commotion in the dairy districts.
LORD CHANNING OF WELLING BOROUGH: I should like to supplement what Lord O'Hagan said, and to inform your Lordships that the final wording of the resolution adopted by the council of the Central Chamber of Agriculture this morning was that, instead of "eight weeks," the period should be "a shorter one than twelve weeks," leaving elasticity to the Board of Agriculture in dealing with the question.
LORD BARNARD: May I, as I was also present this morning at the meeting of the council of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, endorse what has been said by Lord Charming and by Lord O'Hagan; and may I add that the feeling of the meeting, which was well attended, was very strong indeed on this question. I emphasise this because when Lord O'Hagan was speaking the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture interjected the remark "Among some of them." I can assure your Lordships that the feeling of those present was very strongly expressed, and the resolution as originally proposed was modified because the period of eight weeks was thought by many members not to be anything like short enough, and as a sort of compromise the words finally agreed upon were, as stated by Lord Channing, that a shorter period than twelve weeks should be adopted.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What I meant by the interjection "some of them" was this. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment was, quite properly, making representations based on the opinion of the dairy farmer, who takes a different view of the Order from that taken by the grazier; and it is the duty of the Board of Agriculture to consider the interests of both and to hold the balance between them and between all sections and practices of agriculture so as, under these war conditions, to get the best results possible for the country. I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment, because it would tie my hands as President of the Board of Agriculture too much in the performance of the responsible duty now cast upon me. As I said on the Second Reading, the whole justification for this Bill is that we are at war. The question of the meat supply is a very serious one and one about which we are anxious, for the reasons which I then gave. Were this Amendment carried, it would mean that
358
any calf could be slaughtered when it became eight weeks old. I will never consent to that. If that is carried it will be against the whole strength of the Government, because the object of the Board of Agriculture is that a calf should not be killed for veal if it is fit to rear for beef. The question is not as to whether calves which can be reared for beef ought not to be so reared. I do not think that any of your Lordships would contend, after what I have said, that those calves ought now to go to the butcher.
The real question is as regards calves which are not fit to be reared for beef, and with respect to those calves I quite admit that there is a case for consideration. The Act under which I am now operating and this Bill, if your Lordships pass it, allow great scope for flexibility in administration. An Order is now in operation which fixes twelve weeks as the period under which a calf may not be slaughtered. It is quite in my power, if I am convinced by the arguments, to alter that at any moment; but if you put fixed periods into the Bill, all my discretion is taken away. Lord Ribblesdale spoke with great authority the other day about the conditions prevailing in the famous district of Craven, and since he addressed your Lordships I have had the advantage of meeting a small deputation from that district. I make no pledge to your Lordships, because I have not yet been able to consult everybody whom I wished to consult, or to take the final legal advice as to how a deviation in the matter might be carried out. But I will tell your Lordships, and through you those for whom you speak with such authority, what I should like to do if I can and that is so to modify the Orders as to be able to draw the line between calves that ought not to be reared and calves that ought to be reared.
The calves that are born are divided into three classes. First, there is the class which, if allowed to grow, can be turned into good beef for the food of the people. So far as I am concerned, nothing will induce me to allow that class of calf to be slaughtered now for veal. Secondly, there is the class of calf which is born prematurely or has some physical defect although it may be well bred, and which an experienced farmer can see at once will never pay for rearing. I desire to allow that class of

359
calf to go to the butcher. There is the third class, and it is really the class which has caused the anxiety of the dairy farmers for whom noble Lords speak—the class of calf which is not born prematurely and which has no physical defect, but which is the off-spring of such a bad bull that it will never pay for keeping and turning into beef. I admit that that class of calf is in some districts—not in the majority by any means—but in some districts, especially in some dairy districts, a comparatively large class. That is due to a very peculiar practice of agriculture.
Lord Ribblesdale will correct me if I am wrong in describing what I understand to be the practice in the Craven district, and which, for aught I know, may also be the practice in Somersetshire and Dorsetshire. There are a great number of urban dairymen who keep cows. When one of these cows begins to go dry the dairyman sells it to the farmer, and when it has calved again the farmer sells it back to the dairyman. But the cow is put to the bull, not by the farmer, but by the urban dairyman while she is in his possession, and the urban dairyman generally does not care in the least hit what class of bull he puts the cow to. The result is that a large number of calves are born which are of no agricultural value whatever, and which cannot possibly be kept profitably so as to be turned into beef. That is a vicious agricultural practice. It is a great drawback to the dairy industry of this country that so many thoroughly bad bulls should be used in these cases, and I hope that one of the permanent effects of this Bill and its administration may be to put a real cheek on that practice; and I am quite sure that Lord St. Audries, who spoke so strongly the other night on behalf of the farmers of Somersetshire, will agree with me that anything we can do to discourage that practice will be to the permanent good of agriculture. The question is how to deal with the large number of perfectly valueless calves that will be coining into the world during the next few months. I am considering whether it is possible to differentiate between them and calves that are prematurely born and defective and those which ought to be kept and reared for beef, and if I am able to do so I shall be glad. But I am not prepared to tie my hands by accepting any such Amendment as that moved by Lord O'Hagan.
LORD ST. AUDRIES: I am not going again to inflict my views on this question upon the House, but the noble Earl will never convince me or many other farmers that it is good economy to keep inferior calves for the production of inferior beef at the expense of milk and cheese. However, I think he would make the matter much simpler if he would tell us what the local authority is going to be, and explain what powers are to be given to the local authority. This question of the various breeds of calves and so on is very much a local matter, and the local authority knows very well that in certain districts it will not pay to rear these calves, and that in other districts it will.
LORD STRACHIE: Before the noble Earl replies to my noble friend behind me, I should like to ask him whether he has considered the desirability of accepting the Amendment standing in my name at the bottom of the Paper.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE indicated dissent.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Earl shakes his head. Then it is no good my saying anything more upon it at the moment, because it can be argued later. But if the noble Earl had been prepared to say now that he would accept that Amendment it would have saved the time of your Lordships. The Parliamentary Committee of the County Councils Association desired me, if the noble Earl would not accept the Amendment now before the House, to press the other Amendment and endeavour to get it inserted in the Bill; because they are not ready to trust the noble Earl absolutely in this matter, any more than the Central Chamber of Agriculture were prepared to do so this morning. Had I not been ruled out by the chairman, I should no doubt have carried at the meeting of that Chamber this morning a resolution insisting that all Orders made by the Board of Agriculture should be laid on the Table of both Houses, so that Parliament may not lose entire control of this measure. I will not, however, argue that at the present moment.
I will content myself with quoting another authority—the council of the Devonshire Farmers Association, which is composed entirely of tenant farmers and

361
represents a membership of 800. At the meeting of this council last Friday a resolution was carried to the effect that they disapproved of the Order made by the Board of Agriculture as regards calves. The gentleman who moved it proposed that the Board of Agriculture should be asked to modify their Order and reduce the age under it. The seconder said that the Order would do more to diminish stocks than to increase them, and he added that the action that had been taken was the farmers' own fault for sending men to Parliament who did not understand agricultural business. Practical experience, he went on to say, was overruled by ignorance; farmers had more calves than they could rear, many of them were not fit for rearing, and by killing veal they were saving beef. It is clear that the noble Earl has not considered the effect of his Order. If you insist on farmers bringing up more calves you will naturally diminish the supply of milk and also the amount of cheese, and I venture to think that the supply of milk and cheese is of equal importance to the country as that of beef.
Then the noble Earl spoke of the three classes of calves. How does he propose to differentiate between them? Apparently he does not think the farmers are the best judges. I suppose that what he intends to do is to appoint a large body of highly-paid inspectors to go about the country telling the farmers what calves they are to keep and what they are to sell. I do not think that will be received with very great favour by the agriculturists of this country, because that was proposed at the meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture by one gentleman this morning and he was practically howled down for making the suggestion. I hope the noble Lord will take a Division on this Amendment, and show the agriculturists of the country that there are some members in this House who sympathise with their protest that they should not be treated as mere children in this matter.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I ask your Lordships whether the tone of the noble Lord is wholly just to the attitude which I have adopted. I repeat that this is a war measure. I recognise quite as much as the noble Lord does the importance of milk and cheese as well as of meat. It is one of the functions of the Government
362
in this crisis to take into consideration the supplies of all these articles and their comparative importance at any given moment. The noble Lord drew a fanciful picture of an intention on my part to tell each farmer which of his calves come under each of the three classes I named, or to do so by the appointment of a large number of inspectors. I can assure him that neither of those ideas is in my mind. If I am able to carry out this conception—and I was careful to tell your Lordships that I was not yet in a position to say that I could do so—it will be by the assistance of the local people who know; it will be by the assistance of the local authority, or of somebody nominated by the local authority who could assist me.
I quite agree that this is not a matter that can be done by a central Department. But it can be done locally. Every Order that is made on this subject must be varied according to the agricultural circumstances of the time. Since the Order of the Board of Agriculture was made there has been a development of the drought, greater and with effects more serious than were contemplated at the time the Order was made. I do not know that that will necessitate a variation of the Order. I make no pledge in that respect. But it is one of those circumstances which it is my duty to take into consideration every day, and necessarily the length of time for which the Order exists and the degree of severity which may be imposed by the Order or by any variation of it must always be governed by the general agricultural circumstances of the moment, not only the stocks of meat in the country but the amount of feed which the farmers may have for the stocks which they graze or the flocks and herds on their farms. Therefore although I welcome, and indeed have endeavoured to profit by, the criticisms which the noble Lord and others have made, I protest against the suggestion of the noble Lord that I have assumed any attitude of superior authority either to himself or to the farmers of this country. All I am conscious of is not a greater authority but a greater responsibility.
On Question, Whether the words "except calves eight weeks old" should be inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 5; Not contents.61

CONTENTS.

Barnard, L.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Charming of Wellingborough, L.

O'Hagan, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Buckmaster, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Falkland, V.

Haversham, L.

Crewe, M. (L. President.)

Knollys, V.

Hothfield, E.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Peel, V.

Hylton, L.

Portman, V.

Islington, E.

Joicey, L.

Devonshire, D. [Teller.]

Farquhar, L. (L. Steward.)

Kinnaird, E.

Wellington, D.

Sandhurst, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Knaresborough, E.

Allerton, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Newton, E.

Lincolnshire, M.

Bateman, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Blyth, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Coventry, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Ranksborough, L.

Cromer, E.

Charnwood, L.

St. Audries, E.

Fortescue, E.

Chaworth, L.(E. Meath.)

Sinclair, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Southwark, L.

Howe, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Lauderdale, E,

Colebrooke, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Selborne, E.

Devonport, L.

Sudeley, L

Digby, E.

Sydenham, L.

Allendale, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Weardale, L.

Bryce, V.

Glenconner, L.

Welby, L.

Cross, V.

Harris, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Resolved in the negative accordingly.
LORD STRACHIE: I do not suppose, after the noble Earl has refused the Amendment as regards calves although it is so strongly supported in the country, that he will be any more ready to accept the Amendment standing in my name, to insert in paragraph (b), after the words "immature animals," the words "except male lambs of pure breeds and all crossbred lambs." If this Bill is put into force as regards lambs in the same stringent manner that has been adopted as regards calves, I venture to say that the Department will entirely ruin the interest of those farmers who make a considerable profit by fatting lambs for the market and are able to bring them to maturity in from three to four months and even in a shorter period. This question was brought up in the other House, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture promised that the noble Earl would consider whether some modification could not be made. My proposal simply is that male lambs of pure breeds and all cross-bred lambs, which are not intended for anything but the butcher when at maturity, should be exempted from this Order, and I think it is desirable that they should be so exempted. You claim that you are increasing the food supply of the country, but if you forbid the sale of these lambs
364
to the butcher at maturity you thereby diminish the meat supply of the country. Surely the farmer is the best judge in this matter. I hope the noble Earl will be inclined to meet us in a different spirit in regard to this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 11, after ("immature animals") insert ("except male lambs of pure breeds and all cross-bred lambs").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot accept the Amendment because it goes far beyond the point of the observation which the noble Lord correctly quoted from my hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the House of Commons. If such words as the noble Lord proposes were inserted the whole legal question would be at once raised as to what is a pure breed. I do not want to have that raised, because it is a difficult legal question and would only end in tying my hands. My hands are now perfectly free, so that the Orders can be varied and made flexible. Then the Amendment goes much too far in connection with cross-bred lambs. It is true, as I said in the debate on the Second Reading, that a very important branch of agriculture in this country is the breeding of lambs for slaughter, and those lambs are usually cross-bred lambs. But the words in the Amendment go much further than the

365
first cross and when you get to the second cross it often happens that those are not lambs which easily achieve an early maturity, and it might be better that ewes of later crosses should in certain circumstances be reared than that they should be slaughtered. If, however, the noble Lord will confine his words to "except male lambs" and move to insert them at the end of paragraph (a) I will accept that, because there is no intention of prohibiting the slaughter of male lambs, and the case is perfectly definite and can lead to no doubt or confusion.
LORD STRACIHE: On the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, I gladly accept the noble Earl's suggestion.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The suggested Amendment to paragraph (a) can only be inserted at a later stage, as the noble Earl is suggesting going back two dues m the clause.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: We will insert the words at a subsequent stage of the Bill.
LORD HARRIS: I agree with Lord Strachie that the farmer is the best judge of what is going to produce the most food, the object, which the President of the Board of Agriculture has in view. But the noble Earl is in this position, that he assents that his Department is a better judge of what processes are going to produce most food than the man whose business it is to get the best possible results nut of the land. With great deference I do not think the Board of Agriculture is a better judge than the practical man who has his money invested in the business, who has to study it morning, noon, and night, and whose interest it is to produce as much as he possibly can whether it is of vegetable or of animal food. And in this particular case the noble Earl's Department is claiming what I defy it to prophesy—it is bud claiming that these animals which are going to be preserved for an indefinite time, or at any rate for a long period, will be worth when they are sold more to the country than the feed which they had consumed. I defy him to prove that. It depends entirely on the animal. If an animal is healthy and its digestion is (mood it is very likely that it will be worth all and more than all the feed that it has consumed; but I defy the noble Earl or
366
his Department to produce any evidence that would satisfy your Lordships that the Department is a better judge on that point than the man who has the animals under his eye every day in the week, and who knows a great deal better than the Department does what amount of feed there is on his farm for the consumption of the animals; and if he has to buy any food at present prices it is highly improbable that it is going to be a profitable proceeding. I dare say the noble Earl is in a great difficulty and unable to meet Lord Strachie with regard to his particular proposal, but in the present circumstances I cannot vote against the Government. I feel that it is one's bounden duty to support them in the present circumstances; and to attempt to set up a serious opposition to any of their proposals would have an effect in a quarter where we do not wish to extend any encouragement whatever.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): We all, I am sure, on this Bench appreciate what has fallen from my noble friend opposite regarding his unwillingness to record a vote against the Government at this particular crisis. His views in that respect do him all honour, and as I have said we thoroughly appreciate them. At the same time supposing it were possible to obtain the support of the noble Lord on agreement with the particular proposition rather than on the general ground which he has stated we should be even better pleased.
I merely rise to draw attention to what appears to me to be something of a fallacy in the argument put forward by my noble friend. It amounts to this, that in all cases—I think I am quoting him fairly—the farmer who by the hypothesis devotes his whole time and trouble and experience to producing a particular article, whether it be a calf or a lamb or some other kind of farm produce, is bound to he the best judge of the mode whereby the article is to be produced, and therefore the best judge of the time in which, for instance, the slaughter of a particular animal should take place. It seems to me that the fallacy resides in this, that although the interest of the farmer and the interest of the country probably are in nine cases out of ten or in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the same, yet certain cases are bound to arise—and in the opinion of my noble friend and his Board one arises in

367
such a case as this, and also arose in connection with the last Amendment on which we voted—in which the interest of the individual farmer may not be identical with the interests of the country as a whole and its food supply.
Speaking as a farmer myself—I have been connected with farming all my life—I can easily think of cases in which, from the point of view of my own balance sheet, I might desire to do something which I do not believe would be in the interests of the food supply of the country; and while yielding to nobody, not even to my noble friend opposite, in the respect that I entertain for the skill and the common sense of the farming community as a whole in managing their own affairs, I cannot avoid the conclusion that at this particular time of crisis during the short period for which, as my noble friend has stated, these particular enactments are to hold good, some cases will arise in which the interests of the individual will not be the same as the interests of the community. I have had some occasion, with which I need not trouble the House, to observe in my own neighbourhood such instances. I feel sure that when those are put to the individual farmer, who may feel that his own interest for the time is being somewhat damnified by certain provisions, we shall always find that the individual farmer, being a patriotic man, will recognise the force of the contentions advanced. I merely rose to make these general observations. I do not wish to dilate upon the particular Amendment, partly because my own experience is very much more closely connected with cattle than with sheep, although I have had something to do with the latter as well, but I did not like to let my noble friend's observations pass without this word of protest.
LORD HARRIS: My contention was this, that both the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and the farmer have one object in view—namely, to produce the utmost amount of food; and I say that as regards that the farmer is a better judge than the Department.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There is one point which Lord Harris has quite left out, and in that the Government ought to have the advantage of the farmer—that is, to know when the food will most be required.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE: I move to leave out "local authority" at the beginning of paragraph (c) and to insert "council of any county or county borough," and I do so to obtain from the noble Earl some explanation of what he means by the words "local authority." If he means a county council, I am perfectly satisfied; but if he intends to take authority to delegate powers to other bodies, such as parish councils and urban and rural district councils, I should be compelled to press my Amendment on behalf of the County Councils Association.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 20, leave out ("local authority") and insert ("council of any county or county borough").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I would first of all point out that the words are not "require any local authority," but "authorise any local authority." The Board of Agriculture desire to enlist the willing co-operation of the local authority in carrying out any Orders made under this Bill, but it is quite impossible to restrict the local authority to the county council. Nobody is a greater admirer of the county councils than myself, and I have been, with the exception of the period when I was out of England, an active member of my county council ever since it came into existence. But your Lordships will see at once what I mean when I tell you that in connection with the Diseases of Animals Act the county councils have no authority in boroughs of over 10,000 inhabitants. Therefore I must be free to use the borough councils also. And when we come to the question of slaughter-houses, the authority which deals with that matter is not the county council but the local sanitary authority, which is either the borough council or the urban or rural district council. Therefore if the words of the Bill were restricted as the noble Lord proposes, I should not be able to utilise the only authorities to which Parliament has delegated certain powers in connection with slaughter-houses and the diseases of animals. Therefore I hope your Lordships will see that I must be free to use all the local authorities which I have mentioned, though so far as I know there will be no intention of utilising the services of parish councils.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had on the Paper two further Amendments to paragraph (c), to omit the words "manner in which the" and also the words "are to be defrayed." The noble Lord said: I have put down these two Amendments to obtain from the noble Earl an explanation of what he proposes. Does he mean that he is to be the judge of what body is to pay the expense incurred? That is to say, does he claim the right to say that all the expense should be paid for out of the local rates, either out of the county rate or out of the urban or rural district rate? If so, it seems to me that this is entrusting an enormous power of taxation to the Board of Agriculture and affecting our local rates, whereas in these days we are all anxious that the local rates should be safeguarded in every possible way. The effect of my Amendments would be that no Order made under the Bill could throw the cost of carrying it out on to the local rates; it would have to be provided for out of the Imperial Exchequer. I beg to move the first of my two Amendments in order that I may get an explanation.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out ("manner in which the").—(Lord starchie.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Lord forgets what I told him just now, that the whole of this paragraph is governed by the word "authorise." I have no power to direct the local authority to do anything. Everything must be by arrangement with the local authority. Therefore that governs the whole matter. I ask the local authority to undertake certain duties for the Board of Agriculture. If they will not do it, I have no power to compel them; but if, as I think would be the case, they would be willing to do it, then these words are required in order that all necessary payments may be arranged for. They already have all the machinery, and in most cases there would be no additional expense at all; but if there is, these words give power as to how it is to be made good in agreement with the local authority. If the words of the consequential Amendment of the noble Lord were accepted the effect would be to throw the whole expense, if any, on the Exchequer. Of course, your Lordships have no power to impose a charge of that kind on the taxpayers; and as the House of Commons has passed no resolution for increasing
370
expenditure in this relation I would ask you to leave the words as they are, which will enable me to make a friendly arrangement with the local authority hut not to compel them.
LORD BARNARD: I do not read the words in paragraph (c) in quite the same way as the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture does. As far as I read them, the word "authorise" does not govern the whole of the paragraph. The Board may authorise the local authority to execute and enforce the Order, but it is not said that they are to provide the manner—the Order is to provide for the manner—in which the expense incurred is to be defrayed. Perhaps the noble Earl will make it clearer at a later stage if there is anything in my contention.
THE EARL or SELBORNE: I am not a legal authority; but unless the local authority has agreed voluntarily to cooperate with the Board of Agriculture the expense does not come in.
LORD HARRIS: If the noble Earl will insert the word "to" before the word "provide" it will make it clear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before the next stage I will consult the Board.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to add at the end of paragraph (e) the words "unless being calves for rearing or in-calf cows not for slaughter." The noble Lord said: This question was also raised in another place, and I understand that Mr. Acland undertook to consult the noble Earl with regard to this matter and see whether the objections could not be met. What my Amendment does is to propose that it should be lawful to export out of a restricted area any calves for the purpose of rearing or cows in-calf not for slaughter. I think your Lordships will see that if this clause is carried in its present shape it will have the effect, not only of preventing the slaughter of cows in a particular area, but also of preventing calves or cows in-calf being exported into another area for the purpose of rearing. The noble Earl may tell me that this provision is quite clear, but I am informed by those who are interested that it is not at all clear. Perhaps if he cannot accept the Amendment straight off, he will be good enough, as in another case, to say that he will consider the matter between now and Report.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 23, after ("restricted") insert ("unless being calves for rearing or in-calf cows not for slaughter").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD ST. AUDRIES: There is one case under this paragraph that requires consideration—that is, where a farmer is giving up business or there is a change of tenancy and he has a sale. Supposing the sale took place in a restricted or prohibited area, it would be hard lines on the farmer if the sale were practically confined to purchasers in that district. In the event of a large sale of breeding stock, this restriction would do a great deal of harm. I hope the noble Earl will consider that point.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I think this provision does want making clearer, particularly as the noble Earl is anxious to facilitate the movement of these animals. It seems to me that under this paragraph nothing can be done in a prohibited area, and there the animals must stay.
LORD HARRIS: Does not this paragraph in the clause go a good deal further than the noble Earl intends? I take it that what he wants to restrict is the movement out of the area of the animals to which the Order applies—that is, calves not to be slaughtered, and lambs not to be slaughtered, and so on. But this paragraph would apply to all animals of all ages, and very great inconvenience might result; for it is the Department which makes this Order and not the local authority, and although the Department would be as cautious as possible, still an accident might be made and they might restrict the movement of all animals out of an area where the slaughter of immature animals is prohibited. I had a case in point under the Diseases of Animals Act. The boundary happened to go through a farm; it was necessary to move stock from one part of the farm for grazing, and a relaxation of the Order had to be obtained to allow the animals to be moved across the boundary. I am sure the noble Earl wants to make the clause as elastic as possible.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before the next stage I will look into the point to which the noble Lord has just alluded, and also the one made by Lord St. Audries.
372
But I cannot accept Lord Strachie's Amendment, for this reason. This paragraph is intended to meet the case where it may be unnecessary to make an Order covering the whole country, but where it may be necessary to make an Order covering a part of the country. Unless the Board has power to prohibit the movement of the animals affected by that Order out of the area to which the Order applies, of course the Order itself is mill and void. If the farmer who could not sell a calf for slaughter or a cow far gone in pregnancy in the area to which the Order applied could move it into the adjoining area to which the Order did not apply, the animal would be slaughtered and the whole object of the Order would be rendered null and void. Therefore this power of preventing movement is consequential and necessary upon the power to make an Order in respect of a district and not of the whole country. The noble Lord proposes by this Amendment that if an animal is moved out of that area for what the Board of Agriculture would consider a wholly legitimate purpose—that is, for rearing in the case of a calf, or for breeding purposes in the case of a cow—the animal should be permitted to move. I should be delighted if that were possible; but it would involve the Board of Agriculture following the fortunes of those animals all over England and finding out the intentions of every successive owner, which is impossible. For these reasons I must decline to accept the Amendment.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: Does the noble Earl mean, to take a concrete case, that if I am in a non-slaughter area and I want to make a change, I can only move into an equally amnestied area?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There is nothing about movement into an area, but out of an area.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: As I understand, the noble Earl says that if I am in a non-slaughter area I cannot move my stock into an area which is not exposed to the operations of the slaughter Order or where the Order has been modified. I can only move my, stock into an area which has been equally amnestied with regard to slaughter. Is that the point?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I would rather put it in another way. Supposing in my own county of Hampshire we were the subject of an Order in which the slaughter of certain animals was prohibited, those animals might not be moved out of Hampshire into Surrey, but animals in Surrey might be moved into Hampshire.
LORD HARRIS: Would the noble Earl consider the advisability of inserting after "animals" the words "to which the Order applies"?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I thought I had already indicated that I would consider that point.
LORD HARRIS: The addition of those words would make it clear.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will think it over.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE: I propose to move the insertion of the new paragraph (g) standing in my name, which provides that all Orders made under this Bill shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. When the matter was before the House on the Second Reading the noble Earl did not so much oppose the principle, but rather took objection to it because he said this was an emergency measure and therefore no difficulties ought to be put in its way. But I would point out that if this Amendment were inserted in the Bill it would not hamper the noble Earl to any extent if his Orders were reasonable and approved of by this House, because the Orders come into effect from the very day upon which he makes them and lays them before Parliament. No doubt greater consideration and care will be exercised in putting forward future Orders, and we have good reason to think that the Order which has lately been made as regards calves will be altered when the noble Earl finds out what the agricultural feeling in this country is with regard to it.
As regards the present emergency I am entirely in sympathy with the noble Lord behind me (Lord Harris), who said he was willing to do everything in his power to support the Government in regard to war measures. I agree with the Leader of the House when he remarked that the farmers are patriotic men. I
374
believe we are all patriotic men and are willing to do everything we can for the country in this emergency. But surely the men who are most willing to do what they can for the country ought to he convinced that they are wrong in saying their view is the right one with regard to the quantity of stock to be kept and the quantity of food to be produced for the country as a whole. They must be convinced on that point. It does not do to tell them that they are not patriotic unless they are convinced that everything that the Board of Agriculture proposes is right. Lord Harris said, I think, that he disliked what was being done by the Board of Agriculture but could not vote on any occasion against the Government. That is almost equivalent to saying that we had better have no Parliament at all, and there are certainly some who think that that would be a right course. But I think it is doubtful whether that would be desirable. We should be in the same position if that took place as we were with regard to munitions three or four months ago.
But with regard to the particular point I am urging, I cannot see what argument there is against these Orders being laid unless it is said deliberately that we ought not to have the right to criticise any Order made by the Board of Agriculture, and that the President of the Board is to be made a dictator in this matter. As I ventured to remind the House the other day, I am perfectly ready to trust the noble Earl. But we do not know who is going to be his successor. In four years we have had four Presidents of the Board of Agriculture. The next President may be sitting in another place, where we shall have no control over him and shall not be able to ask him questions, or he may be a gentleman who takes an entirely opposite view from that of the noble Earl in these matters. Except the argument which the noble Earl put before us that this is an emergency Bill, there does not seem to me to be any argument at all against my Amendment. I hope the noble Earl will meet the point. What possible harm will he done if the Orders are laid on the Table for the approval of both Houses of Parliament or, if necessary, for modification? There will be no delay, because the Orders come into effect and remain in effect until objection is taken to them in either house.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 21, after paragraph (f) insert new paragraph:
"(g) Provided that all orders under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House within forty subsequent days on which that House has sat, praying that the order may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new order."—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I think that some of your Lordships, at all events, will be of opinion that there is some solid foundation in the argument which has just been put before us. I quite admit that the period of forty days does seem rather long in a case of this sort, which probably would be attended to at once by the local people interested. I suggest that the noble Lord should shorten the period to twenty-one or even to fourteen days. Subject to an alteration of that sort, I think there is very good reason for adopting the noble Lord's Amendment.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I should like to support Lord Strachie in what he has said. I believe that the Orders to be issued will apply to Ireland; they will be promulgated by our Board of Agriculture as well as by the Board of Agriculture here. The noble Earl said this was a war measure; it is certainly a very drastic measure, and I hope it will carry out his wishes and increase our supply of food. But with regard to these Orders, I hope the Amendment will be accepted. They will be war measures, too, and just as drastic, and should be laid on the Table of Parliament. Unless the noble Earl is inclined to accept this Amendment, these very drastic Orders may not be criticised. Therefore I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will accept it as modified by Lord Camperdown.
LORD BARNARD: As one who is in close touch with agriculturists and their organisations in many different parts of the country I cannot help saying that I entirely agree in principle with the proposed new paragraph put forward by Lord Strachie. I can tell this House, if there are any members who do not know it already, that the feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of the agricultural community against what they call "legislation by Government Departments" is growing very rapidly. They feel that what under
376
ordinary circumstances would come under the purview of one or both Houses of Parliament is taken away from their representatives altogether, and becomes entirely a matter to be dealt with in a bureaucratic fashion. That is what the farmers do not appreciate or like at all. The difficulty that is raised by this course of proceeding is that farmers must inevitably in course of time have less and less confidence in those Departments which attempt to ride—perhaps I should not call it roughshod—over them. But having said this much, I may say that I was very much impressed with the words that fell just now from Lord Harris as to the urgency of the situation in which we find ourselves at the present moment, and if the President of the Board of Agriculture will permit me to say so, he has my entire confidence in himself personally, and I would venture to express the hope that Lord Strachie will not press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD STRACHIE: I am quite ready to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl below the Gangway (Lord Camperdown) and to alter the period in my Amendment to twenty-one days.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: I was going to ask the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he saw any tremendous objection to accepting the Amendment as altered to twenty-one days. He pointed out the other night the extraordinary divergency as to methods of farming in different parts of the country, and I think the Government would be wise in accepting the Amendment, which instead of weakening their power would undoubtedly strengthen it. I do not altogether agree with what Lord Barnard said just now, because in my part of the country the farmers are not in a great state of hostility or commotion. They perfectly accept the position that we have heard mentioned over and over again in this debate—that this is an emergency measure, and that we are at war. I believe, as a matter of fact, we talk too much about the crisis; we shall all get as nervous as rabbits if we go on like this. Also I do not like to see this bidding adieu to all our Parliamentary notions because we happen to be at war with Germany. I am not going to bid adieu to mine, at any rate. These Orders in Council may raise all kinds of difficulties; and for the sake of agriculture, for the sake of our

377
food, and for the sake of all the objects in view, you had better assent to something of this sort and let the Orders lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. Of course, we do not want to drive the noble Earl too far—I least of all, because he has been very good-natured to me—but I suggest that the Amendment with the period altered to twenty-one days would not be unreasonable.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: It is proposed to substitute twenty-one days. Therefore I ought to put the question that "twenty-one days" be inserted in the Amendment instead of "forty days."
LORD HARRIS: I make a suggestion to the noble Earl which he will probably think milder than the laying of the Order for twenty-one days? The Farmers' Club, or whatever the body may be, in the various counties think they should have notice of the noble Earl's intention to issue an Order and have an opportunity of lodging protests, or arguments, or objections against such Order. If the noble Earl would undertake that any proposed Order should be circulated to the recognised agricultural associations of the country and that he would not take action upon the Order for a week, I suggest that that would be a milder request than that necessitating the Order lying on the Table of the House for twenty-one days. I imagine that if the noble Lord's Amendment were agreed to, the Order would be ineffective when Parliament is not sitting. Therefore my suggestion is a more practicable one, and it would give us a sufficient amount of protection, because we should have the opportunity for a week of considering and entering our protests against any particular proposal.
LORD JOICEY: I think the noble Earl must see that there is a considerable opinion in favour of making some alteration in this connection. So far as I am concerned, like Lord Barnard, I look upon the encroachments of Departmental power with great suspicion. It is not only in the agricultural interest that we find this taking place, but in connection with all other industries; and by means of Orders and Regulations the Departments are enabled legislate on questions which ought to be left to Parliament. But I realise that there is special reason just now why there should be no delay in dealing with a question of
378
this kind. We are all anxious that the food supply during the time of the war should be increased as much as possible. So far as I am concerned, at this time of difficulty I am prepared to give almost a dictatorship to the Government. I often wish there was a little more dictatorship in some of the Departments concerned with questions dealing with the war. But as a general principle I should certainly support very strongly an Amendment of this kind. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will try to meet the views that have been put forward.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There is no Amendment that I would personally be more desirous to accept if possible, and I realise that I have to make out a case for refusing this Amendment. In normal times and if this were not a war measure I should regard the Amendment as a natural one, and one which the Government ought to accept. But it is not, as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment thinks, merely the laying of the Order on the Table of the House the Order being in operation all the time and remaining in operation unless the House within twenty-one days passes a resolution against it. If this Amendment is put into the Bill it brings into operation the requirements of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, under which the proposed Order would have to be published in the London Gazette for forty days before it was made, and that, of course, might easily defeat the whole object of the Order. It certainly would make it impossible for me or any one who had the honour of holding my position to take that prompt action which might be necessary. That is also the reason why I cannot make the promise which Lord Harris asked me to make about circularising all the Chambers of Agriculture and Farmers' Clubs before an Order is made. But what I will undertake to do is to receive, and gratefully receive, deputations from any body of farmers who object to any part of an Order made. I will give the very best of my attention and that of my Office to considering those representations, and I shall always be prepared to vary and modify the Order, as I should have the power to do under this Bill, if I am convinced that a mistake has been made or a point omitted. Then, again, assuming that I was not able to advance the argument I have already done, I wish to make another point.

379
Suppose that I was able to make the Order at once and without notice to lay it on the Table of your Lordships' House. Your Lordships might think it an unreasonable Order, and you might move an Address to His Majesty praying His Majesty to withhold his consent to the Order. MY whole and sole case in defence of that Order might be the state of the food supply of the country at that given moment. But my mouth would be closed. I could not possibly tell yon what my case was, because that would be giving the whole case away to the enemy, and therefore you might, because of my silence, stop an Order which at that moment was really vital for the maintenance of the food supply of the country.
LORD STRACHIE: The noble Earl says that his difficulty is because of the Act of Parliament which he mentioned.
Resolved in the negative accordingly.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I stated also that there were other reasons.
LORD STRACHIE: I was going to suggest that if that were the only difficulty he might insert a new provision exempting this clause from the operation of that Act. I suppose the noble Earl as a matter of fact is opposed to this Amendment root and branch, because otherwise he knows very well that he would have only to intimate to any one interested that he had made the Order but could not give his reasons, and then noble Lords would at once withdraw any opposition.
On Question, That the proposed new paragraph (g), as amended, be here inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 3; Not-contents, 59.

CONTENTS.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

O'Hagan, L. [Teller].

Strachie, L. [Teller].

NOT-CONTENTS.

Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Cross, V.

Glenconner, L.

Falkland, V.

Harris, L.

Knollys, V.

Haversham, L.

Devonshire, D. [Teller.]

Peel, V.

Islington, L.

Rutland, D.

Portman, V.

Joicey, L.

Wellington, D.

Kinnaird, L.

Allerton, L.

Knaresborough, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Lovat, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Barnard, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Barrymore, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Parmoor, L.

Albemarle, E.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Ranksborough, L.

Camperdown, E.

Charnwood, L.

Rotherham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Sanderson, L.

Cromer, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Sinclair, L.

Howe, E.

Colchester, L.

Southwark, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Lichfield, E.

De Mauley, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Selborne, E.

Devonport, L.

Sydenham, L.

Digby, L.

Weardale, L.

Allendale, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Welby, L,

Bryce, V.

Emmott, L.

Wrenbury, L.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment to substitute "twenty-one" for "forty," agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Islington.)
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I My Lords, before you vote upon this Motion I would like with your permission

381
to say a few words, not with the object of impeding the passage of the Bill, but with the object of calling attention to its extreme importance and to the urgency of introducing Amending Bill which the noble Lord promised on the last occasion when the matter was before your Lordships' House. When this Bill is placed upon the Statute Book it will be, I venture to think, the most strange and the most anomalous Act that could be found upon it, for while the enactments embodied is this measure are excellent and such as are required by the circumstances of the time, provisions are made in the Fifth Schedule to the Bill which go to neutralise many of the important provisions incorporated in the Bill. In Sir Courtenay Ilbert's Digest, which, according to the general acceptation, represents what the exact law is, no reference whatever is made to such provisions as are included in that Schedule to this Bill.
Perhaps I may explain by an illustration what I mean. In Clause 16 of the Bill power is most properly taken to require that the Governor-General shall report to the Secretary of State in Council all matters connected with the finances and the state of the country. At the same time the Fifth Schedule calls attention to the fact that it within the power of the Governor-General in Council—in his Legislative Council—to relieve himself of that obligation which the Bill imposes of reporting to the Secretary of State everything that happens in India. There is another most necessary provision of the Bill which imposes restrictions on the power of the Governor-General to wage war in India. This Schedule enables the Governor-General in Legislative Council to relieve himself of the restriction so placed upon him. I could occupy your Lordships' time by pointing out the extraordinary-contradictions between the Bill and the Schedule. My sole object in addressing your Lordships to-night is to urge that the Amending Bill which has been promised by the noble Lord should be pushed forward and carried before the fact of this codification passes out of people's minds. I am very much afraid that if the political classes in India get to know that their Legislative Council is invested with the extreme powers which exist in this Schedule, and it then comes to their knowledge that a Bill is being introduced to
382
deprive them of those powers, they may probably think that an attack is being made upon the privileges and the authority of their Legislative Council. It is only because this law has now been codified and the Statutes of over a century have been carefully looked into that it is found that these contradictions exist. It was not known to any one before the codification was undertaken that the contradictions existed; and my whole object in addressing you now is to urge that no time should be lost while the matter is fresh in public attention of correcting the errors which are introduced into this Bill and pointed out and brought into great prominence by the Schedule attached to it.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, I should like to emphasise what has fallen from my noble friend as regards the extreme importance of this matter. Suppose for a moment that in drafting into a Consolidation Act a number of Acts dating back for 145 years it was found that in thirty-nine instances your Lordships' House had the power of over-ruling Acts of Parliament. That is very fairly analogous to the ease of this Bill. In such a case as that, is it likely that the Joint Select Committee which dealt with the Bill would recommend that those powers which had long fallen into disuse should not only be re-affirmed but should be given the utmost publicity in a Schedule? Would the Joint Select Committee in such a case as that think it necessary to give an absolute photograph of the law? Yet that is the view that has been urged strongly upon your Lordships' House, and it is upon that view we are acting to-day. The whole difficulty of this Schedule arises from the Act of 1861, which was badly drafted. In Section 22 that Act abolished all these extraordinary powers which resided in the Governor-General of India, but only as far back as the Act of 1833; therefore behind that Act there lay some of these powers which were not removed by the Act of 1861, and those powers, which as I have said are no less than thirty-nine in number, are now re-affirmed and given the utmost publicity in the Fifth Schedule. A proposal was made to strike out some of the most obviously improper of these provisions, but that Amendment was withdrawn, and these very improper

383
provisions, as I think they are, stand part of the Bill to-day. The Fifth Schedule has many great difficulties and even some dangers in it, to which my noble friend has pointed. I could point out other dangers, but I do not think it would be wise to do so publicly. I believe that the usual course in such cases as this is to amend first and to consolidate afterwards, and it is a pity that that course could not have been followed here. All that can be done is to bring in an Amending Bill as soon as possible. But I fear an Amending Bill must be of a somewhat contentious nature, and I am afraid it cannot be carried probably for some time. The irony of the present situation is this, that the anxiety of the Joint Select Committee for legal purity and for photographic accuracy was such that it induced them to press upon your Lordships' House a Bill which has in some respects the aspects of reckless legislation.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, in answer to the two noble Lords who have addressed the House on the Third Reading, I would once more assure them that the importance of this measure is fully realised by the Department which I have the honour to represent, and also the importance of an early Amending Bill being introduced and passed. Lord Sydenham said that the best course would have been to amend first and consolidate after. I think when noble Lords consider the time over which these various Acts are spread and the variety of the matters dealt with they will see that it would have been almost impossible to have attempted amendment prior to consolidation. I think further, that anything in the nature of a combination of consolidation and amendment would also have led to very great difficulty. Directly this Bill becomes a Statute an opportunity will be given to the India Office, in consultation with the Government of India, to deal with and remove the anomalies which necessarily exist as the result of consolidation, anomalies of which I am as well aware as the noble Lords who have spoken; and at as early a date as possible an Amending Bill will be introduced into this House.
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

GROUSE (CLOSE TIME) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD LOVAT: In asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading, I would point out that though the question raised in the Bill is perhaps not of great importance, still it is, both as regards food supply and economic conditions, one which materially affects Scotland at the present time. The total rents of grouse moors in Scotland amount to nearly£1,000,000 per annum, and the, amount spent in addition to the rents by strangers, very often foreigners, is nearly an equivalent sum. The rates in ninny of the poorer districts of Scotland are dependent on this grouse rent to an extent of 50 per cent., and in some cases more. As anybody acquainted with Scotland knows, the rental per acre for grouse moors is often from five to ten times as much as the corresponding rental of grazing land. This is a matter, therefore, which is important both to the owners of this ground and also to the ratepayers in the district.
The food supply arising from the grouse is also not unimportant. About 2,000,000 grouse are killed in an average year, and in such a year as this when the grouse coveys are very large it is probable that over 3,000,000 grouse may be killed. While there has been a rise in the price of meat, it is a curious fact that grouse, which is as a rule only for the table of the comparatively rich, went down during August and September last some 50 per cent. in price. I believe that actually per lb. grouse was sold at a less price than beef is actually sold at to-day. Birds that weighed on an average from 22 ozs. to 20 ozs. were sold at the rate of 9d. during last year, which works out —I am talking of wholesale prices—actually lower than what is being paid for first-class beef. We ask for this Bill because we wish to maintain this supply of grouse; and a certain number of people in Scotland have great fear that unless these birds are killed in sufficient numbers we shall, in the first place, not have the number we desire killed this year, and in the following year we shall very probably have disease.
The reason why the Bill is important this particular year is this. As your Lordships know well, probably no class of

385
individual has gone forward to the war in such large numbers as the landed proprietors of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The result is that these men who are capable of shooting the birds—not an easy feat after, say, August 20—are either at the Front or so occupied in this country that they will be unable, except in a few cases, to kill the birds in the way it is normally done. The shooting of the birds will be left to the owners and keepers, the younger me having been entirely recruited in most cases; and unless this matter is taken in hand at an early date when the birds can be easily walked up to, there will be an over-stock and a certainty of disease in another year, and also a considerable reduction of the rateable area of certain districts in Scotland, not to mention a diminution in the food supply.
This Bill only asks for the date to be put forward for one week for one year. Further, it is only applicable to Scotland, and for this reason. On the smaller moons of England it is possible that better organisation for driving may be in operation; they are also more get-at-able, and it will be possible to cope with the abnormal number of grouse there. In Scotland, however, the moors are more inaccessible, and it Will be difficult to get over the ground before the grouse become too wild to be shot, especially as they will have to be shot, especially as they will have to be shot by elderly people, keepers and so on, as there is no one else available. This matter as it affects the food supply is deserving of your Lordships' consideration. The Bill is purely permissive. If it is found in certain districts that there is no necessity for any one to take out a gun on that day, he need not do so; but the Bill will make it possible to cope with the abnormal supply of birds which undoubtedly exist on the moors of Scotland this year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Lovat.)
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, every one admits that the noble Lord is a great authority on the subject of grouse, and I have no doubt that a large majority of your Lordships will agree with the speech which you have just heard. I am empowered to say that the Government will not in any way oppose this measure. At the same time they cannot now promise any special facilities. It is not yet certain whether tale measure may not be opposed,
386
and the noble Lord will realise that at the present time it would be impossible for the Government to support what may turn out to be a controversial measure.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole house To-morrow.

NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the Bill which I have to lay before your Lordships has been freely discussed in Parliament and not a little canvassed outside, and I therefore imagine that you will not desire that I should take up much of your time in explaining the circumstances which have led His Majesty's Government to make these proposals. I am under the impression that for the principle of this Bill there is a very general amount of concurrence. Its details may be open to controversy, but the main purpose which we have in view is, I believe, one which commends itself to the people of this country. I do not think it is too much to say of this Bill that it lays the may foundation upon which any country can organise its resources in a crisis such as that through which we are passing. When I speak of resources, I am of course aware that resources may be of various kinds. You may have resources in money; you may have resources in material; you may have resources in men. But it is the resources in men, after all, which matter most, because you cannot turn either your money or your materials to account unless they are properly handled by human agency. I believe it is a commonplace to say that we have of late suffered gravely from want of proper organisation in this respect. So far as I am aware, all the speeches which have lately been delivered by our public men, and the greater part of that emergency legislation to which we have resorted so freely, have been based upon the admission of the proposition which I have ventured to make. No one will, I think, deny that if there have been confusion, misdirected energy, great disappointment, and if these things have resulted in disastrous consequences, this has not been due to lack of patriotism, or good will, or skilfulness on

387
the part of our people but to defects in the machinery of our national organisation, to our failure to collect in time necessary knowledge, to marshal facts, to take stock, to classify. And because of this failure the State has found itself unable to supply that guidance without which no member of the community, whatever his zeal; whatever his energy, can be sure that he is applying his zeal and his energy to the greatest advantage.
As to the facts of the case, I do not think there is any doubt. We have been convicted as a nation of what a foreign critic—a friendly critic— has lately described as "the prodigious inefficiency of our national organisation." As to the lesson to be learned from these experiences, surely it is this, that the country will not tolerate the recurrence of the kind of incidents of which we have had recant experience, and I do not think I go too far when I say that no Government, however composed, will command or will retain the confidence of the people of this country unless it takes steps to render such miscarriages impossible in the future. I think there has been a great awakening of public opinion in regard to these questions. Our present conception of the responsibilities which belong to us is a very different conception from that which was formed by most people a few years—I would almost say a year—ago. If you had asked the average person to give an account of our national responsibilities, I think he would have answered somewhat as follows. He would have said, "We must in the first place have an invincible Fleet." Fortunately we have one, and we cannot be too grateful to those public men who have brought about that result. He would have said, "We must have a Home Army sufficient to deter a foreign invader from approaching our shores." He would have added that we must have troops sufficient to garrison our Colonies and India. And in the last place he would probably have said that it was necessary for us to provide an Expeditionary Force, not of great dimensions—I think six Divisions used to be the strength usually mentioned—which we could at the proper moment threw into the balance with decisive effect if any struggle were proceeding in which we were interested on the Continent of Europe. Up to that point all was simple enough. There was no great difficulty in getting the men. A little increase in the emoluments
388
of the soldier, a little lowering of the standard, were enough to bring recruiting up to the proper level if it happened to fall below it. The men, it is true, were taken without very special regard to the class of the community from which we took them. As to equipment, was not the nation immensely wealthy? Were not the markets of the world open to us? We had only to go out and buy what we wanted in this country or in foreign markets. In the meanwhile we left the civil population to itself. It was free to sell its labour as it pleased, to work when it pleased, where it pleased, how it pleased, half speed, full speed, or not to work at all.
We have realised that all that was incompatible with the safety of the Empire. We have realised that the old go-as-you-please system has broken down completely. The six Divisions which we were to send abroad went out at the very outset of the war. They have been followed by others and yet others, and unless I am mistaken we have twenty-three or twenty-four Divisions at this moment in the European theatre. And all the time Lord Kitchener has been recruiting his new Armies, and the stream of men has been flowing in with a volume which has been a matter of surprise to most of us. We have, as I said just now, not paused to consider whether we were taking the right men and whether we were not sometimes depleting an important industry in order to fill our fighting ranks. The system of equipment did not flow so satisfactorily. Our own factories were unequal to the immense and unexpected strain which was put upon them. The great contractors and purveyors left us in the lurch. In the foreign markets we found ourselves competing with our own Allies. There was a pitiable scramble for munitions of war, and we all know how grievously unsatisfactory the result has been. Prodigious efforts have been made to overtake these vast arrears, and I am glad to think that those efforts have been attended with a very considerable amount of success. But, my Lords, we shall never know what these defects of organisation have cost the nation in money, in anxiety, in lives, and in the prolongation of this war. And even now are we not almost as far as ever from the ideal at which we ought to aim? It is perhaps an unattainable ideal, but it is nevertheless that of which I venture to think we ought never to lose sight. That ideal is that

389
every member of the community should bear, not merely a part in the national task, but the part which he is best qualified to undertake. We are still face to face with troubles which are not due to shirking, or to indifference, or to trade disputes, but, to absence of direction, to the manner in which we have given free play to competition and to caprice, when method, system, and guidance were what were really needed.
I am here to suggest to your Lordships that if we are to correct these things, the first step is that we should acquire as complete a knowledge as possible as to what men and women are available for services of all kinds in the country, where they are to be found, and what they can do when you have found them. At present we are wholly without means of ascertaining these things. We all know what has been happening. Men used to industries have been hustled into the ranks of the Army. I was told the other day of the ease of a leading firm of manufacturers of armaments who, at the outset of the war, parted with 600 or 700 of their men in order that those men might join the ranks of the Army. That firm has felt the want of those men ever since. You may try to get them back. They may be laid low in the fields of Flanders, or, if they are still to the fore, you probably cannot get them back without disorganising the military unit which they have joined. We have seen cases where agricultural labourers and employees, every bit as essential to the farm as the mechanic is essential to the workshop, have been coaxed away and induced to join the ranks of the Army. We have seen one area of the country denuded of men, and another area perhaps scarcely touched by the operations of the recruiter. And, perhaps worst of all, we have seen shoals of married men entering the ranks of the Army—men not only married but with families dependent upon them. And this is done without our giving a thought to the fearful burdens, present and prospective, which we are thereby imposing upon the country. It has been lately stated—I have not verified the figure—that about one-third of the men now serving are married men. That is a terrific proportion when you think of the number of unmarried men who have not yet joined the Army. You cannot, perhaps, avoid these mistakes altogether, but yon can do something to
390
diminish them. You can do that only by affording guidance to those who are responsible for recruiting—on the one hand for the military, and on the other for the industrial services; and you can supply that guidance only if you know the facts which we hope to obtain by means of the machinery of this Bill.
The Bill is in your Lordships' hands, and I need not pass its clauses minutely in review. Its main feature is the creation of a Register to which all persons between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five are required to subscribe. The personal particulars which they are asked to give are stated in the fourth clause of the Bill, and I need not enlarge upon them. The duty of setting up the new Register is imposed upon the Registrar-General, who is to be assisted by the local councils, the borough councils, and the urban and rural district councils, all of them working under the general direction of the Local Government Board. It will be the business of the Registrar-General to compile the Register, to maintain it, and to tabulate the information which it contains. Then there are clauses with regard to the granting of certificates to persons who have subscribed to the Register, clauses dealing with the question of changes of domicile, and clauses imposing penalties on those who neglect to come forward. There are also clauses providing for the special treatment of Scotland and Ireland, about which I shall say a word in a moment; and, finally, a clause limiting the operation of the Bill to the duration of the war. Most of these are points which, if discussed at all, could be best discussed in Committee; but I may perhaps be allowed to say a few words with regard to one or two questions which arise out of the Bill.
In the first place, I may be asked why we have thought it desirable to include women in the Bill. It may be suggested that by so doing we greatly increase the magnitude of our task and also its expense. These considerations were present to our minds, but we came to the conclusion that it was absolutely essential that women should be included within the purview of the Bill. What, after all, is the object of the Bill? It is to organise the industrial forces of this country, and I venture to submit to your Lordships that it is impossible to do that without including the female as well as the male workers. We all know that since this war has been in

391
progress there has been a great attempt, and a successful attempt, to substitute the work of women for the work of men. That has been done in the case of clerical work, in the case of agricultural work, and also to some extent in the case of work in the factories; and we came to the conclusion that if women were to come within the scope of the Bill it was necessary that they should be included compulsorily just as the men are included. It may be within the knowledge of some members of the' House that a few months ago an attempt was made to set up a voluntary register for women, with rather disappointing results. I refer to the Board of Trade Circular in the month of March last, in which women were invited to register-out of 13,000,000 women only 90,000 placed their names upon the register. We therefore came to the conclusion that. we should include the women.
Then may I say half-a-dozen words about Ireland. I see one or two of my Irish friends upon the Benches opposite. The effect of the Bill as regards Ireland is this. It enacts in Clause 15 that the Lord Lieutenant may apply this Bill to the whole or to any part of Ireland. Perhaps I may be asked why we left this option to the Lord Lieutenant. I will answer the question quite frankly. It seamed to us that it was idle to endeavour to impose this Bill forcibly upon the whole of Ireland. I think it would be mere affectation to suppose that we should receive in that country the same kind of response which we confidently expect to receive in this country when we make our appeal to the people to come forward and subscribe to the Register. I wish to say nothing disrespectful about Ireland. I know how much the country owes to the splendid gallantry of some of our Irish regiments; I know what a number of gallant Irishmen are to be found throughout the British Army. But nevertheless I am constrained to admit that there is no reason whatever to expect throughout the whole of Ireland the same kind of general enthusiasm and desire to support this measure that we confidently expect to meet with in this country.
There was another aspect of the case which we had to consider. The industrial classification of the Irish population and its distribution is very different from that of England and Scotland. A very large part of the population of Ireland is to be found
392
in the remoter districts of that country which are purely agricultural, and in those districts the occupants of land are firmly rooted to their holdings, of which many of them are the absolute owners, and I believe have no intention whatever of making those holdings derelict or of transferring themselves from the profession of agriculture to any other industry. The figures which have been given to me are rather remarkable. There are, I believe, in Ireland 1,300,000 males who would come within the purview of this Bill, and of these, in round figures, about 1,000,000 are to be found in these comparatively remote and entirely agricultural regions. We therefore determined to deal differently with Ireland. My noble friends will find the clause on page 6 of the Bill, and they will see that under this clause it is left entirely to the initiative of the Lord Lieutenant to decide whether this Bill shall be applied in Ireland, and, if so, within what geographical limits. Should the Lord Lieutenant think fit to apply the Bill he has to give directions to the Registrar-General to prepare a Register, and the Registrar-General compiles that register from such information as he is able to collect either from the local councils, supposing the local councils desire of their own accord to come under the operation of the Act, or, if they do not so come forward to assist the Government, then from such information as the Lord Lieutenant can obtain from other officers or departments of the Government—for example, the Trish Local Government Board, or the Reports of the Royal Irish Constabulary, which, as my noble friends know, are of a very complete and extensive nature. That, then, is how the Bill deals with the question of Ireland.
Then may I say a word or two as to the question of cost. I sometimes hear it said that this Bill is going to be not only very troublesome but very costly. We hope that that will not be the case. As for the trouble, we are confident that that will be willingly undertaken in the different areas and that we shall obtain a great deal of very valuable and in some cases perhaps unremunerated assistance from those able to help us in the localities. We look forward in particular to the co-operation of the local councils. They are eminently well qualified to help in a matter of this kind. For example, it very often happens that the clerks of these rural district

393
councils, who are also clerks to the boards Of guardians, are the superintendent registrars of births, deaths, and marriages for their locality, and as such are used to dealing with local statistics and have a very considerable knowledge of them in so fares they affect their own neighbourhood. It is worth noting that the last census cost the country in round figures £200,000, of which I think£80,000 went in the salaries of the enumerators; and we are sanguine enough to believe that the expense of the compilation of this Register will fall considerably below that figure.
And there is another thing of which I should like to remind the House. We believe that this Register will not only be of very great value for the purposes of the present war, but that it will play a most useful part after the war and when we come to what I may call the demobilisation of the nation. There will be these huge military forces of which a considerable part must inevitably be broken up. There will be the hundreds of thousands of men And women engaged upon war services in the factories who obviously will not be able to expect a continuation of the same employment. All these people will have to be, as it were, sorted again and redistributed—a task which would present enormous difficulties if those entrusted with its performance had not the assistance of the kind of inventory of the population which will result from the passing of this Bill.
There is only one other question arising out of the Bill about which I want to make one or two observations. I have said something of what is in the Bill. I want to say something of what is not in the Bill. It has been said that this is a Bill intended to introduce compulsory service by a side wind. The only approach to compulsion which is to be found in the Bill is that registration is being enforced by pains and penalties, and will therefore be compulsory registration. But as to compulsory service either in the Army or in industrial service, there is not a word or a syllable in this Bill. Nothing could be done in the direction of compulsory service without further legislation, which would of course, give to Parliament the full opportunity of expressing its views upon the subject. But I may be asked, Even if that is true, does this Bill bring us nearer to compulsory service, and, if so, how much nearer? I will endeavour to answer that question. In a sense I do not think this Bill does
394
bring us nearer to compulsory service, and for this reason. I do not believe that the voluntary service with its present anomalies and injustices world be tolerated very munch longer by the country, and if voluntary service is to be given a chance at all I think it must obtain that chance under the provisions of this Bill. I see that the Secretary of State for War, in a speech which he delivered two or three days ago, strongly recommended this Bill as necessary for the purpose of ensuring to him a proper supply of recruits under the present Voluntary system.
But in another sense I frankly admit that this Bill does bring us nearer to compulsory service. If compulsory service ever comes this Register will beyond all question greatly assist us in introducing it, because it will shorten the interval which would have to elapse between our decision to resort to compulsion and the actual application of that measure. I ask whether anybody thinks that that is really an objection to this Bill? If any one feels that it is an objection I would venture to ask them these questions. Are they able to tell us how long this war will last? Are they able to give us a guarantee that we shall be able to bring it to a close without compulsory service? During the last few months the stream of men has been flowing much more rapidly and in much greater volume than the stream of munitions. But are we quite sure that before long the case may not stand the other way—that the stream of munitions may come to flow in full volume and that the stream of men may dwindle to a very small trickle? Then I ask them, if that is so, whether we should in those circumstances not be much better off with this Bill on the Statute Book than we should be without it? I can conceive no answers to these questions except that we cannot predict the duration of the war, that we cannot take upon ourselves to say whether we shall bring it to the proper conclusion without resort to compulsion, and that we shall certainly be better off if that time ever comes with this Bill than without it. And I go the length of saying that if there ire people who object to this Bill because they think that to that extent it brings us nearer to compulsion, they will find that their real position is this. They want to deny to Lord Kitchener now the measure which he requires in order to prosecute the voluntary recruitment of the Army with success, and

395
they want to thwart and impede him at a future time should he hereafter desire to obtain this weapon in his hands in order that the war may not be brought to an inglorious conclusion. That is what I have to say about compulsion, and I hope your Lordships will not think that I have been lacking in frankness and sincerity. Of the Bill itself, let me say again that His Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to it, and that we think that its results will much more than repay us for any trouble or expense which may attend its introduction.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
LORD TENTERDEN: My Lords, I should like to make a few remarks with regard to this Bill and on the statements of the noble Marquess who has so ably explained it to the House. It must be a matter of satisfaction to many that this measure, which is one of equal importance to the Munitions Bill which preceded it and also necessitated by the great burden forced upon the British Empire in this great war, has been introduced into this House; and I was glad to hear from the in the Marquess that it is not likely to be subjected to the carping criticisms which have been made, to my mind most unjustly, against the late Liberal Administration. The noble Marquess himself gave an excellent explanation when he said that in the first place we only undertook to provide an Expeditionary Force of some 600,000 or 700,000 men, and were only prepared to that extent. That is exactly the explanation which the late Liberal Government would have given for not being prepared to put into the field and equip something like 3,000,000 men, as we are now being called upon to do.
As to the part which women are called upon to play, I decline to accept the statement that women are not as keen as men to come forward and take their part. They have proved the contrary up to the hilt. A great and powerful deputation of women propose within the next day or two to wait upon the Minister of Munitions in the hope that their services will be accepted, and there is no greater enthusiasm amongst any class of people in this Empire than is to be found amongst the women to take their part nobly in every sense of the word in supporting the Government in this great crisis. In France great assistance has been afforded by women in the Munitions Department. They have
396
been able to perform work previously undertaken by men, and thereby have liberated men for the field. There is no reason why it should not be the same in this country.
I do not see why Ireland should be exempted in any sense from taking its part in this matter. I believe the Irish people are so loyal and patriotic that they themselves, if asked the question, would prefer not to be left out. I would like to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is intended to enlarge the scope of this Bill so that it may embrace the British Empire. The Bill is confined to the United Kingdom. But would it not be a fine object lesson for our enemies at this moment if they could see that the entire British Empire was being properly organised in this way, instead of the Bill being confined to the United Kingdom? I would like to ask whether any larger measure is intended to be introduced in Parliament here with that object in view, or whether it is to be left to the different parts of the Empire themselves to carry into effect some measure such as this, which is so necessary to bring the war to the desired conclusion? I would not insult noble Lords by imagining for a moment that this Bill will not be received with acclamation, and I trust that this measure may speedily receive the Royal Assent.
THE EARL OF MAYO: In England there is very efficient machinery to deal with this matter, but in Ireland it is to rest entirely with the Lord Lieutenant what district is to come under the effects of this Bill. There will be many people, I am certain, in parts of Ireland who will not come under this Registration Bill by order of the Lord Lieutenant, and I should like to know how they are to register their names? To what body do they go? If they live in a part of Ireland where the Register is not to be enforced and register their names, will it be possible for them to be granted certificates in the same way as is done in England? I am not going to criticise the Bill. We have our own feelings—and amongst some of us they are not very pleasant—about the manner in which it is applied to Ireland, but this is not the time to cavil and carp. We must do the best we can, and I think that this country will be—I hope it will be—surprised at the number of those who will voluntarily come forward in Ireland to register their names.
LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words on this measure, not that I am not delighted to find that the noble Marquess has introduced the Bill in so complete and so lucid a manner, but because I think I can offer hint one or two suggestions which perhaps he will take into consideration. The fact is that in our county we have anticipated the Government, and have made our register; mainly, I must say, because I was very insistent that they should do so, as I felt certain that we could do nothing until we knew the strength we had in our county. What we did was to form a Committee and enlist on that Committee the services of the parliamentary agents, because they are the people who better almost than any one know the number of electors in the different districts and have lists to which they can refer. When we got these, and they were soon completed, we sent a recruiting party round comprised of all the different arms of the county with bands and speakers, and I am happy to say that they have already secured seventy recruits, and I hope they will go very much further. We are exceedingly proud of ourselves, because we happen to be the premier county with regard to recruits in proportion to the population.
These is one other point. Our list was not the same as the Government's, although the questions were pretty nearly the same, but we took the ages front eighteen to forty. I am rather at a loss to understand why the Government have gone so high as sixty-five, and so low as fifteen. It seems to me that those are ages at which you could not possibly accept a man for military service, and to put a man of sixty-five, or even of sixty, to the trouble of answering these questions when you do not want to have him for military service seems to me very unnecessary. I understand that Mr. Long, when asked why he put the ages so high, replied that he did so because there were so many people of that age who desired to serve. Very well, but they can serve now in special battalions. I might say that I was at an inspection the other day where the First men I spoke to were eighty-two and eighty-three years of age respectively. One had been in the siege of Lucknow, and the other had fought through the whole of the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny with the Rifle Brigade. They appeared on parade, but whether they will do any good in Flanders
398
I do not know. At any rate they have done some good service because they have relieved the guard over the prisoners at Frimley, and they have done so well that they have received the thanks of the officer commanding.
I do not know whether my noble friend will admit of any Amendments, but he would, I think, save a great deal of trouble and expense if he did not put the ages so high or so low. There are two points on which the Government are to be very much complimented in respect to this Bill. In the first place for making the measure compulsory, as otherwise it would be of no use. For only a little while ago the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee sent out to the householders of England returns to be filled up, and not one-half of them were answered. As there are pretty heavy fines, under this Bill I trust there will be very little trouble in getting the Register made up. In the second place, the Bill does not attempt any centralisation. It does not attempt to do all this enormous business from a Government Department. It places upon the rural and urban district councils the duty of returning the lists. That is the way to do it. No Government Department could grapple with this question; but the local authorities—I can speak for my own neighbourhoods—will, I feel sure, be delighted to do anything they can to help the Government, and I am satisfied that with such a Register as this we shall take all the steps we can to utilise the forces of the country.
LORD DEVONPORT: My Lords, the noble Marquess is to be congratulated upon the way in which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill, more especially in his reference to one particular question which has, I think, been exercising the minds of most of us for a considerable time. The noble Marquess, apart from the Bill itself, referred to the system under which the Army, since the war, has been recruited, and he said, what we all think but what has not been said by any of his colleagues in another place, that we cannot continue to tolerate the system under which the Army is at present recruited with all its fearful anomalies. That is a great step in advance, and upon that I congratulate him most sincerely. I think he will find throughout the country a wide re-echo of that sentiment.

399
The noble Marquess referred to one of the great evils that have become painfully apparent in connection with this haphazard system of recruiting. It is hardly fair to credit it with the name of "system" at all, because there is no system; it is simply come as you please. He referred to the large number of married men who have joined the Colours, and gave a figure which was the very one I was going to suggest myself. True, I am in the same predicament as he is apparently, in that I am not able to substantiate it; but that is no fault of mine, and probably it is no fault of the noble Marquess's. I take this opportunity of asking him whether it is not possible for us to have a definite return of the number of married men serving with the Colours? The noble Marquess believed that there were 1,000,000—the very figure which I had been informed represented the number. We have raised about 3,000,000 men, and at the present moment there are amongst them 1,000,000 married men. That arises because there has been no system in recruiting. I will go further and say that were a stranger confronted with the method that has been adopted in recruiting the Army and asked for an opinion he would say, when he had examined it and seen its results, "This system undoubtedly has been framed to attract married men." The wives of these married men are in receipt of separation allowances framed on a very generous scale. I do not think any one will attempt to say that they are too generous, but nevertheless they are on a very generous scale and are costing the country£1,000,000 a week if we take the average separation allowance at £1 a week.
I am told, and I believe the authority is good, that the proportion of married men in an Army of 3,000,000 should not be higher than from 400,000 to 500,000. Therefore if one works out the cost of the present Army to the country one will find that in the matter of separation allowances as a result of our excessive proportion of married men close upon £30,000,000 a year of public money is being squandered. Continental Armies call their men up according to age; the youngest come first, and so it goes up, and until you get about as high as the age of twenty-five the percentage of married men is small, not more than 6 per cent. As you go higher up the scale you rapidly come to what I may call the equator line—the age of twenty-seven,
400
when there are 50 per cent. of the men married. One can easily realise what the lack of method and system is costing the country. But now we have this Bill. In another place the noble Marquess's colleagues dealt with it very tenderly; they were anxious to explain that it was really only a census, and was made compulsory because it was the custom to make a census compulsory; but they have not given us any indication as to the purposes to which this was to be put. I listened intently to the noble Marquess during his speech. He safeguarded himself; he did not commit himself too far; he said it was —I think these were his words—"to organise the industrial forces of the country." But if that is all that it really means, it will not add one single soldier to the fighting line; it will not add one single man to the Colours; it will not get rid of this terrible anomaly of 1,000,000 men out of 3,000,000 being married. It will not touch that at all, and until the Government have the courage to grasp the nettle and take the steps that the noble Marquess suggested sooner or later would have to be taken, and unless they take those steps, not later but rather sooner than later, we shall go on in the same way as we are going on now.
But since I heard the noble Marquess's remarks I am more hopeful. Certainly from what, we gleaned by reading the debates in another place, there was a general desire to convey to all and sundry that the last thing thought of was that this Bill should be utilised for any purposes connected with the Army. There was to be no compulsion, not even compulsion of labour; no compulsion of any kind. I say it shows a great lack of moral courage on the part of the Government if they cannot sooner rather than later do what the noble Marquess has indicated, and I am convinced that if they do intend compulsion they had better by far have the courage to tell us, and then the country would know where it was. I believe this Registration Bill is a compromise between those who say "I would" and those who say "I dare not." The noble Marquess, I think, is one who would say "I would." When this Government was reorganised and strengthened by an access of ability and public service to its ranks, when it was, to use the word of Lord Curzon, "leavened," we expected that we should get a more decided note, one of a higher

401
character and of an Imperial kind, and I am not disappointed after what I have heard the noble Marquess say. At all events on the Front Ministerial Bench, recruited from the other side, we have three ex-Viceroys, two of India and one of South Africa, and that ought to give an Imperial tone and touch to the situation.
I shall not detain your Lordships longer, except to express once more my satisfaction that at all events we have struck to-night the note for which the country is waiting. What are country really wants is a lead. All that has been happening in the last eleven months has partaken rather of this character, that it has only been when the country has indicated in the completest and strongest manner what it wanted that the Government has consented to take action. All the time it has been following with laggard steps behind public opinion. The public want some strength to be manifested in the Government; they want a lead; and if the lead is given there is not a shadow of doubt, about the people following. I congratulate the noble Marquess on the courage he has displayed this evening.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than three minutes, but I feel extremely anxious to express my grant satisfaction with the frankness of speech of the noble Marquess opposite. I certainly have not heard in this House or read anywhere the speech of any public man of anything like the eminence of the noble Marquess who has criticised with such complete freedom the lack of system during the last year in the conduct of the war. The noble Marquess has put before us—we all knew it, but it had not been put before us with authority so frankly—what is the real situation in which we are. I think we owe an immense debt of gratitude to the noble Marquess for the way in which he has spoken, and I am certain of this, that whatever the feeling in this House is, the feeling in the country will be tremendous when they read the speech of the noble Marquess.
I was extremely interested in the opening remarks of the noble Marquess, in which he made it perfectly clear that this Bill must be, of course, only the forerunner of further legislation and further measures which will really organise the nation. I quite agree with what the noble Lord opposite said, that the timidity that was
402
displayed in another place as to the object and sequence of this Bill was amazing. Every one knows that unless it has a sequence it will be of little use at all. I want to ask a question of the noble Marquess as to the time the registration is likely to take. I am not so much complaining of all the women being introduced, as I understand that this was unanimously arrived at by the Cabinet of twenty-two, and if that is so probably it is right, and I know that a good many women are actually engaged in making shells at the present moment in one works with which I am familiar. But would it not have been possible so to arrange your census that you sorted out the returns first of the men between sixteen and forty years of age, because after all it is munitions and military service that we require, and those are the most important returns. We might get those sorted in a month or six weeks; but if you take the whole of the vast return we shall have to wait perhaps four months, and we cannot afford to wait four months. As it is late I do not want to go into the question of voluntary or compulsory service, except to express my great satisfaction that the noble Marquess himself condemned the injustices and inequalities and the lack of method of the voluntary system. I ran assure him and the Government of this, that I am certain the country is ready for change, and that it condemns, in stronger language them that used by the noble Marquess, the inequalities and injustices of what is called the voluntary system, but which can only be described as a chaotic system.
LORD WEARDALE: My Lords, I do not think this debate should close without some remarks on what I believe to be the Liberal opinion in this House. I regretted immensely to hear from these Benches, which I assume are the Liberal Benches, declarations so strong as those which proceeded from my noble friend Lord Devonport. I listened with great admiration and respect to the statement made on behalf of the Government in support of this Bill, and so far as the declared object of the Bill is concerned— that is to say, that we should have a proper Register of the services which every member of society may render in this or any other crisis which may arise—I think there will be no objection either in this or in the other House except as to its ulterior consequences. But I confess I did not expect that in the

403
course of this debate we should have raised, as unfortunately has been the case, the larger question of compulsion as applied to out military service. If there is one thing of which I, as an Englishman, am proud at this moment it is the enormous success of the voluntary principle, the fact that by the spirit and enthusiasm and the voluntary desire on the part of all our people we have been able to enlist 3,000,000 men. I firmly believe that the whole world views with admiration that achievement, and this is not the moment, as it seems to me, for us to depreciate that effort by a discussion as to the possibilities of Conscription. From these Benches, which are still, I assume, Liberal Benches, I desire to enter a protest against a discussion of this kind, and to say that I am still a firm believer in the voluntary principle which has already achieved such glorious results.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I may perhaps be allowed to say half-a-dozen words in reply to some of the questions which have been put to me from different parts of the House. My noble friend Lord Tenterden asked whether it was in our contemplation to extend the operation of this Bill to the Dominions across the seas. I think the answer to that is that the matter is obviously one which must be dealt with by the Governments of those Dominions themselves. If they think fit to follow suit, we shall be well pleased. Then my noble friend Lord Mayo, as I understood him, asked whether in cases where the Lord Lieutenant did not apply Clause 1 to a particular part of Ireland, with the assistance of the local authorities, it would still be possible for the Lord Lieutenant to collect names for a sort of sporadic register of his own.
THE EARL OF MAYO: I asked whether it would be possible for a person living in a district which did not come under the Registration Bill to register his capabilities.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will inquire into that matter, but my impression is that in a case of that kind the Register would not be in existence, because the Lord Lieutenant would not have established the Register. What the clause depends upon is the decision of the Lord Lieutenant to establish a Register in certain parts of Ireland, and where no Register is established I imagine it would
404
be useless for individuals to come forward. The Lord Lieutenant could not issue the forms. It is only the Registrar-General who can do that. That is the only answer which at the moment I can give my noble friend. I think he also asked about the certificates.
TUE EARL OF MAYO: Yes; whether a person registering himself voluntarily will have a certificate.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That really hangs upon the other. If he is allowed to register, he would no doubt get the usual certificate. Then my noble friend Lord Haversham told us that in a part of the country with which he is familiar a register has, thanks to the public spirit of the inhabitants, been set on foot and is in existence. I can scarcely suppose that a register of that kind would not be made use of by the authority which will be set in motion under this Bill. It will be found, probably, that very great service has been rendered by all this spade work, which will certainly come in useful in the fulfilment of the general task. My noble friend also thought that sixty-five was rather a high limit of age, having regard to the fitness of persons of that age for military service. But I would remind the noble Lord that this Register is not merely intended to disclose the fitness of the person registered for military service, but for other services as well— services of any kind; and I should be sorry to believe that gentlemen up to the age of sixty-five were unfit for duty of any kind. I have the misfortune even to have passed beyond that limit, therefore I must, I suppose, consider myself unavailable for any purpose. With regard to the lower limit my noble friend suggested that fifteen was a very low age to take, but I have here a table showing the statistics of the employment of the younger members of the community, and I find that of those of fifteen years of age no fewer than 83 per cent. are returned as employed. I presume, therefore, that there is a good deal to be said for admitting them to the Register. But I quite agree that the question of the precise limit of age is a very arguable one.
I was glad to notice that Lord Devonport was good enough to agree with what I had said as to the extravagance of recruiting married men, particularly married men

405
with families, and he suggested that a Return of the married men now serving would be very instructive. I think it would be, and I will make inquiries as to the possibility of procuring such a Return. I do not, however, like to promise the Return, because one must recollect that the preparation of these Returns involves a great amount of hard work, and when you ire dealing with the Army it means considerable investigation and trouble which one would sooner not inflict at the moment upon persons connected with military administration. But with regard to the protection of married men and their liability to be called upon to serve, I would recommend Lord Devonport to note what was said three days ago by Lord Kitchener upon this subject. I have not his speech by me, but I am sure I quote him with fair correctness when I say that Lord Kitchener expressed his sense of the value of this Bill because it would entitle him to follow up men who were unmarried, leaving on one side the married men That is really a point in favour of the Bill on the Table.
My noble friend Lord Peel asked how long the preparation of the Register was likely to take. He suggested, I think, four months as the probable duration of time, and pointed out that in view of the great importance of the munitions industry that particular industry should first be attacked. I am told that those who have studied this question believe that the length of time required will not be neatly so long as my noble friend supposes, that the officials of the Local Government Board are hopeful that one month will be sufficient for the actual collection of the names, and that the results will be made available for the public within another month—that is two
406
months altogether, which leaves a much more hopeful prospect than my noble friend anticipated. Of course, all this depends—and this cannot be said too strongly—upon the good will and the co-operation of the local councils, and I for one am deeply convinced that we may look to them for all the assistance they can possibly give us. I am afraid I can give no comfort to my noble friend Lord Weardale, who approached the subject from a rather different point of view.
I would like to raise one question before I sit down—namely, the date on which the remaining stages of this Bill might be taken. We are, for a reason which will appeal to Lord Peel, extremely anxious to get the Bill on the Statute Book as soon as possible, in order that the necessary proceedings may be taken, and if your Lordships will permit me to do so I should like to put the Bill down for Committee to-morrow. Of course, I am entirely in the hands of the House, and if any noble Lords tell me that they require further time I must defer to their judgment. But for the moment I shall put the Committee stage down for to-morrow.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX to be considered To-morrow in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the week.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.