Sitting of 14 July 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Port-Glasgow Gas and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration deferred till To-morrow.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS—That they have agreed to—
Southend Water Bill,
Nottingham Corporation (Trent Navigation) Transfer Bill,
Barnoldswick Urban District Council Water Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Rotherham Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to Government of India Bill [Lords].
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend The Game (Scotland) Act, 1772, with respect to muir fowl," [Grouse (Close Time) (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

NATIONAL DEBT.
Copy presented of Return showing (1) the Aggregate Gross Liabilities of the State as represented by the Nominal Funded Debt, Estimated Capital Liability in respect of Terminable Annuities, Unfunded Debt, and other Liabilities in respect of Debt, the Estimated Assets, and the Exchequer Balances at the close of each financial year from 1835–6 to 1914–15, both inclusive; and (2) the Gross and Net Expenditure charged annually during that period against the Public Revenue on account of the National Debt, and other Payments connected with Capital Liabilities [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CHILDREN ACT, 1908 (GRANT TO DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS).
Copy presented of Recommendation made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under Section 80 of The Children Act, 1908, as to the Parliamentary Grant to certified Day Industrial Schools [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 293.]
FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Thirty-third Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCANTILE MARINE (EXAMINATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCY).
Copy presented of Report on the Examinations of Candidates for Certificates of Competency in the Mercantile Marine and the Sea-Fishing Service for the year ending 31st December, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
Copy presented of First Report of a Committee appointed to examine the issues arising out of the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Post Office Servants, 1912–13 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Copy ordered "of Statement of Particulars of Loans of which the Balances outstanding are proposed to be remitted or written off, in whole or in part, from the assets of the Local Loans Fund."—[Mr. Montagu.]
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 121.]
PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
First Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITAL, CHATHAM.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a large part of the work of nursing in the Royal Naval Hospital at Chatham is being done by male orderlies, members of the St. John Ambulance Corps, most of whom have no experience of attending to the sick and have no natural aptitude for the work; whether he is aware that there are numbers of women better qualified for such duties who are anxious to undertake any work for the nation; and whether he will take steps to replace the male orderlies at the hospital in question by women?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The nursing at Chatham and in all our naval hospitals is performed partly by fully trained nursing sisters and active service sick berth staff, and partly by the auxiliary sick berth staff reserve who are members of the St. John Ambulance Corps. These orderlies, who perform only a subordinate part in the nursing, are quite well trained for the work. They form, in addition, a reserve under training for our nursing service afloat—a most important consideration.

  MERCHANT VESSELS (ADMIRALTY SERVICE).
  Mr. PETOasked whether the new regulations which have been laid down under the Defence of the Realm Act with the object of enforcing better discipline on merchant vessels engaged in the service of the Admiralty have as yet had any effect in mitigating the insubordination which has existed on these vessels?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: A number of prosecutions have taken place under the new regulations, and penalties have been inflicted. It is, however, somewhat early to judge the full effect of the regulations.
  Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the necessity of strengthening the hands of those who command and officer merchant vessels engaged in Admiralty work, who have experienced difficulties in preserving discipline amongst their crews, he will now grant these captains and officers temporary commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve, when they will then be in a position to wear the King's uniform?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: To grant these officers temporary commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve would not in itself enable them the better to maintain discipline. Certain measures have already been taken with this end in view, and their results are being watched with the closest care.
  Mr. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman still bearing in mind the advisability of putting the Naval Discipline Act into force and giving these officers the King's commission so that they can administer it?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the giving of commissions would not have the effect which he desires, but certain other measures are being carried out.

  GERMAN COLONIES (CONQUEST).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say of how many square miles the colonies of Germany throughout the world consisted before the War; and how much of that territory has now been conquered?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): The German colonies before the War occupied between 1,100,000 and 1,200,000 square miles. Of that extent about 450,000 square miles have been conquered by the Allies. The area of 450,000 square miles includes German South-West Africa, Togo-land, Kiauchau, and German possessions in the Pacific, but excludes that portion of the Cameroons which is in the occupation of the Allies.
  Mr. MACMASTER: In speaking of these territories as being conquered, has the right hon. Gentleman kept in view the observation of Bismarck that the possession and the retention of colonies are decided in the main centres of action?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is undoubtedly so, but it does not alter the fact that these territories are now in the occupation of the Allies.
  Mr. WATT: Has the right hon. Gentleman included in the figures that which has been conquered by the Japanese?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, that is included.

  GENERAL BOTHA.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the association in some way of the name of General Botha with the future designation of the conquered territory of German South-West Africa?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: History, I have little doubt, will always associate General Botha's name with the territory, and the suggestion of the hon. Member will be considered.

  MILITARY CAMPS (EMPLOYMENT).
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether young men of military age, now engaged at the different camps as batmen, cooks, orderlies, etc., could be replaced by active men over military age, thus releasing a con siderable number of soldiers for active military duties?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Instructions have been issued that all permanent employments at home are to be carried out by men who are not fit for service abroad. Orders were issued some time since that men could be specially enlisted for these employments in service battalions, and I am informed that there are not many young men of military age on permanent employments.

  PROFICIENCY PAY.
  Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether an order has recently been promulgated in the prisoners of war camp, Oldcastle, county Meath, re garding proficiency pay, the qualifications for such being two or more years' service in the Regular Army, Marines, Territorials, Militia, or Yeomanry; if so, will he say why previous service in the Royal Navy
  812
  and in the Volunteers does not count but is entirely ignored; and will he have this altered so that all service in such bodies is put on an equality?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I have not seen the Oldcastle order referred to, but no doubt it embodies the existing regulations on the subject of proficiency pay. With regard to the other part of my hon. Friend's question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham on 5th July.
  Mr. WATT: Are those whose previous service has been in the Royal Navy and the Volunteers excluded?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes. As I told the hon. Member for West Ham in the reply, a copy of which I will send to the hon. Member, the subject is under consideration.

  ARMY MEAT (SALES TO BUTCHERS).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can state the result of the promised investigation in connection with selling Army meat to butchers at Tunbridge Wells?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. I have not yet received the report.
  Mr. THORNE: I will repeat the question next week.

  SIR FREDERICK TREVES.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Sir Frederick Treves had acquired a complaint in Alexandria which has got gradually worse; if he will state what the nature of the complaint is; whether Sir Frederick had been inoculated with any vaccine or serum previous to its occurrence; and if he will state with what vaccine or serum or other such preparation he was inoculated?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have no information on this matter, and if I had I doubt whether I should be justified in making it public.

  SOLDIERS' LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
  Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will take

  813
  steps to provide that privates who have been on active service since the beginning of the War, or for a long period, and who, on account of sickness or otherwise, have been sent to the base, shall be given opportunities to return home on leave from the base for such periods as the exigencies of the Service may permit?
  Mr. TENNANT: Leave is given at the discretion of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief to soldiers who have been on service for long periods, as far as the exigencies of the Service will permit.
  Mr. McNEILL: Does that include leave from the base as well as from the actual front?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, it does.

  RIFLE BRIGADE (PRIVATE CARSWELL).
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Private Carswell, of the Rifle Brigade, who served through the South African War, rejoined his regiment as a Reservist on 4th August, 1914, and went to France within a fortnight in the Expeditionary Force, when he was in the firing line continuously till 18th October, when he received four wounds which necessitated several surgical operations for the removal of pieces of bone, and that he was for twenty-six weeks in hospital and was discharged on 30th April, 1915, his discharge being marked exemplary; whether, although Carswell has been incapacitated for work through one leg being shorter than the other, he has been awarded a temporary pension for twelve months of 1s. 6d. per day and his wife's separation allowance has been stopped; and whether, having regard to the fact that previous to rejoining the Colours as a Reservist Cars-well was in regular employment earning £1 per week, he will see that permanent and better provision is made for this veteran than a temporary pension of 1s. 6d. per day?
  Mr. TENNANT: This soldier's pension is being re-assessed under the new warrant which was based upon the recommendations of the Select Committee. Disability pensions are granted temporarily until the extent of the incapacity is determined, but they are renewable if the incapacity continues.

  RECRUITING.
  Mr. HUGHESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether Mr. Hedley F. le Bas was in Ireland for three months on behalf of the War Office; if so, what were his duties and what was the remuneration paid him; and (2) whether Mr. Hedley F. le Bas is responsible for the placing in newspapers of the various recruiting advertisements that are issued by the War Office; and, if so, what is his remuneration?
  Mr. TENNANT: As I have informed the House on more than one occasion, Mr. Hedley le Bas has given very valuable service to the War Office in this matter. He was in Ireland for some months in the capacity of adviser to the military authorities on the means to be adopted to make public in all quarters the need for recruits, and has received no remuneration whatever.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask a supplementary question of my right hon. Friend—whether it is not recognised in all Ireland that the services of Mr. le Bas have been most valuable in attracting new recruits to the service, and whether he has not done all this at great expenditure of his own time and of his own money?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am very glad to be able to answer all those questions in the affirmative.
  Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that all those questions were put down in consequence of the repeated and unfriendly attacks that have been made upon Mr. Le Bas?
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. G. W. Blyth has recently addressed numerous recruiting meetings in Wales stating he will shortly leave for the front with the gas-fighting battalions, which would consist of 4,000 men trained in gas and rescue appliances; that any miner who wished to join must make his application through his commanding officer, and that the scale of pay was at present under consideration; whether it is the intention of the War Office to raise these battalions; and what is this gentleman's actual position with the War Office in connection with gas and rescue appliances?
  Mr. TENNANT: Mr. Blyth's statements that he is raising a battalion are unauthorised. His services have not been

  815
  asked for, as the number of men who are required for the class of work mentioned are included in the tunnelling companies. He has been informed that such a corps as he proposed is not being raised.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this man's real name is Sykes, that he has served a number of terms of hard labour after conviction on indictments for embezzlement, defrauding railway companies, and deserting his wife and children, and will he, therefore, have nothing more to do with him?
  Mr. TENNANT: I hope I have given a sufficient amount of information be the House to enable it to realise that we have as little to do with him as possible. Mr. Blyth has not been encouraged in any way by the War Office, and he will not be.
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to continue to enlist men for Home defence only who are physically fit for Foreign service?
  Mr. TENNANT: Men are being enlisted who are temporarily fit for Home service only, provided they are willing to accept the liability for Imperial service should they become fit.

  BRITISH CIVILIAN PRISONERS.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if an exchange of civilian prisoners was arranged by the American Ambassador; and if the said exchange has been confirmed or otherwise by him?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The only exchange of civilian prisoners hitherto arranged through the United States Ambassadors in London and Berlin was one for the exchange of certain diplomatic and Consular officers. This was done on the initiative of His Majesty's Government and with the cognisance and sanction of the various Departments of His Majesty's Government who were concerned. In February last His Majesty's Government came to an arrangement with the German Government for the mutual release of civilian invalids without limit of age, and though they are willing and anxious to give effect to this agreement the German Government have hitherto declined to do so.

  ALIEN ENEMIES.
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that between 1st January and 13th May 1,289 alien enemies were released by the War Office entirely on the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War, he will say whether the Home Office, who furnished reports from the police in each case, concurred in the orders of release; whether numerous applications were made to the War Office asking for the release of these aliens; whether these were granted notwithstanding the police authorities had ordered their internment; and will he say whether the War Office had any information about these aliens other than the police reports?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Home Office was not consulted as to the release of particular alien enemies. Many applications were received for the release of such aliens, and in dealing with them consideration was given to reports by the police, obtained through the Home Office, and to any information at the disposal of the War Office.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is all the blame that was put upon the present Chancellor of the Exchequer really due to the War Office, and not to the Home Office at all?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of blame, but all the responsibility attaches-to the War Office.

  CIVILIAN DISPENSERS.
  Mr. GLYN-JONESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office have during the past few weeks engaged as civilian dispensers in military hospitals qualified pharmacists on the condition that they received 40s. a week with free rations and free accommodation; and whether the War Office will permit the pharmacists so engaged to enlist for the purpose of performing the same duties and receiving therefore the same emoluments as they now receive from the War Office as civilians?
  Mr. TENNANT: If the men in question are of military age and are otherwise fit to enlist, they could do so, but they would be required to come on the ordinary Royal Army Medical Corps rates of pay.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: Then the War Office is not prepared to pay them the

  817
  same rate of pay inside the Army as they are prepared to pay for exactly the same skilled work to civilians?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not know whether that is an accurate statement of the comparison between the two rates. Local commanders, I understand, have encouraged the service of these men on a temporary basis, and they are paid—as are all people engaged temporarily—at a higher rate than if they came on the permanent rate.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Pharmaceutical Society with a view to meeting any further need there may be for the use of pharma—cists in the Army or Navy?
  Mr. TENNANT: I shall be very glad to make use of their assistance.

  MUNITIONS.

    GOVERNMENT FACTORIES.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that there are a number of military officers at Woolwich Arsenal and other places connected with the War Office who are performing duties that could be performed efficiently by civilians; and whether, in view of the requirements of the Array abroad, he will transfer the duties these officers are performing to civilians who are over military age?
    Mr. FORSTER: The substitution for military officers of other persons competent to perform their duties at Woolwich Arsenal and elsewhere is a question which is continually under review, and if it is found possible to substitute civilians for officers who can render more useful service abroad the Army Council will not "hesitate to make the change.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Minister of Munitions what is the percentage increase of men employed in the Enfield Gun Factory and in Woolwich Arsenal, respectively, between the last completed working week in June, 1914, and the last completed working week in June, 1915?
    Mr. FORSTER: The percentage increase of men employed in the factory at Enfield and in Woolwich Arsenal between the last completed working week in June, 1914, and
    818
    in June, 1915, was 269.42 per cent, and 194.15 per cent., respectively.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked what is the average number of hours worked by the whole of the men employed at Woolwich Arsenal and Enfield Gun Factory, respectively, during the last completed working week in June, 1915?
    Mr. FORSTER: The average number of hours worked by the whole of the men employed in the factories in Woolwich Arsenal and at Enfield during the last completed working week in June, 1915, was 68.68 and 62.16 respectively. Work is stopped at Enfield on alternate Sundays, and for the week in question Sunday was not a working day.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked how many women were employed in Woolwich Arsenal in the last completed working weeks of June, 1914, and June, 1915, respectively; and how many of the women in each of these weeks were employed in the actual output of munitions in any stages of the work?
    Mr. FORSTER: The total number of women employed in Woolwich Arsenal during the last completed working week in June, 1914, was ten, and in June, 1915, thirty-eight. The total number of women employed in addition as outworkers in connection with the output of munitions was in June, 1914, 116, and in June, 1915, 157.
    Mr. HIGHAMasked the Minister of Munitions whether he will say how many women were employed in the Enfield Gun Factory in the last completed working weeks of June, 1914, and June, 1915, respectively; and how many of the women in each of these weeks were employed in the actual output of munitions in any stages of the work?
    Mr. FORSTER: No women are employed in the factory at Enfield, but the number of women employed as outworkers in connection with the output of munitions were in June, 1914, nil, and in June, 1915, forty-one.

    INSPECTION OF MATERIAL AND WORK.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Minister of Munitions what is the cause of the delays in inspecting material and work in progress of munitions of war; and whether he is aware of the decreased production due to this cause?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): If my hon. Friend will furnish me with specific instances of what he has in mind, I will cause inquiry to be made into them.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TEAFFIC).
    Mr. PRATTasked the Minister of Munitions what steps are proposed to be taken in Scotland by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic)?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I cannot at present add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 7th July. The Board only returned from Scotland yesterday.
    Mr. PRATT: May I ask have the Central Control Boerd taken any steps for the provision of restaurants or canteens in the shipyards and factories?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that is a problem they were considering when they visited Scotland. They have returned now, and I have no doubt will present their Report in a very short time.
    Mr. WATT: Is there any truth in the rumour that all Scotland is to be made into one area?

    ME. H. S. MOEGAN.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Minister of Munitions if he will state who is the Mr. H. S. Morgan who is constantly making communications to the Press with regard to his Department, all of which no doubt reach the enemy; and whether he can arrange that all announcements which it may be desirable to make public shall be made in this House by one of the Ministers representing his Department?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask if it is the fact that Mr. Morgan is one of the most successful organisers in London, and that his communications largely helped the right hon. Gentleman to obtain the result he was aiming at?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend (Mr. MacVeagh) is perfectly accurate in his information. Mr. Morgan is a gentleman of business experience who has volunteered his services to help the Ministry of Munitions and the trade unions in the enrolment and organisation of the War Munition Volunteers, and I take this opportunity of acknowledging the valuable help he has given in this connection. Mr. Morgan has acted entirely within his instructions in the communications made by
    820
    him to the Press in his highly successful efforts to appeal for volunteers and I am not aware that any such communication has been made which it would be desirable to withhold from the enemy. I do not propose to make any change in the arrangements for publicity
    Mr. LOUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the statements made in the Press that thousands of men would be brought from Vancouver, apart from those arranged for by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division, should be made in that way, and in a large matter of that kind should not the House be consulted?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I saw that statement. I think my right hon. Friend is quite wrong. He did not say so. I think he said that the matter was left in the hands of the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) and some other gentleman, and that they were acting on behalf of the Board of Trade. That is all Mr. Morgan said.

    MINISTRT OF MUNITIONS.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Minister of Munitions whether, as a result of the organisation of his Department, he is now in a position to say that he possesses all the powers he feels may be necessary; and whether, in the event of further powers proving essential, he can state how these will be obtained during the forthcoming Parliamentary recess?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made in the House on the introduction of the Munitions of War Supply Bill on 23rd June. Since then I have arranged with the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty to take over important additional powers. The powers given by the Munitions Act are very wide, and I do not anticipate any need for strengthening or extending them.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Minister of Munitions who are the business men of high standing and great practical experience forming part of the staff of the Ministry of Munitions, at the central office in London, whose presence was officially announced would be a guarantee for business direction and business advice?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I propose to issue a statement of the names of the directing staff of the Ministry of Munitions as soon as it is complete.

  RE-INOCULATION.
  Mr. YEOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether some of the British soldiers in Europe who were inoculated against typhoid fever a few months ago are being re-inoculated; whether these men are being told that in order to be properly protected against typhoid they must be inoculated every six months; and whether periodical re-inoculation for the troops is being generally recommended?
  Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. Re-inoculation is recommended after two years for men protected by two doses, and after six months for men who have been only partially protected by single doses of vaccine.

  COLT-PATTERN MACHINE GUN.
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a letter dated 30th December, 1914, together with a specification and offer of Colt-pattern machine guns, addressed to Major Banks, at the War Office, was received from Mr. F. Andrews written from the Carlton Hotel, Pall Mall; whether the same tender was personally presented to Major Banks by Mr. H. J. Blanch on the afternoon of 30th December; whether on 31st December Mr. Andrews, accompanied by Mr. Warwick Wright, had an interview with Major Banks on this matter; whether an undertaking to deliver 10,000 or 20,000 machine guns under a surety bond, 2,000 of these guns within four weeks, six weeks if the guns were recalibrated for British service ammunition, and thereafter at the rate of 2,000 guns per month, was made; whether, in the second week in January, Major-General von Donop at an interview had this offer before him; and whether he stated these guns were not required?
  Mr. FORSTER: The statements made in the question are substantially correct. As I informed my hon. Friend on Monday last, various offers for contracts to manufacture Colt guns were received at different dates. These offers were declined because, although the gun is a good weapon under ordinary conditions, it was not considered suitable for our purpose, and I would point out that if the gun is not suitable
  822
  it really does not matter how many offers were made, or when they were made, or who made them. It was considered at the time that the money and plant might be more usefully employed in the manufacture of machine guns of a type more suitable to our requirements.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Does not my right hon. Friend know that in reply to my first question he stated that they had no trace of the offer, and is he aware that this gun is now being used by the French Government and the Canadian contingent at the front, and that the officers of the Canadian contingent, together with the officer commanding the Ordnance Department, made a test of this gun, and have reported in the highest praise of it?
  Mr. FORSTER: It must be obvious to my hon. Friend that the question of deciding between the merits of the Colt gun and any other machine gun must of necessity rest with those who are technically responsible. In regard to the question as to my lack of information when I replied to my hon. Friend's question on Monday last, the blame is partly his and partly mine. It is his so far as his question refers to this contract, which he said was offered in February, when, as a matter of fact, it was offered in December. But it is mine in so far as when the contract could not be traced amongst the records of the February offers, I said, in view of the pressure which existed at the War Office, I did not consider it necessary to make further investigations, since the offer had been declined on the ground of the unsuitability of the gun.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Edward Ward made this offer in February on behalf of the manufacturer of this gun, and, therefore, that I put the question to him for that reason?
  Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend is mistaken in his dates again. It is very easy to criticise the action which may have been taken by those responsible six months after the date on which that action was taken, but I really must ask my hon. Friend and other Members of this House to bear in mind that those questions had to be faced under conditions which were at that time totally different from those which prevail now.

  INDIAN MILITARY SERVICE (PROMOTION OF NATIVES).
  Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for India whether it is still the fact that no chief nor scion even of the most famous fighting families or of the greatest landed families in India can enter the military service of his own country as a professional soldier with any hope of attaining in any circumstances to the rank of second lieutenant in the Army; and, if this is so, will he, seeing there is to be no discussion of the Indian accounts this year, give the subject his careful examination before deciding that this prohibition, necessarily must be continued?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): This question has occupied the attention of two at least of my predecessors, and has been the subject of confidential communications with the military authorities in India and here on more than one occasion. In the short time which has elapsed since I took office it has not been possible for me to acquaint myself fully with the facts and history of the case—still less to form a judgment upon them. At present, therefore, I can only say that to this as to other problems of Indian administration, I bring an open mind, and they will receive my careful attention as opportunity offers for their study.
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as I am sure he is, that the nature of his reply will gladden the whole of India and Indians generally throughout the world?

  TERRITORIAL FORCE (INDIA).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the additional allowances sanctioned some months ago for Territorial troops, officers and men, serving in India have yet been paid and, if not, what is the reason for the delay; and when will payment begin to be made and as from what date?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: These allowances take effect from the date of landing in India. The Government of India were informed by telegraph on the 26th June and requested to pay the accumulated allowances at once.
  Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the additional
  824
  allowances sanctioned for the Territorial troops, officers, and men, serving in India, will be paid to such of them as are serving at Basra and at places in the Persian Gulf?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Territorial troops at Basra and in the Persian Gulf are on active service conditions. The additional allowances in question are therefore not applicable to their case.

  CIVIL SERVICE OF INDIA (EXAMINATION).
  Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for India whether any announcement has been made as to the date of the competitive examination for the Civil Service of India in the year 1916; whether it is intended to make any important alterations in the Regulations for that examination; and, if there be such intention, in what way and about what date will persons studying for that examination in the United Kingdom, the Colonies, and India get notice of alterations?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question is being considered in consultation with the Civil Service Commissioners, and I hope to be in a position shortly to make an announcement as to the date and as to any important alterations in the Regulations that may be necessitated by the special circumstances of the time. The hon. Member is aware that certain age concessions in respect of military service applicable to the 1916 examination have already been announced.

  WAR LOAN.

    DISCOUNTS (POSITION OF TRUSTEES).
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that trustees and others are unable to determine whether the discount payable to subscribers to the War Loan on payment of the instalments in advance should be treated as capital or as interest; and whether he will make a statement on the subject for the guidance of investors?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): This is a question which arises in various forms, and is a matter for legal advice according to the circumstances of each case.

    RECOVERY OF INCOME TAX.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet arranged for attaching to all dividend warrants issued under the new War Loan a notice showing that, in the case of persons not liable to Income Tax, the amount deducted in respect of Income Tax may be recovered; and indicating by what method this may be done?
    Mr. McKENNA: I fear I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 5th July, but the matter is receiving active attention.
    Mr. MORRELL: May we take it that the principle of giving such notice is accepted by the Government?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes; we wish to do so practically if we find it possible.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
  Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the proposal to impose special taxation on increased profits due to the War, he will specially consider the case of tithe owners, whose income from commuted tithe rent-charge will be substantially increased by the rise of corn prices which the War has caused?
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret that I am unable to anticipate the scope of any taxation that may be imposed.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman study this carefully?

  SOLICITORS' CERTIFICATES.
  Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether solicitors who are serving in the Army either abroad or at home are still asked to pay the cost of £6 to £9 for their annual certificate which enables them to practise at their profession; and, if so, will he, in view of the hardship of these men having to sacrifice their practice and risk their lives for the country's cause, cancel the Exchequer's demand on them while the War lasts?
  Mr. McKENNA: Where a solicitor in any year does not either directly or indirectly practise, no liability arises and no demand is made.

  BRITISH ANILINE DYES, LIMITED.
  The following question appeared on the Paper: 34. Sir E. CORNWALL:—To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been given any recent information with regard to the investment made by the State in the British Aniline Dyes, Limited; and whether he can make any statement on the subject, so that the public may know whether the operations of this company are answering the purpose for which the money was provided?
  Sir E. CORNWALL: I am informed that this question is to be answered by the President of the Board of Trade. I have no objection to him giving the information, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that I specifically asked him, as having charge of the public purse, whether he has been given any recent information with regard to the investment.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I have been kept informed as to the proceedings of British Dyes, Limited. A full statement as to the action hitherto taken by the directors and their future policy will be found in the report in to-day's Press of the statutory meeting of shareholders, held yesterday at Manchester.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  Mr. PRATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the recommendations of the Disabled Sailors' and Soldiers' Committee, he will undertake to meet out of public funds such sums as are necessary to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment, under the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA: The care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service will be one of the duties of the statutory Committee under Clause 3 (1) (i) of the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill. I cannot add to the statements which I have made in this House as regards the sources from which the funds to be placed at the disposal of the Committee will be derived. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that disabled officers and men receive pensions from public funds.
  Mr. PRATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir George Murray's Committee laid repeated emphasis on further provision by the State in addition to that provided by pension?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I am aware of that, but I suggest that as the statutory Committee will have various functions, it would be impossible to provide subscriptions from public money.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government accepted Sir George Murray's Report or only part of it?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not know what application my hon. Friend puts on the word "accepted," but they received the Report.

  SIR JOHN FRENCH'S DISPATCH.
  Mr. MACMASTERasked the Prime Minister at what date the dispatch of Sir John French, published on Monday last and dated 15th June last, was received in London?
  Mr. TENNANT: The end of last month.

  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has urged that the utmost economy should be practised by every person in the State, he will say whether the Cabinet has considered the question of the State setting the example by stopping the payment of salaries to Members who are not dependent on the same; and whether the question of severe retrenchment in all branches of the public service has yet been considered by the Cabinet?
  Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the need for economy in national expenditure and the slight demands on the time of Members of Parliament for attendance at Westminster, and the number of Members of the House who are in receipt of pay for naval and military services, he will consider the advisability of suspending the payment of Members of Parliament of their salary as Members until the end of the War; and whether he will give an opportunity for the discussion of a Motion to give effect to this, which has been on the Paper for many months?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): In answer to this and the following question, I do not think that there is any general desire to reopen this subject. With regard to the last part of Question 46, a Committee presided over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who will have associated with him competent colleagues from outside the Government—is;n course of formation to consider the question of retrenchment.

  CHEAP RAILWAY FARES.
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade if arrangements have been made with railway companies to accord facilities of cheap fares to lads' clubs, boy scouts, and to other similar organisations for camps in the country and at the seaside?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question yesterday.

  COTTON GOODS EXPORTED.
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulties in regard to the export of cotton goods for embroidery and other similar purposes to Switzerland; whether he can fix a standard so that exporters may know the qualities which may be shipped; and whether he will consider the possibility of arranging in Switzerland an organisation for that country similar to the Netherland Overseas Trust, so that British products may be safely exported to Switzerland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the difficulties in question have arisen as the result of steps which it has been found necessary to take to prevent the exportation of fabrics suitable for aircraft. These difficulties have formed the subject of discussions between the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and the Government Departments concerned, and I hope that a system will shortly be brought into operation which will enable fabrics which are not specially suitable for aircraft to be so certified by competent authorities and exported to Switzerland without restriction. Negotiations are now in progress having in view the creation in Switzerland of a body such as that referred to in the last part of the question.

  BELGIAN REFUGEES.
  Mr. PRATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board for Scotland have recently expressed the opinion that no exemption from payment of occupiers' parish council assessments can be allowed by parish councils in respect of houses occupied by Belgian refugees unless the name of a Belgian refugee is entered in the valuation roll as the occupier and an appeal lodged with the parish council on the ground of inability to pay; and, if so, whether he proposes any remedy whereby patriotic citizens providing accommodation for these Belgian refugees, and consequently entered in the valuation roll, will not be penalised by having to pay such assessments because of such tenancy?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The opinion expressed by the Local Government Board for Scotland is in accordance with the law. The answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative.
  Mr. PRATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that on or about 18th June last application was made by or on behalf of a Glasgow gentleman, who for months previously had extended hospitality to a Belgian boy of fourteen years of age, for permission to take the boy along with his family on their summer holiday to Ross-shire, and that permission to do so has been refused; whether anything will be done to secure that the boy may still be able to have a holiday with the people who have been extending hospitality to him?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware of the facts of this case. The grant or refusal of a permit is a matter which rests primarily with the chief constable, who acts in consultation with the military authorities, and I am not prepared to interpose in the matter.

  REGISTER OF VOTERS (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. PRATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the unsatisfactory nature of any new register of voters which may be made up for the year 1915–16 so far as Scotland is concerned; and whether, in the circum-
  830
  stances, the Government intend, at an early date, to pass legislation which will make it unnecessary for assessors in the various districts of Scotland to prepare a new roll of voters for the year 1915–16?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The matter to which my hon Friend refers is under the consideration of the Government.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (EXPENDITURE).
  Mr. MOUNTasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the necessity for curtailing all kinds of expenditure, public as well as private, at the present time, he will see that the demands made either by the local education authorities or by the Board of Education on the managers of schools, both provided and non-provided, for additions and improvements to their schools are postponed till a later date, except where such additions are necessary in consequence of a permanent addition to the school population served by such school?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The Board's attitude in this matter is substantially that which the hon. Member suggests, and was indicated in their Circular 903 of the 8th April last, a copy of which I am sending to him.

  CORK INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he is aware that the secretary of the Cork Industrial Development Association has been expelled from Ireland under the Defence of the Realm Act; if he will say whether any other officers of that association are under warning of expulsion; and whether the Department is taking any measures to check or compensate for this system of killing off industrial initiative in Ireland at a time when it is encouraged in England?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 8th instant, to which I have nothing to add.

  ADVOCATES-DEPUTE.
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate how many positions of advocate-depute there are in Scotland; whether there have been any resignations of any of these posts within the last two months; what were the alleged grounds of these resignations: have new appointments been made; if so, how many; and who are the new holders of these positions?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): There are four advocates-depute in Scotland. Two of these recently resigned their posts in order to enable me to give effect to the principles recognised in the constitution of the Coalition Government. Two new advocates-depute have been appointed to fill the vacancies so caused, namely, Mr. Crabb Watt, K.C., and Mr. M. P. Fraser, Advocate.
  Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether one of these gentlemen who were called upon to resign was serving at the front?
  Mr. MUNRO: One of these two gentlemen was serving with the Colours, but I think in this country. I would take this opportunity of stating that all concerned co-operated in the most loyal manner possible in carrying out this difficult duty.

  STEAMSHIP "GREENWICH" (EMPLOYMENT OF ASIATICS).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the owners of the steamship "Greenwich," which recently sailed out of Hull, discharged the British members of the crew and signed on in their places a crew of Chinamen at wages considerably lower than those paid to white men; whether he is aware that the men employed in the loading of this and similar ships have threatened to cease work in preference to assisting to load ships manned by Asiatics while British seamen are unemployed, and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter; whether he is aware that a representative body of trade union officials recently signed a manifesto known as the Treasury Agreement, since published by the Government, stating that where the custom of a shop is changed during the War by the introduction of semi-skilled men to perform work hitherto performed by a class of workmen of higher skill, the rates paid shall be the usual rates of the district for that class
  832
  of work; whether he is aware that transport workers of all classes consider the employment of low-paid Asiatics by certain employers a direct contravention of such an undertaking as that agreed upon, and may take action accordingly; and whether, having regard to the issue thus raised, he will take steps to intervene in the matter under the terms of the Treasury Agreement or the Munitions Act, the Act including transport workers within its provisions?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that the owners of the steamship "Greenwich" at the end of their six months' agreement with the crew discharged them and employed a Chinese crew. The matter was brought to the notice of the Chief Industrial Commissioner and in the course of inquiries he was informed by the owners that the discharged crew was mainly composed of foreign seamen and that they preferred a British crew, if such could be obtained. Further inquiries are being made into the facts of the case.

  MINERS (ENLISTMENT).
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Secretary of State for War, except in Glamorganshire, continues to call for the enlisting of miners for the New Armies, notwithstanding the Report of the Home Office Departmental Committee that a serious shortage of coal would be occasioned if the enlisting of miners did not cease; whether he has made any representation to the Secretary of State for War on the matter; and will he say what steps, if any, have been taken to organise trade with the view of preventing the enlistment of men who are essential for carrying on the general trade of the country and for supplying the Armies in the field with ammunition and equipment?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As regards the first part of the question, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War that he is not at present in a position to add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member for Devonport on the 14th June. Regarding the remainder of the question, I understand that the Minister of Munitions, in consultation with the Secretary of State for War, is arranging a system for the purpose indicated, and that he proposes shortly to make a statement on the subject.

  PRESS CENSORSHIP.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary having regard to the fact that the proceedings of Parliament are not censored, if he will say on whose authority the Irish Press was recently warned not to report a question asked by a naval officer in this House?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The notice to the Press to which the hon. Member calls attention had reference to a question which was withdrawn.
  Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Home Secretary in view of the statement made in India denying the accuracy of Admiralty reports, he will say whether there is any co-ordination in the work of the Home Censor and those in other parts of the British Empire?
  Sir J. SIMON: I do not know what is the statement to which my hon. Friend is referring, and I should be glad if he would be good enough to supply me with it.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: I will do so.

  SAILORS (NERVE STRAIN).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what provision has been made for the treatment of sailors in the Royal Navy who have been disabled by nerve strain; what, if any, steps have been taken for the preliminary sifting of nerve-strain cases in the Navy with a view to the diagnosis by general physicians as to whether they are such as in civilian life would be certifiable; whether any provision has been made for the treatment of uncertifiable nerve-strain cases arising in the Navy in special departments of base hospitals so as to avoid the risk of their being unnecessarily associated with any suspicion of a taint of lunacy; and whether, in the event of any sailor having to be certified when discharged uncovered from the Navy, he will give an assurance that such sailor shall not be certified by an asylum doctor and shall have the civilian's right of being seen by a magistrate?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Suitable accommodation and treatment are provided in our base naval hospitals for all cases of nerve strain and neurasthenia. All such cases are naturally most carefully diagnosed before any decision is come to as to whether they are certifiable or not. Certification of
  834
  all naval eases is carried out by our own naval medical officers and not by an asylum doctor. No man so certified can, however, be sent to any asylum until his discharge has been approved by two Lords of the Admiralty. All cases of insanity attributable to the Service and all men who have length of service to their credit are treated in our own naval asylum and not in a general asylum.

  DEFENCE OF REALM ACT.
  Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the amount of insubordination and the difficulties experienced in dealing with the crews of merchant ships generally, he will consider the desirability of making the new disciplinary regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act operative in the case of all merchant vessels?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The new disciplinary regulations were framed as a special measure for the purposes of the Admiralty Transport Service during the War. I do not see my way to advise the application of the regulations to the merchant service generally.

  POSTAL MOTOR SERVICE.
  Mr. WARDLEasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the practice of conveying mail bags by road which could conveniently be carried by railway and motor transport drivers so employed released for postal or Army ser vice; whether a road motor van leaves Bath daily at 10.30 p.m. for London for conveyance of mails which might be sent by the 12.40 a.m. or the 3.45 a.m. trains without loss or inconvenience; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): Motor mail vans and their drivers will be released for war work as opportunities occur. I am not at present in a position to say whether it would be practicable to discontinue the motor service between Bath and London.

  RE-EMPLOYED RETIRED POSTMEN (PENSIONS).
  Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Postmaster-General whether pensions

  835
  to Government officials after long and good service are actually deferred pay already earned; and whether, if that is so, he can announce that retired and pensioned postmen who offer their services for reemployment for temporary service during the War shall in no circumstances whatever be deprived of those pensions?
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: Under the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1834, the amount of pension payable during the period of re-employment is limited to the difference between the salary paid at the time of retirement and the salary on reemployment. The question whether in any other circumstances the pension of a retired Civil servant should be reduced or forfeited rests with the Treasury, who are responsible for the administration of the Superannuation Acts.
  Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of giving the men their pensions and making a variation in the salaries in addition to the pensions?
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: This is really a question more for the Treasury than for the Post Office.
  Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman refer it to the Treasury?
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: Yes.

  AIRCRAFT AND BOMBARDMENT INSURANCE.

    GOVERNMENT SCHEME.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: Is it to be a condition of the aircraft insurance scheme that any person desiring protection under it must effect the insurance through the company which already holds the fire insurance; if so, is this not interfering with the right of the individual insurer to select the channel through which his business shall be placed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I have not received a copy of the question.
    Mr. PRICE: May I say that I placed it at the top of the question the answer to which the right hon. Gentleman has just read out?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. I obtained the answers to my questions not in my private room, but behind the Speaker's Chair.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: May I inquire if the premiums charged are net, or is the usual commission allowed to the agent?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It depends entirely upon the point of view from which my hon. Friend speaks. If he speaks as an agent, I should say they are gross, for out of the premium the commission will be paid. If he speaks as an insured person, or one who wishes to be insured, they are net.

    Coroners' Inquests (Verdicts).
    Mr. RAFFANasked he Home Secretary whether he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances which led to verdicts of accidental death being returned at coroners' inquests upon the bodies of Beatrice Mundy, Alice Burnham, and Margaret Lofty, whose deaths were subsequently shown to have been caused by murder; and whether he can state the legal or medical qualifications of the coroners which is now pending.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon: I will look into this matter, but its consideration must stand over until the Court of Criminal Appeal has dealt with the prisoner's appeal against his conviction which is now pending.

    Extra Police (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the total amount paid out of local rates in Ireland for extra police in the last completed year; and, if any extra police are employed now, will he say where and for what purpose?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The total amount paid out of local rates in Ireland for extra police in the year 1913–14, the last for which payments have been completed, was £20,317 18s. 9d., of which a sum of nearly £14,000 represents the charge for the permanent extra forces in Belfast and Derry City. The balance consists of payments for detachments and for the temporary extra forces in the proclaimed counties of Clare and Galway, in which counties the retention of the latter was still necessary for the preservation of the peace.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sole business of these extra police is political espionage?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.

    Vaccination Officials (Payment).
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board if any decision has been come to with regard to arrears of pay of vaccination officials; and whether he intends to issue a general order for their payment, by salary or otherwise, on a scale equivalent to their receipts for the years 1903–7, before the operation of the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I may refer my hon. Friend to what I stated on this subject in my speech on the Vote for the Local Government Board on the 24th June. My right hon. Friend, though agreed that a good case has been made out for the change of payment from a system of fees to a system of salaries, feels that the present is not an opportune time for a general change in the method of remuneration of vaccination officers.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the loss of income which these officers are sustaining, which has been in force for many years, and is now a greater hardship than in times of peace?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: That is the basis of the argument for the change, and my right hon. Friend is giving consideration now to the possibility of dealing with the matter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILLS PRESENTED.
    EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
    "To continue various Expiring Laws." Presented by Mr. MONTAGU; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 122.]
    ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
    "To amend the Law with respect to Customs in the Isle of Man." Presented by Mr. MONTAGU; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]
    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    "To grant money for the purpose of certain Local Loans out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating to Local Loans." Presented by Mr. MONTAGU; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]
    EXECUTION or TRUSTS (WAR FACILITIES) AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend and extend the Execution of Trusts (War Facilities) Act, 1914." Presented by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL; supported by the Solicitor-General; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    DAYS ALLOTTED TO SUPPLY.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I beg to move, "That for the purposes of concluding the business of Supply for the present Session, seventeen days shall be allotted under Standing Order 15 for the consideration of the Annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account; and, as respects the present Session, that Standing Order shall have effect as if in paragraph 7 of that Standing Order the sixteenth day were substituted for the last day but one of the days so allotted, and as if in paragraph 8 of that Standing Order the seventeenth day were substituted for the twentieth day so allotted."
    The House is aware that Standing Order No. 15 provides that not more than twenty days, being days before the 5th of August, shall be allotted for the consideration of the Annual Estimates, including Votes on Account, and that those days do not in-
    846
    clude Supplementary Estimates or Votes of Credit. In the Motion which I am about to make I am proposing that in this part of the present Session, for the purpose of concluding the business of Supply, we shall be content with seventeen days instead of the twenty which are normally allotted under Standing Order No. 15, and that consequential Amendments of the Standing Order, so far as this Session is concerned, shall be made. I may point out that the Votes for all the large Departments of State have been discussed, with the exception of the Foreign and Colonial Offices. We have had discussions on the Army and the Navy —and a number of questions were raised on the Votes on Account — the Office of Works, the Post Office, the Board of Agriculture, the Treasury, the Board of Education, the Scottish Office, the Board of Trade, the Home Office, the Local Government Board, and the National Insurance Commission. With regard to all these matters the House has had an opportunity —in all cases in Committee I think, and in one or two cases, on Report — of discussing the Estimates.
    The outstanding Estimates that remain to be discussed, or could be discussed, are these: Law Charges, Superannuation— already mentioned — Old Age Pensions, Public Works, the Diplomatic Services, the House of Commons, and the Foreign and Colonial Offices, together with some of the Revenue Departments. In regard to those, so far as I can gather from such information as I have received, one subject which the House would desire to have an early discussion upon is the Colonial Office. That will be provided for. The House will observe that in addition to the seventeen days which, under my Motion, will be allotted to Supply, we shall practically have had twenty days of Supply, because three days during the Session has been devoted to discussion on Votes of Credit. I agree that under the terms of the Standing Order Votes of Credit are not included in the twenty days, which is not the minimum, but the maximum allotted by the Standing Order for Supply; but the circumstances in which we are now living are very anomalous. On the proper Votes of Credit most questions, or a large number of questions in which the House and the country are peculiarly interested, have been the subject of, I will not say repeated or adequate, but of considerable discussion. Time has also been given for the Report stage of these Votes. In effect the discussions which we

    847
    have had under the Votes of Credit may be taken as equivalent, for all practical purposes, to additional days in regard to the Army and Navy, and for the most part they have been devoted to those two topics.
    I must say that we expect to have to ask the House for another Vote of Credit before it adjourns. Of course, there will be a further opportunity for a continuation of such discussion, or initiation of discussion, on new or revelant topics. I may point out further what may be in the recollection of hon. Members in every quarter of the House that during the fifteen days which have been devoted to Supply the House has very rarely sat the appointed time. In most cases we have adjourned about the dinner hour. I am not complaining of it; it is perfectly natural, but hours under which the conditions of a normal Session would undoubtedly have been occupied with further discussion and elucidation of the various questions presented by the Supply of the year, by the deliberate wish and decision of the House have been foregone. I may add that I think it is very desirable, if possible, that we should bring the necessary proceedings of this part of the Session to a conclusion before the end of the present month. There is no intention, I need hardly say, to withdraw from the House of Commons the proper opportunities of supervising and criticising the action of the Executive; but I think we shall all agree that a reasonable interval might well be allowed to elapse before we resume our Parliamentary activities. It is in view of these questions that we ask the House, abnormal as the conditions are, to be content, so far as this part of the Session is concerned, and so far as the business of Supply is concerned, with the seventeen days which under this Resolution we propose to allocate for the purpose.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Prime Minister said that all the great Departments of State had been the subject of debate. I suppose it is because of the peaceful condition of Ireland that the right hon. Gentleman no longer treats that country as in any sense a great Department of the State. While I do not object to the course the Government propose to take, I must, I think, make one reservation, that the days which have been retrenched are, to a large extent, days which would have been devoted to Irish discussion. I do not,
    848
    at this time, ask for those days, nor do I desire to obtrude any needless controversy upon the attention of the House, but there are some matters connected with Ireland, even during this War, that in my opinion need discussion. One of them is, the intimation that the Government no longer intend to have a revision session for the registration of voters. If there is to be an Act abolishing revision for the present year, there will be no necessity for a discussion on that point, but I am bound to make this declaration, that we have need of some protection against partisan appointments, especially since this Coalition Government was formed.
    We all remember the controversy connected with the removal, or the proposed removal, of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. We all know the action which was taken by a particular party in sustaining him in office. I make no criticism' whatever of the action of the Government in that matter, but it does put those who-have taken an independent position under the necessity of making a demand that the partisan appointment of revising barristers in Ireland should cease. I say that partisan appointments have been made in the past, and that some of them have been scandalous appointments. In England, as I understand, there is a kind of truce in the appointment of magistrates. What is the position with regard to the appointment of magistrates in Ireland? Are they to be made on partisan lines? Are particular districts to be boycotted, and are unworthy persons to be entrusted with judicial office? These are matters that require attention, and I do say, while not claiming any time at this moment under the rules of Supply, that if hereafter a desire should be expressed for attention to Irish matters, the Government should give a guarantee that that time will be given. There is one other observation. It is a very remarkable fact in time of war that, for the first time for over half a century, neither the Lord Lieutenant, nor the Chief Secretary, nor his Under-Secretary for Ireland, who is a permanent official, is an Irishman, and I can only say—and I say it solemnly on my responsibility—that any pro-Germanism which now exists in Ireland has been fomented by the folly of those who put the present Irish Under-Secretary into his position.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: As I understand, the Prime Minister proposes that the House shall give up two days, and I think three

    849
    potential days, because I believe it is in the power of the Government, if the House desires it, to extend the number of days that are provided. I also understand that two days will still remain, one to be devoted to the Colonial Office and the other to the Foreign Office.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should be glad if that is the wish of the House. I understood it was the desire to discuss the Colonial Vote, but I was not aware there was a desire to discuss the Foreign Office Vote.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I understand the extra day has not been given to any particular subject. It is rather difficult for private Members now to convey their views as to the Votes they would desire to discuss. However, I have no doubt there will be an opportunity for discussion of any particular Vote if there is any large body of opinion in favour of it. I think I can say there is no private Member of this House who has on more frequent occasions than I have protested against Motions of this kind; but I recognise these are not ordinary but extraordinary times, and, so far as I am concerned, I do not propose to offer any objection to the Motion. At the same time, I think the Prime Minister fully wishes the House to understand this is not to be taken as a precedent, and will not be referred to in future as a reason for any Government interfering with the Motion regarding Supply. Because the House on previous occasions may not have utilised all the time set apart for Supply, that must not be taken as an indication that the House does not highly value the privileges we have under that Motion. I know the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that. There are some occasions on which Supply goes through in a much more rapid manner because of circumstances, apart altogether from the mere merits of the Vote.
    I understand we are to have a Vote of Credit. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet said how much it is for, but no doubt we shall know in the course of time. As I understand from the right hon. Gentleman, we are going to have rather a long Adjournment. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is in a position to-day to give any indication as to the length of that Adjournment, but I would only say with regard to the proposal of the Government—indeed, with regard to all proposals as to business—so far as I am concerned I have not said, nor will I say, anything to
    850
    oppose them in carrying out their work. What I have contended, and continue to contend, is that there should be more vigorous prosecution and more action, and, so far as this Motion is concerned, it will certainly not have my opposition.
    Mr. LOUGH: I should be very glad if my right hon. Friend would tell the House what is to be done with the three days. So far as I understand, we have only two-days more of Supply, and I am sure the House would like to know whether any Bills other than those which have already appeared on the Paper will be introduced, and what the nature of them may be. There is one Bill which has been referred to dealing with the postponement of elections. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will excuse my saying that I think in the opinion of many the introduction of that has been delayed too long, and I think it points to a sphere in which economy might be effected. I should be very glad to know when it will be introduced and what other legislation, if any, the Government proposes to take?
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: These Rules relating to Supply were, so far as I remember, put into existence by my right hon. colleague the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) somewhere about the year 1902, and they were put into existence because it had become a perfect scandal that Supply had been pushed off till the end of the Session. Since that date these Rules have never been altered, and I think, on the whole, they have been found to work extremely well. I am sorry, under the existing circumstances, it has been found necessary to make an alteration, but I do not rise in any way to oppose the alteration, because I think under the circumstances it is necessary; but I wish to emphasise what the right hon. Gentleman opposite has already emphasised, namely, that this will not be taken in the future for a precedent, and that it is really an alteration which is caused by the exigencies of the moment. With regard to the actual alteration at the present moment, I myself, personally—of course I am only speaking for myself—think that the sooner this House adjourns the better, and, therefore, I do not intend to offer the slightest opposition to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. I would even go further and say that the later the reassembling is put off the better for everybody in this country.
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the fact that Supply has not

    851
    taken very long on the allotted clays, is not to be regarded as indicating that an interest has not been taken in it, and that good results have not taken place. The reason Supply has not taken very long is, as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the loyalty of all the private Members on both sides of the House, who have gone out of their way not to move reductions in salaries and not to move the Adjournment. Only the other day I, myself, had occasion to make certain observations which the hon. Gentleman in charge of the matter could not answer; in fact, he did not attempt to answer them. He had only been appointed a very short time, and I did not wish to press him, but, under the ordinary circumstances, I should have moved the Adjournment of the Committee until we had somebody who could answer the questions. As things are, I thought it my duty to take no notice of the inability of the Government to deal with the questions which they put before us, and consequently I let the matter go. I would point out, however, to the right hon. Gentleman that that sort of thing cannot go on always, and when the House does meet—and I hope it will be under happier circumstances—the question of Supply will become very important. I hope all private Members will take the opportunity of coming down to criticise the action of the Government on later occasions upon these questions of Supply. The conscience of the House of Commons during the last five or six years, for what it is worth, has not been exercised in a proper manner in the criticising of Supply, and that is going to be a very important thing in the future. I am sure from what the Prime Minister has said that if he is in power later on he will not endeavour to use this as a precedent for depriving private Members of these opportunities in Supply.
    Sir W. BYLES: I would like to ask the Prime Minister what is the object of curtailing the industries of the House of Commons? Is it done in the interests of the Government or the House of Commons? Is it not a dangerous or, at any rate, an undesirable precedent for the Government of the day to tamper with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons?
    Mr. HOGGE: I wish to ask one or two questions with regard to the Prime Minister's Motion. I would like to say at once
    852
    that I am one of those who do not agree with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Baronet who represents the City of London. I cannot see how even he can have his appetite for discussion gratified if he desires a prolonged adjournment of the sittings of the House of Commons. His lecture to the Prime Minister about the uses that can be made by hon. Members of days in Supply obviously falls to the ground if he at the same time desires that the House of Commons should not meet. Therefore I feel very strongly that the hon. Baronet opposite never made a more futile intervention in the Debate than that which he has just made. Of course, I know that the Prime Minister cannot follow the course of Supply as closely as the Whips, and there are certain questions which have been left open on Supply days which are not yet settled. In the first place, there is the only Grant in connection with Supply which has been considerably reduced, and that is the Grant to the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. That Supply is not yet passed. Another is the Local Government Board Vote for Scotland, in connection with which there rests a very important question which has not yet been finally settled by the Treasury, namely: whether or not sewers in our great cities, especially in our Scottish cities, shall be assessed to Income Tax until there is a uniform method of assessment throughout the United Kingdom. In connection with these points I want to ask the Prime Minister that the last day of Supply, which is the seventeenth, he proposes to give shall be put down as far back in the Session as possible so that these points can be discussed before the seventeenth day is actually taken. There are some negotiations going on, and I want us to be able to take part in those discussions if it is possible.
    I also wish to ask the Prime Minister a question about the Votes of Credit. The last Vole of Credit which was taken in this House will carry on the War until at least the middle of September. If the Prime Minister proposes a long Adjournment at the end of this month, there could be a six weeks' Adjournment without the necessity of the House of Commons taking another Vote of Credit. I want the Prime Minister to assure us—and I put this in no contentious spirit—that if he does, as he is entitled to do, come for another Vote of Credit before we rise at the end of this month, will he assure us that that will not prejudice the length of

    853
    the Adjournment. The mere fact that the Prime Minister takes another Vote of Credit, in view of the fact that the present Vote will take us to the middle of September, ought not to be used to keep the House adjourned indefinitely for any lengthy period. I feel very strongly about this matter, and I do not think it can be repeated too often that this War is no ordinary War. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I think I may be allowed to say that. We are all very intimately bound up with the fortunes of those who are partaking in this War, and our interests are more closely bound up than ever they have been in any previous war because of the large number of men recruited both for the Army and the Navy. Very many of us feel that it is our bounden duty, and we feel it quite sincerely and anxiously, that we should be kept in touch with all that is happening as far as possible, and therefore the Adjournment should not be unduly prolonged.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I generally differ from the views expressed by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I generally agree with the views expressed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. But this afternoon I am a little more inclined to agree with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh and inclined to differ from the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he cannot answer the question put to him as to when he proposes to discuss the Vote of Credit for carrying on the War. I wish to take the opportunity of making some observations, not in a contentious spirit, with regard to aviation, and I should be glad to know whether he will take that Vote next week or the following week. With regard to the length of the Adjournment, I was very sorry to hear the remarks made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. If the hon. Baronet is anything at all he is a House of Commons man; his reputation has been built up in the House of Commons, he is a pillar of the House of Commons, and we all look to him to keep us right in every matter of order and in maintaining the rights and privileges of Back Bench Members. I say quite frankly—and I think I may say that I have not taken part in any contentious discussions—that I cannot agree with the hon. Baronet's contention. This is the House of Commons and it has certain rights on behalf of the people of
    854
    this country, and although it is true that there is a war of vast importance going on, I think it is undesirable that the Adjournment should be too long. I do not want to press the Prime Minister further than to ask him, if he can, to indicate what length of Adjournment he proposes, but I trust it will not be such an Adjournment as will make us feel that the Government of the day, who have the support of the vast majority of the House of Commons in the prosecution of this War, desire to escape legitimate criticism. There are two kinds of criticism—destructive and constructive. I am quite sure that the bulk of the Members of this House do not wish to indulge in destructive or opposition criticism of any kind, but merely desire to assist the Government to carry on the War in the most vigorous manner possible. I do plead with the Prime Minister and with my hon. Friend not to delegate the rights of the House of Commons, but to allow us, after a reasonable interval, to meet again, relying upon the patriotic feelings of the House not to criticise where criticism would be dangerous.
    Mr. KING: I want to put two points which I do not think have been put to the House in connection with this Debate. The first is the importance of economy at the present time. We are all for economy, and I believe a further discussion of the Estimates would show the Government those points on which Members are generally agreed that economy is more desirable and more easy to effect. It is particularly necessary from the point of view of economy to discuss as many Votes as possible on the Estimates. The second point to which I wish to refer is in connection with what the Prime Minister said with regard to the Foreign Office. May I point out to him that we have had several Debates on Foreign Office questions—only one this week—which would have been properly taken in connection with the Foreign Office Vote? There has been, for instance, the question of contraband. We have had on the Adjournment repeated discussions of this question, and they have been invariably cut short by the rules enforcing the rising of the House after an hour's Debate. There has also been the question of the treatment of prisoners. We have had several Debates on this subject, and similarly they have come to a premature conclusion. I hope that we must not assume, or take it as meant from what the Prime Minister said about the Foreign

    855
    Office Vote, that the control of the Foreign Office is to be taken away from this House. Personally, I have no desire upon the Foreign Office Vote or upon any other occasion to discuss the high questions of national policy for which the Foreign Office stands, but there are many most important questions, notably those of the treatment of prisoners and of contraband, which can be only effectively raised in connection with the Foreign Office Vote.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I should like to express my agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. W. Healy), who expressed the hope that some time would be found before the House separates for a discussion of Irish matters. The hon. and learned Member referred to an event which is fresh in the memory of most of us, and which was discussed in the papers in the form of a controversy over the suggested removal of the Lord Chancellor in Ireland. I do not think any of us have any desire to discuss that matter or to go into the past, but there are circumstances connected with it which might make it very difficult for us to refrain from asking an explanation from the Government. However that may be, there are matters connected with the administration of the law in Ireland, to which the hon. and learned Member referred, which I think even in this abnormal time might be legitimately discussed, and I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an opportunity for that discussion.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Could my right hon. Friend say what sum the Government intend to ask for in the Vote of Credit?
    Mr. LYNCH: I should like to ask whether we shall have an opportunity of hearing from the President of the Board of Education something about the scheme which was outlined by his predecessor for co-ordinating higher education with industrial development. I desire to protest against various suggestions which have been made for curtailing the privileges of this House by amateur Cromwells who attempt a coup d'etat. One of the greatest speeches ever made on the floor of this House was that which contained the phrase, "Take away that bauble!" but that had great convincing victories behind it.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must express on behalf of the Government our acknowledgment to the House for the spirit in
    856
    which this Motion has been debated. There has been no disposition whatever either to oppose it or to make anything in the nature of carping comments on it. The hon. Gentleman who spoke a few moments ago (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) suggested that the Government might possibly have at the back of their minds the desire to escape criticism. Criticism, as he said, is of various kinds, constructive, destructive, and I may add, though it is not synonymous with either, instructive. The last class the Government is always ready to welcome and to profit by it, and we should be very sorry that this House should be curtailed of any opportunity of giving them that necessary and patriotic assistance. It is from no desire to escape criticism that this Motion is put forward, and, when my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. King) suggests as a drawback to the curtailment of the normal number of days which are given to Supply that the cause of public economy may suffer, I am bound to say that in my experience as a Minister, which now extends over a good many years, the almost invariable result of discussion of Supply in Committee of this House is to suggest new modes of expenditure by which additional burdens would be imposed upon the Exchequer and additional requirements exacted from the taxpayer. I am sorry to say that is my experience, and I believe that the best friends of economy—it may be a self-complacent and almost Pharisaical attitude—are to be found on this Bench.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Does that apply to the Minister of Munitions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am speaking of them comprehensively. My hon. Friend asked quite a reasonable question: Whether in connection with this proposed reduction in the number of days to be given to Supply we contemplate any addition to the legislative burdens of the House? The Bill to which he referred, the Bill with regard to elections, will be introduced next week, and, so far as my knowledge goes, there is no other legislation in contemplation this side of the Adjournment, except legislation of a purely departmental character necessitated by the special requirements of the War. Some inquiries have been addressed to me in regard to two matters, neither of which is strictly relevant, I think, to the present Motion, though I myself rather offered the temptation to hon. Members to comment upon them, namely, the Vote of Credit

    857
    and the length of the Adjournment. The Vote of Credit, whatever amount it may be, will have to be introduced next week, because it has to be included in the Appropriation Bill which concludes our labours in Committee of Supply, and I will ask the House to be content to wait until next week for a disclosure of the character of that Vote. In the same way with regard to the length of the Adjournment, somewhat diverse views have been expressed by two hon. Gentlemen, both great Parliamentary authorities—the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), who usually agree in their criticism of the Executive Government, from whatever party or combination of parties that Executive may be drawn—
    Sir F. BANBURY: If they are wrong.
    The PRIME MINISTER: If, in the opinion of the hon. Baronet, they are wrong. And who upon this occasion differ. One of them, I gather, is in favour of a long Adjournment. He thinks that the less the House of Commons sits and the less public ventilation of opinion and criticism there may be, the better in the interests of the country. The other, supported as he is by hon. Members in various quarters of the House, is naturally loth to part with the privilege which the House has always claimed and which it has abundantly vindicated of an effective supervision and control over the Executive of the day. I will not for the moment pronounce as between those two views, but when the time comes, and it must come very soon for the Government to propose the Adjournment, I hope that we shall be able to reconcile them. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), supported by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill), suggested various points in connection with Irish matters which he thought might be fitting subjects for discussion. I very much doubt, speaking of course off-hand, whether the particular topics to which my hon. and learned Friend referred would be in order on any Vote of Supply. I do not think, as regards the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, that his salary is charged on the Votes at all, but in regard to that and Colonial matters and in regard to what my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Hogge) said with reference to Scotland we shall be guided very much in the order in which we put
    858
    down the various Votes for the final days of Supply by any opinion which is conveyed to us and which seems to reflect a general current of opinion in any quarter of the House. We are not bound to any order, and we shall take the Votes in that order in which so far as we are able to judge it is the general desire of the House they should be taken. Those are all the points which have been raised in the course of the Debate. I again express on behalf of the Government our acknowledgment to the House of the public patriotic spirit in which they are about to agree to this curtailment of the number of days in Supply.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That for the purpose of concluding the business of Supply for the present Session, seventeen days shall be allotted under Standing Order 15 for the consideration of the annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account; and, as respects the present Session, that Standing Order shall have effect as if in paragraph 7 of that Standing Order the sixteenth day were substituted for the last day but one of the days so allotted, and as if in paragraph 8 of that Standing Order the seventeenth day were substituted for the twentieth day so allotted.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC., BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC., BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Statutory Committee of Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation.)
    (1) For the purposes hereinafter mentioned relating to pensions and grants and allowances made in respect of the present war to officers and men in the naval and military services of His Majesty and their wives, widows, children and other dependants, and the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present War there shall be constituted a Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), consisting of twenty-nine members, appointed as hereinafter mentioned.
    (2) Of the said twenty-nine members—

    twelve (of whom one shall be chair man and one vice-chairman and some shall be women and not less

    859
    than two shall be representative of labour) shall be appointed by His Majesty;

    one shall be appointed by the Treasury;

    one shall be appointed by the Admiralty;

    one shall be appointed by the Army Council;

    one shall be appointed by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee;

    one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board;

    one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board for Scotland;

    one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board for Ireland;

    six (of whom some shall be women) shall be appointed by the General Council of the Corporation;

    two shall be appointed by the Governing Body of the National Relief Fund;

    two shall be appointed by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association.

    (3) Four of the members appointed by the General Council of the Corporation shall be appointed from amongst the members of the Corporation, but save as aforesaid it shall not be necessary that the persons appointed to be members of the Statutory Committee should at the time of appointment be members of the Corporation.
    (4) There may be paid to the chairman and vice-chairman, or either of them, out of moneys provided by Parliament, such salary as the Treasury may determine.
    (5) All other expenses of the Committee (including such travelling and other allowances to members of the Committee as the Committee may determine) shall be paid out of the funds at the disposal of the Committee.
    (6) Seven members of the Statutory-Committee shall constitute a quorum, and the Statutory Committee may appoint subcommittees consisting either wholly or partly of members of the Statutory Committee, and may delegate to such subcommittees, with or without any restrictions or conditions as they think fit, any of their powers and duties under this Act. Subject to this provision, the Committee shall regulate their own procedure.
    (7) The term of office of a member of the Statutory Committee shall be three years; but a retiring member shall be eligible for re-appointment: Provided that if a member required to be appointed from amongst
    860
    the members of the Corporation ceases for two months to be a member of the Corporation otherwise than as a member of the Statutory Committee he shall at the end of that period vacate his office as member of the Statutory Committee, and that a person appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall continue in office so long only as the person in whose place he was appointed would have continued in office.
    (8) The Statutory Committee may employ a secretary, assistant secretaries, and such other clerks and servants as they may require, and may establish a scheme of pensions for persons in their permanent employment.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "and the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present War."
    With the permission of the House I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Anderson) to explain the meaning of the Amendment, to which his name is attached.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment. We feel that the best work that this statutory Committee can do is to confine itself entirely to the question of the supplementary pensions. The work of getting disabled soldiers back into industry, as well as of securing the return of the ordinary soldiers to their industrial occupations, is so big a job, involving so many difficulties, that I believe it to be entirely beyond the scope of the Committee which this Bill proposes to set up. We therefore desire there should be some entirely different committee for the purpose of tackling the whole industrial side of this matter, including the training of disabled soldiers and bringing them back into industry again. That will raise many difficult questions. It will involve the question of wage standards and many other industrial matters. I believe that this is not the proper Committee for such a purpose; it is not properly constituted to undertake so difficult and delicate a job, and that is why we want to limit the scope of this Committee to the work of allocating these supplementary pensions. There may be not only disabled soldiers to be dealt with, but possibly there will be 2,000,000 ordinary soldiers who will have to be got back into the ranks of industry. That will be a very big job, and I therefore strongly urge that the words I have quoted should be left out and that,

    861
    later on, we should set up another authority to deal with the question of the industrial training of disabled soldiers and bringing them back in the ordinary ranks of industry.
    Mr. HOGGE: This point was discussed at great length on the Committee stage, when a large number of us thought that, unless public money were provided in addition to the voluntary funds that are to be at the disposal of the statutory Committee, this body could not undertake the work. But it has been made quite plain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Government—and I notice that the Prime Minister himself happens to be present at this precise moment, and therefore has full cognisance of what the Government has done—we have an excellent pledge from the Cabinet—that public money is to be forthcoming if the voluntary funds are not sufficient for the purpose. It seems to me that at this period of the Bill it would be a great mistake to take out from the scope of this new body this particular task. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), who is in charge of the Bill, has admitted quite plainly—and his feeling is shared by a great number of us interested in this matter—that this present Bill is by no means a perfect Bill, and is not even the Bill that he himself would have liked to have seen. But here we have a beginning being made with a most important task. Every one of these disabled officers and soldiers will have provided for him, under the scale of the Select Committee's Report, a pension which must be 25s. as a minimum, and what can be done in addition is extra—that is, the training for employment or further care and help. This Committee will have the supervision of these men so far as the pensions they are getting is concerned, and it would be a great misfortune if they were left outside the scope of this Bill. Obviously the best thing to do in the circumstances—as this Bill is urgent—is to get this machinery set going and, in future Sessions, we can amend this Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman himself has already assured us ought to be amended, so as to enable it to deal better with these questions as occasion arises. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will resist this Amendment, and that there will be no delay in setting up this machinery, which is most urgently wanted. The sooner we can get it started the better.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I think it is a very great pity that the hon. Gentleman who framed this Amendment, important as it is, should not have raised the point on the Committee stage of the Bill, but should have brought it forward at the last moment in manuscript form.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: We did raise this very point in Committee.
    Mr. HOGGE: It was raised by me.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: That was not in my recollection. These words deal with one of the most important functions of this statutory body. It is to be a body of very great importance, and it is being constituted with very great care. It will have considerable sums of money at its disposal—it may be State funds, although there are those who hope that those funds will never be State funds. The most important function which this body will have to discharge will be to deal with the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present War. It is specially provided in Sub-section (i) of Clause 3 that it is—
    "to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment."
    A Committee was appointed to inquire into this important branch of the subject by the late President of the Local Government Board, who is now Postmaster-General, and in the Report of that Committee it is stated that there is very urgent need for dealing with these questions. Although the number of disabled men hitherto discharged from the Navy and Army is less than might be expected, it is most desirable that an organisation should be set on foot at the earliest possible date for the performance of a duty which, is regarded as proper to be performed by the State. The number is growing day by day, and it is important that the new organisation should be in working order as early as possible. If we take these words out of the Bill, we take a very important function away from the statutory Committee which is going to be set up to deal with this question. Sir George Murray's Committee, to whose Report I have just alluded, says:—
    "We observe that the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants) has recommended the appointment of a statutory Committee to

    863
    deal with the pensions, separation allowances and supplementary grants payable to sailors and soldiers and their dependants. We therefore venture to suggest that some advantage might result from the constitution of one body, charged with all the functions to which we have alluded. In this way a more elaborate local organisation than we have recommended for the purpose of this report might be justified."
    We have received an indication from the Prime Minister that Parliament is about to adjourn for some considerable time. When, then, will it be possible to set up any new body to deal with this important question? Months will elapse before any such body can be created to deal with a question 'which is really urgent, and I therefore hope that the House of Commons will give no countenance whatever to the proposal to take away from this statutory Committee this very important function.
    Mr. BOOTH: I have a certain amount of sympathy with the object aimed at by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. We shall, I think, inevitably hear more of this problem. It is really a very big one. But at the same time I support the Government in their decision to retain these words in the Bill. It so happens that I am concerned very closely with a committee which deals with cases of Belgian soldiers who have been mutilated. I do not mean that they were mutilated in cold blood. I refer to those who have lost the use of certain limbs. It is very important, when a man is leaving hospital, to make the best possible provision for him, and to ascertain, not only what was his previous occupation, but also what are his needs and desires in regard to artificial limbs. And if you are going to put him in a position to do even limited service, you cannot delay operations. It is very urgent to find out what is needed for the individual soldier or officer who is maimed, and to provide him with the best artificial substitute for the limb he has lost. Therefore any action on the part of the Government with a view to dealing with these matters in the speediest possible manner has my heartiest support.
    Mr. BIGLAND: While sympathising with the idea of those who have brought up this Amendment, I feel that this Bill provides the only way in which we can deal with this question. We are all of us in favour of having important committees to undertake work of this character, but I am at a loss to conceive how it is possible to get a more important committee, or a more able one, than it is hoped
    864
    to secure under this present Bill. All of us have taken a deep interest in this matter, and I quite see there will be an enormous amount of work for this Committee to undertake. The only point in which, in my opinion, this Bill is deficient, in regard to the question of supplying those who are partly incapacitated with work, is that nothing so far has been said as to the cases of the men who are receiving 10s. per week for a period of twenty-six weeks under the Insurance Act. There is no reference in the Bill to the position of these men. The work of this Committee will be to try and find work for the incapacitated, and the first difficulty they will come up against is that no man will be able to take the situation offered him without losing the 10s. per week which, if he has been certified as being incapacitated from work by the medical authorities, he gets under the Insurance Act. There are many cases in which work can be found for the men at from 7s. 6d. to 10s. per week, but the men refuse to take such situations, because they will lose the 10s. a week insurance money. I hope that the Government will intervene with the National Insurance Commissioners with a view to getting rid of that difficulty. I think the difficulty could be got over easily by adopting a sliding scale. If a sliding scale could be arranged it would be one of the great works of this Committee. I hope the Bill will pass in its present form.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: There is a paragraph in Clause 3 which carries out what the Amendment deals with. The three lines of that paragraph contain the only form of expression as to what we wish to be done for these disabled soldiers, apart from their pensions. As I can raise the question by moving the deletion of that paragraph on that Clause, I think it better to reserve what I have to say until then. It seems to me that those three lines are out of keeping with the Bill and the operations of the Committee appointed to deal with this matter. To say that those three lines embody the whole of the recommendations in the Report of the Committee is altogether beside the mark. I quite realise that when the Bill was framed it was framed to carry out its description, namely, a Naval and Military War Pensions Bill. In that respect it is all right, but the Bill deals with two important Reports of Committees appointed by this House. In the Report of the Committee as to what should be done with disabled soldiers and sailors a great many

    865
    recommendations were made, and the three lines in this Bill dealing with those matters are wholly inadequate. I shall therefore move that the paragraph be deleted, so that we may discuss the whole question of dealing with the matter in another Bill.
    Mr. ROCH: I quite see the force of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill that it is rather too late, on Report stage, to raise the issue that is raised by this Amendment, but I think it has struck a good many people who have had more opportunity of looking at this Bill that it was really intended to be, and is, a Bill for pensions and pensions only, and that this proposal for dealing with disabled persons has been pitchforked into it and does not work in with the structure of the Bill at all. When you look at the constitution of the Committee, everyone will agree that the real care of disabled men, and possibly of instructing them and making them fit for industry again, cannot be adequately dealt with by this Committee. The proper Committee to tackle that problem would be one of large employers and workmen, because only they can properly solve the problem. But as the right hon. Gentleman says, it is too late in this Session, in view of the Adjournment, to get a fresh proposal carried through, and we must, therefore, make the best we can of this Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give earnest consideration to the problem of these disabled men. It is entirely a separate problem from that of pensions. I know that he has taken a great interest in it and has shown the greatest sympathy for these people. I would ask that when the Committee is formed, and when he finds that the problem of pensions is as much as this Committee can tackle, he will not hesitate to give the matter his consideration and come to this House, if necessary, for powers to deal with it. He may have seen in the "Morning Post" some months ago that in Austria they have a scheme for dealing with the problem which was working well. I do not know whether it will be possible to get details of the Austrian scheme, but I am quite sure he will find there will be a grave and serious industrial problem to solve which cannot be adequately solved by this Committee or under this Bill. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his earnest consideration to that matter.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The point that is under discussion is really the most important point in connection with the Bill. It raises the oft-debated point, upon which there is a great difference of opinion, as to whether the details of the care of our disabled and wounded officers and men should be under the control of a central authority, or whether it should be dealt with locally by various committees appointed up and down the country. So far as the wording of the Bill is concerned, the Bill is probably correct, and we should be wise to reject any Amendment to-day, because it does not necessarily prevent the subsequent appointment of advisory or assistant local committee to do the obviously necessary work. I was associated with one of these very important committees in Liverpool in connection with the Boer War. There we had a large number of ladies and gentlemen associated with different branches of the work, because it was exceedingly desirable that they should be in touch, almost personal touch, with thousands of the dependants with whom the committee had to deal, particularly the disabled. It would be absolutely impossible for any statutory Committee in London to know or adequately deal with any of the requirements and details of these cases. There is a feeling abroad, to which expression has frequently been given, that it is not desirable that the sole control and power of dealing with these matters should be vested entirely in the statutory central Committee. I do not anticipate that that will be the final effect of the Bill. In the meantime it is urgently necessary at the present moment that provision should be made for these cases, which are now coming forward, and with that object we ought to pass the Bill to-day, leaving these words in, therefore not agreeing to the Amendment; but it ought to be distinctly understood among Members of the House that on some subsequent occasion this should not prevent us from proposing, if necessary, that these local committees shall be established and receive the necessary authority to attend to local matters in such way as they may be advised.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Watson Rutherford) has misread the Bill, because it proposes to set up local committees to deal with the very point he raises. Take, for instance, the Corporation of Liverpool. Under this Bill they

    867
    will be empowered to establish a committee, who, in addition to the recommendation of pensions, will take into consideration the question of disabled soldiers and officers. The statutory Committee in London will not look after each individual-case, but it will be looked after by the town itself. I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn. This committee will investigate the case of every person who applies for the pension, apart from the pensions for mothers and children, which are fixed by the Report of the Select Committee, and will keep a record of the men and their dependants.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: What committee is that?
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: The local committee. Therefore I contend that the local committee will be the beet to look after the care of disabled soldiers in cases where they are able to do partial work. When you take into consideration the wide scope of the powers and the appointment of local committees by town councils and county councils, I think the councils themselves, in many cases, will be able to find work for those men. I would point out that it is very difficult to get men to work on all these local committees. This Committee will be a very important one, and will cover the whole of the question. It is much better to empower that Committee to cover the whole question than to multiply the number of local committees doing similar work.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "consisting of twenty-nine members appointed as hereinafter mentioned," and to insert instead thereof the words "A statutory Committee shall consist of twenty-nine members who shall be appointed as follows, that is to say."
    I have several Amendments down on the Paper. They are mostly of a drafting character, but they are all matters, so I am informed, and having looked into them myself I am inclined to agree with my informant, of real important drafting significance. They are all cases where the actual meaning and clearness of the Bill is attained by my Amendment. I say that by way of introduction, because I dare say they will not all be accepted. I hope that
    868
    all of them will be considered, with a view possibly to some drafting alterations in another place. The first Amendment is perhaps the least important of them all, but I contend that it would make the actual constitution of the committee much clearer, and it is a description much neater than the drafting in the actual text of the Bill.
    Mr. PRATT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: As the hon. Member says, these are all drafting Amendments. When the hon. Member fills up his return for the National Register he will be able to put himself down as a qualified draftsman. I think I can accept one or two of his Amendments later on, but this Amendment is not an improvement on the original drafting, therefore I must reject it.
    Mr. KING: Having obtained the admission that the drafting might be improved, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. DICKINSONhad given notice of the following Amendment: In Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "chairman and vice-chairman, or either of them," and to insert instead thereof the words "statutory Committee for the salaries of the secretary of the Committee and other officers employed by the Committee and for other administrative expenses of the Committee."
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment is out of order, because there is no Money Resolution authorising it.
    Mr. DICKINSON: May I point out that when the discussion took place on the Money Resolution, you, Sir, I think, pointed out that the occasion for discussing this question would arise in Committee, but when we came to the point in Committee, after a good deal of discussion, during which the merits of the payment of the chairman were discussed very fully, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said:—
    "The majority [of the House] are clearly, in my judgment, in favour of such a plan as is indicated by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City. I am confident that the Government do not desire to impose on the House or the Corporation any hard and fast system of their own, and I will undertake to consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we will consider this between now and Report in the hope that we can bring up a proposal then."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July 1915, col. 278.]

    869
    Now we are placed in this position: that we have no opportunity of discussing this matter now because it has not been brought up by the Government. On a further point of Order, might I submit to you that my first Amendment, which is to leave out certain words providing for the payment of the chairman, would be in order, even under the terms of the Money Resolution. If you still think that my Amendment is not in order as it stands I would ask leave to be allowed to move the omission of the words "the chairman."
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am quite clear that the Amendment, as it stands, is not in order. The Resolution of the House was that a sum of money might be paid out of public funds to the chairman and vice-chairman. Then the hon. Member proposed to substitute for the chairman and vice-chairman the statutory Committee for various salaries for officials. That is a totally different destination from that to which the House has already agreed. He proposes to cut down the chairman, and his next proposal, which does not stand on the Paper, is to omit the chairman altogether, so that the chairman should not be paid. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has an Amendment which meets the same point. I will call upon him.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the word "and" ["the chairman and vice-chairman"], and to insert instead thereof the word "or."
    Under my Amendment there will be an option to the Committee to pay either the chairman or the vice-chairman, and if that is accepted there will be a consequential Amendment to leave out "or either of them" in the next line. It was stated on the Committee stage that some concession would be made. We had a distinct pledge from the President of the Local Government Board, and I suggest that this is meeting the Government.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    In my view the better plan would have been to pay the secretary, who is the real official of the body, and it would have been better to leave all the members of the body unpaid on an equality. Inasmuch as I had not an opportunity of moving that I quite agree that it would be a mistake to put the chairman in the posi-
    870
    tion of a paid official. The vice-chairman would then become more or less the official secretary.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I cannot agree with my hon Friend (Sir F. Banbury) that a distinct pledge was given that the Government would withdraw from the position they originally took up—that was that they would keep the power to pay the chairman or the vice-chairman or both. There was no distinct pledge. What happened was this: The House undoubtedly was disturbed at the idea of creating, in these days when we are all trying to enforce economy, two paid appointments in connection with this Bill. On behalf of the Government I said that we took the power, and we fully hoped that we should be able to obtain our ideal, which was that the chairman should be a man of some considerable dignity and importance, a well-known popular person and one who would command general confidence and would not desire to be paid, but that the work was of such an arduous nature, requiring attendance all day and every day, that it would be necessary to pay the vice-chairman. That I hoped would be the result after the Bill was passed. My right hon. Friend came in at that time and went a little further than that, and perhaps expressed a preference for the payment of the secretary rather than the vice-chairman, but again he indicated that he would consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others, and that we should try to come to some satisfactory solution of the problem on which we were all mainly agreed and that, he would try to see whether he could not bring up some definite proposition on this stage. We have not put down any Amendment. We have rather awaited the discussion, but I am prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and to put it actually into the Bill, that payment can only be made either of the chairman or the vice-chairman, it being the intention of the Government still to endeavour to find someone to fill the position of chairman such as I have described, and to find a working chairman, but I think it will be necessary to pay him if we are asking him to do the very arduous duties which may be cast upon him.
    Mr. HOGGE: It is usual on these Bills, if the Government can, to give the House the name of the paid official for so onerous a post.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: No consideration has been given to this question at present, and no name is within measurable distance of being considered at present for the position of vice-chairman of this body.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am rather sorry to hear that we are so far away from the choice of the most effective official for this organisation. I waive that point and put this other one, mainly to the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), as to whether he realises how much more work there is going to be under this Bill than is outlined in the Clauses. There is, for instance, the point which has already been raised with regard to the separate care of the disabled soldiers and sailors, and it may be, I think probably it will be found to be expedient to pay even the chairman as well as the vice-chairman, in order that subsequently one of these officials should have laid upon him the duty of organising that side of the work. I hope, therefore, the Government will stick to that position very closely, and retain for themselves the power to pay both a chairman and a vice-chairman, because as the work grows and develops it may be extremely essential that a man of that kind should be in charge of this great department of work.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "or either of them."—[Sir F. Banbury.]
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Subsection (6), to leave out the words "as they think fit."
    I hope this is one of the drafting Amendments which can be accepted, because it really makes some difference whether it is necessary to prove that this Committee has thought fit to make restrictions or conditions. The words mean just the same whether they are in or out, but it may impose something additional in the legal way in order to prove that they have thought fit.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I cannot accept this, but I shall be able to accept the next Amendment with a little alteration.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, to leave out the word "provision" ["Subject to this
    872
    provision"], and to insert instead thereof the words, "the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section."
    I think this is obviously necessary. The Bill speaks about the provision when really there are three provisions in the preceding words. There is the provision about seven being the quorum, about sub-committees and also about imposing conditions and restrictions.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to second the-Amendment.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: If the hon. Member will leave out the words "this provision" I will accept the Amendment, and it is a good one on the drafting of the Bill.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, to leave out the words "this provision," and to insert instead thereof the words "the foregoing provision of this Sub-section."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (7), after the word "that" ["Provided that if a member"], to insert "(a)."
    Here you have a double proviso which is not intended to be doubled, that is two provisions acting simultaneously and together when they are meant as alternatives. The way it is drafted in the Bill implies that provided something happens, something else at the same time shall operate. That is obviously not the intention, but that is the way in which it may be read and construed in a Court of Law, or certainly if not so construed I am certain that a legal argument might be raised in that way.
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: A little alteration may be necessary, but I do not share the hon. Member's fears about the Law Courts.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, at end of Clause, to add the following Subsection:—
    "For the purpose of enabling the statutory Committee to discharge their functions, the Admiralty and the War Office shall, on request, supply the statutory Committee with such particulars as they may require with regard to anything paid by them to any officer, sailor,

    873
    marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant, and such Committee shall on request duly communicate all such similar information to any charitable body intimately interested in the case of any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant."
    I am in a very difficult position, because I thought a Clause would have been brought forward by the Government to this effect. When I moved a similar Clause in Committee the right hon. Gentleman said he would like to accept the underlying principle of the Amendment, but he could not accept the words "and no supplementary grant shall be made until such certificate has been obtained." I have been careful to strike those words out of the Amendment. The right hon1 Gentleman also said, "If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will on Report bring up words to carry out the general principle of the Amendment, cutting out the words to which I have referred. The imporance of mutual information being given all round has been borne out by almost everything that has been said in the Debate to-day. The only object that we have is that these hard cases should be dealt with in the best way. I should like to ask how it is possible for people like the secretaries of regimental funds or of trade union funds or of charitable bodies to conduct their business unless they are in possession of full information of what the Government is doing in each particular case? If they are not given this full information, how can they possibly arrive at a reasonable decision as to what they shall do with their funds?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Is this relevant to Clause 1? This Clause establishes the statutory Committee, appoints a number of members and the quorum, deals with the way expenses are to be paid, appoints chairman and vice-chairman, and so on. The Amendment deals with other matters which I think would be more relevant to Clause 3.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: I understood when the question was dealt with in Committee on Clause 3 the Chairman expressed doubt whether it was in its proper place, and said it should have come on Clause 1. Therefore I am moving it now in view of that decision. All I am anxious about is that the statutory Committee shall be bound to give full information to any body legitimately interested in any particular case.
    874
    It is particularly necessary in dealing with cases for the prevention of fraud. Unless full information is given we shall have any amount of confusion and overlapping in regard to charitable relief, and I think some method of communicating the information must be imposed upon the statutory Committee.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I still think this Amendment is not in its proper place. I would be prepared to accept the hon. Member's Amendment on Clause 3. I do not think it is in place on this Clause.
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: With your permission, I will move it in Clause 3.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Establishment of Local Committees.)
    (1) For the purpose of assisting the Statutory Committee in the execution of their duties, a local committee shall be established for every county and county borough.
    (2) The constitution of a local committee shall be such as may be determined by a scheme framed by the council of the county or borough and approved by the Statutory Committee; so, however, that every such scheme shall provide—

    (a) for the appointment by the council of the county or borough of at least a majority of the local committee; but the members so appointed by the council need not be members of the council; and

    (b) for the appointment by the council of the county or borough, from amongst the members of the local committee appointed by the council, of a chairman; and

    (c) for the inclusion of some women amongst the members of the local committee.

    (3) The scheme, in the case of a county, may provide for the division of the county into districts and the appointment of a sub-committee for each such district, so, however, that every borough and urban district within the county having a population of not less than twenty thousand, and in the case of the county of London the city of London and each metropolitan borough, shall be a separate district, and in the appointment of every such subcommittee some of the members appointed shall be women.
    Such a sub-committee may, but need not, contain any members of the committee

    875
    by which it is appointed; and a committee may delegate to a sub-committee any of its powers and duties under this Act.
    (4) Any expenses of a local committee (except so far as they may be paid by the Statutory Committee) shall be paid out of funds at the disposal of the local committee.
    (5) In the application of this Section to Scotland "county borough" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh whose lord provost or provost is, as such, a member of the corporation, and "borough" or "urban district" means a royal, parliamentary, or police burgh.
    (6) In the application of this Section to Ireland a reference to a borough or urban district having a population of not less than ten thousand shall be subsituted for the reference to a borough or urban district having a population of not less than twenty thousand.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "borough" ["a local committee shall be established for every county and county borough"], to insert the words "and for every borough or urban district having a population of not less than fifty thousand, the council of which so desires, and for any other borough or urban district for which the statutory Committee, on the application of the council thereof, considers it desirable that, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, a separate local committee should be established."
    After a long and very interesting consultation with many Members of this House who are well versed in local affairs, an agreement was come to between us that I should put down an Amendment of this kind. That agreement was come to late yesterday afternoon, and in consequence of having to receive a deputation somewhere else I was unable to hand in the Amendment, I regret to say, until the House had risen, the House having risen early. Otherwise I should have put the Amendment on the Paper. It is very easy to understand this Amendment. The Bill says, in Clause 2, Sub-section (1):—
    "For the purpose of assisting the statutory Committee in the execution of their duties, a local committee shall be established in every county and county borough."
    It is thought that very large and important districts having a population of not
    876
    less than 50,000 might well be entrusted with setting up their own scheme, that they might desire to do so in many cases, and that they would be able to do it and would be able to get very good personnel to serve on the committee with the result that they might devise a thoroughly good scheme. Of course, that scheme will have to be approved by the statutory Committee, and it is only if the council of these boroughs or urban districts having a population of over 50,000 express a desire to have a scheme of their own that that desire, if my Amendment is carried, will and must be granted by the statutory Committee. I do not think there will be any difference of opinion in the Committee-that where there are large and important boroughs or large urban districts having a population of not less than 50,000, they should not be merely sub-committees of the county, but should be really autonomous, independent committees setting up their own scheme from the first and submitting their scheme to the statutory Committee. This Amendment goes on to say, and this is an important and very much wider application,
    "and for any other borough or urban district for which the statutory Committee, on the application of the council thereof, considers it desirable that, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, a separate local committee should be established."
    There may be special circumstances in such a case as this. It may be a large garrison town where it is very necessary that they should have the right to set up a separate local committee of their own, having regard to the peculiar difficulties with which they have to deal, with the number of cases of soldiers and sailors with which they have to deal, and where it is desirable that there should be on these separate local committees those people who have been in the habit of, and have had great experience in, looking after soldiers and sailors and their wives and families. I can imagine many circumstances which might be put forward as being special circumstances which would entitle the statutory Committee to give consideration to schemes, and to determine that a separate local committee might be established for those places.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: They might collect money for them.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: My hon. Friend suggests that they should have the power

    877
    of collecting money. There might be other districts besides garrison districts having peculiar circumstances of their own. If this Amendment is carried it does not compel the statutory Committee to grant the application of the council. It will be entirely within the option of the statutory Committee to grant it or not. If it considers that there are special circumstances it can grant the application, and so set up an autonomous committee in a district of that kind. I therefore beg to move the Amendment, and I hope the Committee will accept it.
    Sir R. ADKINS: My right hon. Friend said that this Amendment represents an agreement that was come to yesterday by the representatives of the county boroughs and other boroughs and representatives of the county councils. May I point out, however, that my right hon. Friend in the Amendment has not inserted the words "over 20,000." I think he will agree with me that what was agreed to yesterday was that this power of the statutory Committee—
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): We will insert the words "over 20,000." It is an omission.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. These words should have been put in after "any borough or urban district," "with a population of over 20,000."
    Sir R. ADKINS: While the county councils prefer the Bill as it stands, I have no doubt the borough councils would have preferred a still wider extension of autonomous control. However, those of us who represent the county councils and are empowered to speak for the Parliamentary Committees acquiesce in this proposal of my right hon. Friend, and we will do all we can to make it work.
    Mr. G. THORNE: As one of those who took part in the interview with the right hon. Gentleman yesterday afternoon, I thank him for the Amendment he has now proposed. As my hon. and learned Friend says, it does not go quite so far as those we represent would desire. Nevertheless, it goes in their direction, and I think it represents a fair compromise on this question. Therefore I heartily support it.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I cordially support the Amendment. While we all recognise the importance of the statutory Committee
    878
    guiding the general application of the pensions, it is most important that there should be local committees for administration purposes conversant with the circumstances of the different localities. I believe that this Amendment will facilitate a complete application of pensions by the sub-division which is provided. We all feel the importance of due speed in dealing with these pensions. Delay often occurs in consulting a statutory body which is situated a long distance off, and there is often inconvenience to the parties concerned. I think the Amendment gives a very wise delegation of power which will militate to a more discriminating application of pensions than if the matter were directed entirely by the statutory Committee.
    Question, "That the words 'and for every borough or urban district having a population of not less than fifty thousand the council of which so desires and for any other borough or urban district, with a population of over twenty thousand, for which the statutory Committee, on the application of the council thereof, considers it desirable that, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, a separate local committee should be established,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In Sub-section (2) leave out the word "or" ["the county or borough"] and insert after the word "borough" the words "or urban district."
    In Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), leave out the word "or" and after the word "borough" insert the words "or urban district."
    In Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), leave out the word "or" and after the word "borough" insert the words "or urban district."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
    In Sub-section (2), paragraph (c), leave out the word "some" ["for the inclusion of some women"] and after the word "women" insert the words "and representatives of labour."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having included these words and fulfilled the pledge he gave to us.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words, "and in the case of the County of London, the City of London, and each Metropolitan borough."

    879
    I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman will not express any further willingness to accept this. It is understood that he is going to consult the various boroughs in regard to this matter, and I do not know-how far his opinion will be effective. The words in the Bill render it obligatory in London that the districts of the local committees shall be co-terminus with the districts of the borough councils, instead of giving to a London County Council the option of distributing the work as they think best. When they have exercised the option for the purpose of the old age pensions they came to the conclusion that it was better to divide London into thirteen divisions instead of into twenty-nine divisions, as is provided for the purpose of local administration. That system has worked remarkably well, because it has combined smaller areas together into an area of more reasonable size. If the county council have the option in this case they might, or might not, follow the scheme of which they have experience and with which they are very well satisfied, but it is wiser to leave to the county council the option of devising the best scheme for London, and that is the object of my Amendment.
    Mr. KING: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have been considering afresh the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, and have been in communication with several members of the London County Council, and I am more than ever strengthened in my view that each Metropolitan borough should have the option of setting up a committee of its own. As I am the author of the old age pensions scheme by which the London County Council area is divided up into thirteen districts, I am very glad to hear that it has worked well. I think that it has worked well in the matter of old age pensions. I am equally certain that it will not work well in the case of the duties cast upon these Committees. Both in the case of the Transvaal war and of this War, the people who consult these Committees and receive benefits from them have got into the habit of dealing with the committees set up, not only in each borough, but in each Parliamentary area, and they are in the habit of going to their own town hall for information or to some building close to the town hall where there is a committee of their own. I am perfectly certain, in the case of my own borough,
    880
    that it would be a very unpopular proceeding to ask soldiers' and sailors' wives in Fulham to go to Hammersmith or Chelsea, and it would be an equally unpopular arrangement to ask the inhabitants of Deptford to go to Greenwich or those of Greenwich to go to Deptford. The committees themselves have now been formed from those who, to a large extent, are inhabitants of the borough, with an infusion of those who do not live in the borough. These people are accustomed to act with one another over a particular area, and I believe that when these committees are set up it will be advisable, as far as possible, to follow the general line and general run of those committees which have now become exceedingly well-known to the people and become popular and are exceedingly accessible, much more accessible than they would be if London were divided up into thirteen districts, instead of having separate sub-committees in each Metropolitan borough. While having every desire to meet the wishes of the London County Council, of which I have been a very attached member, I cannot say that I think that the Metropolitan boroughs should give way on this occasion, but I think that they ought to be consulted, and that each should be allowed a separate sub-committee for the very important work with which they are entrusted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, after the word "district" ["shall be a separate district"], to insert the words, "and that the council thereof shall have the right of appointing at least a majority of the members of the sub-committee."
    I trust that the House will agree with me in giving the borough councils this power of control, which all the local councils under this Bill should have.
    Sir R. ADKINS: This Amendment is a further step towards autonomy in the district, so as to ensure that the district point of view shall be adequately represented.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "may, but."
    This is a very curious piece of drafting, which can be easily improved on. It rather suggests that there may be someone else. Why strengthen the expression

    881
    in the Clause by redundant words? Redundant words are always objectionable in Acts of Parliament, as they suggest that there is some hidden or peculiar meaning which ordinary people do not understand.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I do not think that this is an improvement, as it gives too much of an indication as to the course which must be followed.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I think it would be an alteration for the worse if my hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted by the Government.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, to insert the word "local" before the word "committee" ["and a committee may"].
    Unless the word "local" is there inserted, there might be some confusion.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Is there not some ambiguity? Take a sub-committee in a small borough. The majority is appointed by the borough council, and the minority appointed by a corporation or county council, and there might arise a question as to the meaning of the word "local." I think that it ought to be made quite clear.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I understand that the word "local" here comes in to harmonise with Clause 4, where it says, "that the function, of local committees shall be." I think that the Amendment is a very proper one.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: It refers to the local committee in Clause 2, Sub-section (1), and it is in order to carry on the language of Sub-section (1) into Sub-section (3).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Consequential Amendment made.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in Subsection (5), to leave out the words, "burgh whose lord provost or provost is, as such, a member of the corporation."
    It s provided that every county borough in England and Wales is to have the right of instituting a local committee. But, when we come to Scotland, instead- of having every police burgh given the same rights, there is a qualification and limitation, namely, that the lord provost or
    882
    provost must be, as such, a member of the corporation. I think that this is an inequality as between the two nations. I think that the words should be omitted so that in Scotland every police burgh should have a local committee, the same as every county borough has its local committee. My case is very much strengthened by the addendum accepted to-day by the House, by which not only county boroughs, in England and Wales are to have that right, but in certain circumstances it is to be extended to urban districts. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham said that it was only last night that he came to the conclusion to extend that right, and I would like to ask the Lord Advocate whether that intention of the right hon. Gentleman was indicated to him. Even as the Bill stands, Scotland suffers an inequality, and if my right hon. Friend has not made provision for Scotland since last night, then the addendum which has been passed makes the case even worse than it was before. I desire therefore that these disqualifying words, as applying to Scotland, should be omitted.
    Mr. PRATT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): The definition in the Amendment to which my hon. and learned Friend objects in this particular Clause has historical sanction. In the principal Act of 1903, the Patriotic Fund Act, he will find that "county borough" in England was defined, when applied to Scotland, as being a royal or parliamentary or police burgh, the population of which is not less than 50,000. The view on which that Act proceeded was that that was the equivalent in Scotland of a county borough in England. That is the view upon which this Bill proceeds. I think that the equivalent is a fair equivalent. It will work quite equitably, and will give no undue advantage, so far as I can detect, to England as compared with Scotland. I am informed that in England there are just five county boroughs the population of which is less than 50,000. They are Burton-on-Trent, 48,236; Canterbury, 24,626; Chester, 39,028; Exeter, 48,664; Worcester, 47,982. My hon. and learned Friend will notice that with the exception of Canterbury and Chester the population of all these county boroughs is very close to 50,000, and that only two of them, Canterbury and Chester, fall far short of this figure. Against these two we have, in

    883
    Scotland, Perth, which, though it has a population of only 35,000, nevertheless has a Lord Provost, and in virtue of that fact is entitled to a local committee. Accordingly, my hon. and learned Friend will see that there is no inequality in the matter. May I also point out that if the Amendment were carried we should have in Scotland no fewer than 207 of these local committees, which, I think my hon. and learned Friend will admit, would be excessive. So far as the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham is concerned, I differ from my hon. and learned Friend because I think that it strengthens my case against this Amendment rather than strengthens the case in favour of the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.

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

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

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

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

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

    (e) to decide, in any particular case, whether, as respects a wife, widow, child, or other dependant, any pension or grant or separation allowance and, as respects an officer or man, any supplementary grant has, under the regulations subject to which it was granted, become forfeited;

    884

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

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

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

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

    (2) The statutory Committee may refer to any local committee for their consideration and advice any question pending before the statutory Committee, and may request any local committee to collect and furnish them with any information they may require with respect to any matter, and may delegate to any local committee the distribution within their area of any grants made by the statutory Committee, and may pay or contribute towards the payment of the expenses incurred by the local committee in respect of any of the matters aforesaid.
    (3) Paragraphs (8), (9), (10), and (11) of the First Schedule to the Patriotic Fund Reorganisation Act, 1903 (relating to funds, accounts and audit), shall apply in respect of the statutory Committee in like manner as they apply in respect of the Corporation.
    (4) The statutory Committee shall in each year make a report of their proceedings which shall be included in the annual report made by the Corporation to His Majesty.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    I merely do this for the purpose of eliciting from my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher) what decision the Government have come to with regard to including in the Clause power of appeal in regard to separation allowance and kindred matters. My right hon. Friend may remember that

    885
    this question was raised in Committee on the Bill, and he admitted candidly, with his full knowledge of the facts, the importance of the question and its relevance to this Bill, because the good which this Bill will do will not be complete, and its action will be impaired in many directions, if the question of appeal from pension officers and similar persons is not included in the purview of this measure. The matter has been discussed with the right hon. Gentleman privately by several Members of this House, and owing to the long bers to put down Amendments than it was scarcely any more possible for hon. Members to put down Amendments than it was for my right hon. Friend, and therefore I move to leave out the Clause for the purpose of hearing from him what the attitude of the Government is, and he can be quite sure that I am not doing so obstructively. Many Members of this House feel the extreme importance of this question and are very desirous of its being dealt with by this Bill before it ultimately becomes law.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I think that this question of appeal is of extreme importance, and cannot be allowed to remain where it is. The present position is that after an application has been investigated by a pension officer, the applicant has right of appeal to the local pension committee. If the local pension committee disagrees with the pension officer, and thinks that a higher rate of separation allowance, or dependency allowance, than he indicates may be given, then the pension officer may appeal to the Central Committee, and the result of that appeal may be that the addition given by the local pension committee is confirmed or taken away. On the other hand, the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the pension officer or the local committee, no matter what the hardship may be, there is no machinery of appeal of any kind; under no circumstances can the applicant get beyond the local pension committee. Those local committees, I know, discharge their duties with very great industry and very great economy in management, but one does hear that in some districts they do not discharge their duties in that way. I suggest that it cannot be right that power of appeal should exist which would reduce the amount of allowance which the woman might otherwise receive, and that there is no right of
    886
    appeal where she thinks the amount ought to be increased. I put to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, quite recently, some extremely hard cases, and he admitted that those cases were hard, and he stated that they really might be considered by some national body; but when I asked him in what way a hard case was to get a hearing, the only reply he gave was that hard cases usually found some means by which they could be heard. With great respect, I submit that is not the manner in which a question of this importance should be met. If cases of hardship are left without any means of being brought before a proper tribunal, so long as recruiting continues it will be discouraged in those districts where these cases of hardship occur. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able either to put some words into the Bill or to suggest some way by which this right of appeal may be exercised.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I was one of the Members who waited on the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, with other gentlemen representing county councils, district councils, and boroughs, and I wish to state that I do not agree with this Amendment, and I stated so yesterday. It appears to me there can be no right of appeal from any county boroughs, because they will have the right to appoint their own committees. I submit that if you give the right of appeal from the local committee to the county committee, you might have a very large number of appeals, and it would mean that the county committee would review the work of the local committee, and this would involve a very large amount of expenditure, as the claimants would have to go before the county committee sitting in the county town to lay their case before them. The county committee would not be in a position to know all the facts of the case which the local committee must know, and I am quite certain that in these matters you can trust the local committees to do their duty.
    These new local committees will be very much better than anything we have had hitherto. They will be very representative and they will make their report as to these pensions to the statutory Committee within a very short time, and I hope—and I think that is the view of everybody who has studied this question—that we shall soon have an average sum fixed all over the country, so that there will not be any injustice done. I much prefer myself, that a woman or a man, as the case

    887
    may be, should have the right to make representations to the statutory Committee, rather than that there should be a very large number of appeals from the local committee to the county committee, which would cause an enormous amount of expense and delay.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am afraid I shall disappoint hon. Members who take a great interest in this question of the right of appeal where the pensions received are smaller than the recipients think they are entitled to—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or none."] Or none. But the cases to which my hon. Friend alludes are all cases of separation allowances granted to dependants only after inquiry by a pension officer. I am sorry to say that for some time these allowances have not been granted with that generosity which certainly ought to accompany grants of the kind; on the other hand, I am painfully aware that in many cases a great deal of fraud has been practised by those who, in claiming pensions, have made statements to the effect that they were dependent to a very much larger extent upon a soldier or a sailor-son than they actually were, in order that they might obtain a larger separation allowance. There are hard cases on both sides. As to right of appeal, I feel that there should be some, but my brain, although fertile in these matters, has not been able to invent a court of appeal. There is an appeal already from the pension officer to the pension committee, and, if they both agree, the applicant who has got a separation allowance much less than he or she thinks he or she is entitled to, then undoubtedly they have to put up with such separation allowance as they get. What court of appeal could be set up? It is asked that the now local committees should consider appeals from the old age pensions committees, and, after all, the old age pensions committee has as much information at its disposal as the new local committee. It would be one local committee hearing an appeal from another local committee. In many cases those new committees will consist very largely of those who are already on the old age pensions committee. You cannot have an appeal from an old age pensions committee to another local committee formed very much on the same lines.
    Can you have an appeal from the local committee to the county committee? The local committee consists of members resid-
    888
    ing in the neighbourhood, who must know much more about the condition, and income, and general dependence of any father or mother upon a soldier or sailor than a county committee ever could. I do not think that the county committee would have any information by which to check the action of the local committee. Would it be possible to carry the appeal right away from the old age pensions committee or local committee up to the statutory Committee sitting in London? That body has already an immense number of duties to perform, and I really very much doubt whether the statutory Committee could really act as a court of appeal in regard to the various decisions of the old age pensions committee acting on the report of the pension officers. Even if the statutory Committee could give the time they cannot, sitting in London, have that information which would enable them to check the decisions of the local committee and do justice to the various applicants for these separation allowances. I feel that while, as some think, there should be the right of appeal on the part of applicants, there should also be an appeal, in the interests of the Exchequer, in cases where false statements are made and fraud perpetrated. But while feeling that, I am unable to formulate any such court of appeal as could try those cases where the separation allowance is considered unsatisfactory. But, after all, separation allowances will pass away when the War is over, or soon after, but there will remain the pensions for the widow's, children, and dependants of those who die, and also pensions, grants, and allowances for disabled soldiers and sailors.
    Will there be any appeal in their case? What would happen in that case? A widow dissatisfied with a fiat rate of 10s., in putting forward her case, might say that her late husband never brought into the house less than £3 or £4 a week, and that she ought not to be satisfied with 10s. a week. The local committee, considering her application for a supplementary pension, would take into account all the circumstances of her case, with which they would have to make themselves familiar, and they might say that the 10s. flat rate was not enough for her, and they might recommend a supplemental pension of 10s. or even £1.
    Supposing the local committee refused to give any supplementary pension, would she have a court of appeal? I say,

    889
    in that case, it is perfectly possible that the statutory Committee would be able to frame regulations—and I hope they will frame regulations—with the object of giving an appeal of that kind. Personally I hope they will frame regulations by which they can hear appeals of that kind on matters of pensions rights which will last for life, and which are far more important than separation allowances which will disappear. Having had a very large experience of giving those pensions or refusing them, and having had to sit in the chair while thousands of cases have passed before me, I know the extreme importance of sifting all the information. In a moment you may turn down a case for a pension, and you may place an unfortunate woman and her family in a miserable position which may oblige them to go to the workhouse. Therefore the greatest care will have to be taken by local committees in the first place and, in my humble opinion, the statutory Committee ought to frame regulations by which they can form some court of appeal from the decisions of local committees in cases in which they have been led astray. I cannot say anything more to satisfy hon. Members, but I trust that what I have said may at least show that T appreciate the position they put forward, and that I intend, so far as I can, so far as the pensions are concerned, to do my best in the matter.
    Sir R. ADKINS: In view of the fact that the large part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was sympathetic, and as there is yet a chance in another place, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman has not quite met this point, which I think wants meeting, and that is that at the present moment when a local pensions committee increases the separation allowance against the pensions officer, that is appealed to the committee over which my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Pan-eras (Mr. Dickinson) presides. In this case, why is it that the beneficiary in the locality is not entitled to the same kind of appeal?
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) (a), to leave out the words "any question of fact on the determination of which," and to insert instead thereof the words "in accordance with scales and regulations approved by Parliament."
    890
    I proposed this Amendment in Committee, and it has a certain relation to the question that has been discussed just now. I want to alter the Clause so that these committees shall not only have the duty of deciding questions of fact upon which dependants' allowances will be assessed, but shall also have the duty of assessing the amount of those dependants' allowances. I do so because I am firmly convinced that the Bill as it stands sets up a system that cannot be satisfactory. The quesion of dependants' allowances is a very different one from that of separation allowance to a wife. The wife has a definite amount of 12s. 6d., and there is no question of the sum. But in respect of allowances to mothers, and sometimes to fathers, and to sisters and brothers in respect of a soldier, the settlement of the amount varies according to the circumstances of the family and one hundred and one other considerations. So that you cannot settle those dependants' allowances upon any fixed rule whatever. I tried to find out what is the mind of the framers of this Bill with regard to the settlement of those allowances. If I read the Bill correctly it is this, that the local committees which are now going to be set up will be called upon to investigate the case in order to ascertain the facts, but who is going to settle the amount of the dependants' allowances. At the present moment it is settled in practice by the pension officer, and the old age pensions committee, and if the figures are agreed upon by those two authorities they go to the War Office, and as a matter of fact, are accepted. If they do not agree, the matter goes to the appeal committee, and the figures which the appeal committee agree to are as a matter of fact accepted.
    The consideration of the question, therefore, is left to the local pensions committee, and the local pension officer subject only in cases of disagreement to be further considered by the appeal committee. If I understand the process in this Bill as regards separation allowances, the old system will have to continue, and in every case the pension officer will have to give his advice on the amount the dependant should receive. The old age pensions committee will have to be consulted, and to investigate the matter, and see the mother or the other dependant in order to settle what sum they are to recommend. Then the War Office or the Admiralty will take those sums, I presume, if they come to an agreement, and if not

    891
    you will have to have a court of appeal. Therefore, if I understand the Bill aright, you are going to have in each district a duplicate system. You are going to put the same case before the pension officer and the old age pensions committee, and this new Committee mentioned in this Bill. It may be my denseness, but I cannot conclude that the Government really considered the question from this point of view, and I do not see how it is going to work. My suggestion is that, instead of the local pension committee and the pension officer having the duty of assessing the amount, the assessment, in the first instance, should be made by the new district committee, and then the new district committee would bring its reports to the statutory Committee, which would set up a sub-committee, consisting probably of two or three of its most important members, to hear appeals, and then the whole thing would be settled uniformly, and the machinery would work very well.
    In order to achieve that result I put down the words I have now moved. The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee refused to consider them, because he said he did not wish to give to the statutory Committee the right of allocating public funds. But that is the very position at the present moment, since, actually in practice, the right of saying whether a woman is to have 5s. or 10s. per week, is settled by the old age pensions committee of the district, and if the pension committee agree with the pension officer the thing goes through, and if they do not it goes to the appeal committee. There is no more public representation on those bodies than there would be on these district committees, because under the scheme the right hon. Gentleman has, and I think it is perfectly right, insisted that on the district committee there shall be a majority of persons who represent the public. Therefore, you get an authority more or less representing the public purse, and although the Statutory Committee may not be said to represent the public its constitution is very fairly representative of the public. You have ten nominees of the Crown, and you have nominees from various bodies, so that it could very well exercise responsibility towards the State so as not to give excessive amounts. The system I have indicated seems to me to afford a simple solution. It was not accepted in
    892
    Committee, and I do not suppose it is going to be accepted now. I regret that, because I cannot help thinking that the system which we want to get to work at once and smoothly will get to work under complications which you will find to be almost insurmountable. Then on the question of appeal, in future there will have to be decided the amounts of dependants' pensions. I can assure the House that, difficult though it may be to decide what are to be the pensions to be given to the widows, it is a thousand times more difficult to decide what are the pensions to be given to the mothers, brothers or sisters, or fathers it may be, or other dependants. It is not until you come to tackle the actual cases that you see the immense difficulty of converting separation allowances to those kind of persons into pensions for life.
    I venture to think it will be essential that those local bodies should look most carefully into the circumstances of each person who asks a pension, and that then, in order to get some fair and uniform system, you should have a central body revising every case of a pension to dependants, and unless you can do that I do not believe you can get a proper system at all. At the present moment, as far as I can see, the actual settlement of pensions to dependants is left out of the Bill altogether. I conclude that it is going to be done by the War Office or the Admiralty. I know quite well that the Admiralty stands in a very different position with respect to this matter from that occupied by the War Office, because the Admiralty have a system which has worked very well, whereas the War Office will have to deal with millions of cases they never had to deal with before, and especially with regard to new classes of dependants. That is the very reason why I think, if you want to put this system on a proper basis, you should adopt this statutory Committee, and give that Committee every opportunity, not only of investigating the particular circumstances of each person who asks for a pension, but also give to Parliament the right of revising the regulations. If these words should be inserted I propose to move later on that the system to be adopted should be subject to regulations to be laid down by Parliament, so that whatever regulations are agreed to for regulating dependants' allowances and pensions should come before this House and pass in the ordinary way by lying on the Table. By that means I believe you

    893
    will get the opportunity in this House of revising the system, and the rules laid down, and you will then have a body quite sufficiently responsible to the State to ensure that the matter would be treated fairly.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so not for the purpose of repeating the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman has put with great clearness and force, but for two particular reasons. He has aimed at the unifying of all this kind of work, and he has suggested machinery which can be used for that end. May I respectfully point out that the present system of dealing with separation allowances is not a matter of Statute, but has been done by the War Office and the Admiralty. If my right hon. Friend in conduct of the Bill, whose sympathies I am sure are with the statutory Committee, which is one of his most distinguished offsprings, could induce the War Office and the Admiralty to give up the system of old age pensions committees and pension officers, and put the matter under the statutory Committee and the local committees, you would have unified the matter and acted in what I think is the only way now possible. With regard to the question of appeal, may I point out that the very committee over which my right hon. Friend presides is a proof that appeal is possible to a central authority when there is a dispute between a local officer and a local committee. If a court of appeal is there possible, why is it not possible in wider matters? I noticed, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board was answering the last Amendment, there was an ominous shake of the head by the Secretary to the Admiralty when the right hon. Gentleman said that the statutory Committee might frame regulations which would really make it an appellate tribunal.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)dissented.
    Sir R. ADKINS: No doubt the Secretary to the Admiralty will be speaking presently, and perhaps we shall then have the articulate translation of that movement. I hope we shall find that there is harmony between these two important Members of the Government on a matter in regard to which we are seeking harmony in administration. That is why
    894
    I support my right hon. Friend. I am confident that only in that or some similar way we can get the unity we require. In all parts of the country there is a real desire that there should be only one kind of committee, and not two. I take this opportunity of impressing that firmly on the Government, and I ask them either to accept this Amendment or to indicate that they will achieve the desired unification in some other way.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I think there is some misunderstanding about this Amendment. I do not think it would really carry out the purpose which its Mover has in view. I have always advocated that we should have uniformity in the work of this Committee? The old age pension committee at the present time do not decide anything about separation allowances; they simply decide upon dependants' allowances. It is not the same thing. Separation allowances are really fixed by the recommendations of the Select Committee, and so far as those allowances are concerned they work automatically. The pension committees and the pension officers simply decide upon the amount of money to which dependants are entitled—mother, sister, or father, as the case may be. What we have suggested all along is that this new committee should have the power to decide these dependants' allowances. But we are in this unfortunate position: We were told yesterday that the pension committee were working under a circular issued by the War Office and the Admiralty. That circular instructs the pension officers and the old age pension committees to fix the dependants' allowances. Until that circular is withdrawn, or the War Office and the Admiralty decide that this new committee should fix the dependants' allowances, we cannot obtain these powers.
    Even if my right hon. Friend's Amendment were carried, if this circular were not abolished, it would not transfer these powers to the new committee. We may get over the difficulty in this way: We were told yesterday, and I should like the statement to be made now, that where a local committee is set up in any part of the country the local authority will have the power either to establish a new committee or to utilise the old age pension committee, subject to certain alterations in its composition and powers. If the local authorities establish the old age pension committees subject to reconstitution, those committees will continue to

    895
    do this work; they will fix the dependants' allowances, and also make recommendations so far as dependants under this Bill are concerned. I believe that that is the best solution of the difficulty. I hope that many local authorities will utilise the existing old age pension committees with a broadening of their representation.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I hope that we shall have some sympathetic reply on this Amendment. If the matter be left where it is, I believe there will be the greatest dissatisfaction on the part of those who are engaged in local administration in this country. You have to set up duplicate national machinery in every district and county for the purpose of doing practically the same work. You have one committee for the purpose of assessing the amount of dependants' allowance, and another committee for the purpose of deciding whether that dependant's allowance shall be augmented. Obviously the people who have made inquiries in the country are the people best able to decide whether or not the dependant's allowance is sufficient. Similarly, when a pension has to be increased, you again bring into play your new committee. Everywhere you have this duplication under the present system.
    I do not bind myself to the right hon. Gentleman's words, but I suggest that in some form or other it ought to be made clear that the counties, boroughs, and urban district councils are not to be compelled to do what they unanimously protest against, namely, the setting up of two committees where one would do. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board himself said on the Committee stage that if one committee had to fix the amount of the dependant's allowance and another had to decide whether it required to be augmented, it would be a most unfortunate state of things. I do not put it any stronger than that. Surely there is no reason to perpetuate that unfortunate state of things. Now is the opportunity to take some step by which it may be avoided. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) could be adopted, or we could have some promise that after the new committee has been set up the work of fixing the dependants' allowances will be lifted from the pension committees and handed over to the new Committee, I think there would be general satisfaction. What we want is that the matter
    896
    should be dealt with by one committee. We do not press that it should be the old age pension committee. On the contrary, there would be satisfaction in some directions if some other committee did the work. But we do press that there should be unification and that this system of duplication should not be forced on the local authorities.
    Sir NORVAL HELME: Representatives of the local authorities are endeavouring to secure from Parliament such a workable scheme as will really meet the necessities of the case, and in this endeavour I am glad to recognise that we have no greater friend than the Secretary to the Local Government Board. If he could induce the War Office and the Admiralty to withdraw their circular, it would be possible for us to arrive at some arrangement for unifying the administration of this measure.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The representatives of the Admiralty and of the War Office must listen with sympathy to any representations made with a view to enabling this work to be carried out smoothly in all its aspects. That, I take it, is the reason for the Amendment. In regard to Clause 3 (1) (a) and its purpose I think there is some confusion of mind. It deals, first of all, not with wives and children, but with other dependants.
    Mr. DICKINSON: All except wives and children.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: All except wives and children. Secondly, it does not deal with the amount of the separation allowances. I rather think my right hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. What it deals with is the question of what shall be done in the case of other dependant relatives at the close of the separation allowance period, the twenty-six weeks during which the separation allowance is paid subsequent to the death of the person in respect of whose contributions the allowance was made.
    Mr. DICKINSON: Do I understand that the words "pension or grant" do not include a dependant's allowance during the War? I understood the words, "to decide any question or fact on the determination of which the amount of a pension or grant, payable out of public funds to a dependant other than a widow or child, may depend," to mean questions of fact upon which a, dependant's allowance may depend.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is the confusion of mind which I am trying to clear up. The paragraph deals with relatives other than wives or children, and it deals, not with the separation allowance to other dependant relatives, but with the amount which they are to receive—which is to be determined by questions of fact—at the close of the twenty-six weeks' period.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I think that this point should be cleared up. Is it not the fact that automatically a widow and children would get the pension set out in the Report?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Therefore this Committee would not fix it?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been trying to explain exactly what it does. Of course, widows and orphans get amounts according to the scale which has been fixed. This provision says to the statutory Committee, "You shall assist the War Office and the Admiralty by deciding any question of fact on the determination of which the amount of a pension or grant payable out of public funds to a dependant other than a widow or child may depend." Elsewhere there is a provision for a settlement of that. What we propose, therefore, in regard to this is: We propose to make regulations which will cover a category, or rather a series, of cases rather than to make scales, because, as I think the hon. Member will agree, the issues are so various in the case of the dependant relatives that it is quite impossible to make scales. You can make a series of regulations but not a scale. We shall lay those on the Table of the House, as I have said, so that the House may see fully how the matter works in our endeavour to carry out this Sub-section (1), paragraph (a). When we come to have the actual cases before us, when we discover into what category a case shall fall, we shall consider with the greatest care the representations as to the facts which we have received from the statutory Committee. My right hon. Friend proposes "in accordance with scales and regulations approved by Parliament" to decide the amount of a pension or grant payable out of public funds to a dependant other than a widow or child. The question of separation allowances does not arise, but the amount of the pension or grant which these poor people are to receive from public funds.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Hear, hear.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: All I can say is that what my right hon. Friend proposes is entirely outside the scope of this Bill. This Bill has a very admirable provision for the augmentation of whatever these poor people may receive in a proper case in the way of pension. If you introduce into this Bill, as my right hon. Friend seeks to do, a proposal to say that the statutory Committee shall say how much pension from the public funds those concerned shall receive at the end of twenty-six weeks which follow the death of him upon whom they are dependent, that, I say, is entirely outside the scope of this Bill. Although it is not for me to say so, I should say it is dangerously near a new charge. It is quite outside what has been recommended by the special Committee. What the hon. Member for Leigh said I could not quite follow, but I would say this in reply to him, that if in going along at the Admiralty and the War Office experience teaches us that something better can be devised than that which I have endeavoured imperfectly to describe, and which will deal more equitably, justly and promptly with these cases, then by all means we shall adopt it. But the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dickinson) is entirely outside the scope of the Bill. It was not contemplated by the scheme of the Bill at all.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I just point out clearly what I do mean? What I hope is that if the War Office and the Admiralty are satisfied with the manner in which the committees set up under this scheme do their work, they will transfer to them the work done by the old age pensions committees in the assessment of the amount.
    Mr. J.SAMUEL: May I be permitted to put a straight question to the right hon. Gentleman? What we want is this: Is he prepared, on behalf of the Admiralty, if these local committees do their work satisfactorily, to withdraw the circular now giving instructions to the old age pensons committees, and give the local committees the powers which the old age pensions committee possess now in regard to recommendations of these dependant allowances?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot for the moment answer on behalf of the War Office, but we shall certainly take the matter into consideration so far as the Admiralty is concerned. I think my hon.

    899
    Friends may rest assured that all of us desire to do the best we can in this matter.
    Mr. DICKINSON: Who then will actually settle the amount of the pension which the dependant is to have?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: This is a considerable amount of cross-examination, but the Board of Admiralty and the War Office under the regulations they will make will attend to that matter, and after the question of fact has been determined for them will see into which of the various categories or regulations a case will fall for the pension or grant.
    Mr. DICKINSON: Then the local authorities have no voice—
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not over public funds.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the word "separation" ["the pension, or grant, or separation allowance"].
    I know that this was moved in the Committee, and raised a question of policy. I put it forward now as a question of drafting. I am rather afraid, after the experience I have had, to bring up another drafting question, because these questions of drafting are so largely questions of taste. As there may be difference of opinion among connisseurs as to the best wines and cigars, so the question of drafting is a matter of taste. But I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill: Why in Clause (1), Sub-section (l), which is the cardinal or starting point, and gives the powers under the Bill, is the expression used "pensions and grants and allowances," and then in Clause 3, which deals with questions of allowances, "'separation' allowance"?
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: It is supplemental.
    Mr. KING: Either the expression in the two places refers to the same thing, in which case the same expression ought to be used, or it refers to something different. If it refers to something different, what is the difference, and if there is a difference, why is it not explained in the Bill? I have the right hon. Gentleman on the horns of a dilemma. He really cannot get off. Let me point out there is no definite Clause in this Bill. If there were a definition Clause he might get out of his difficulty somehow.
    900
    The Government should really, if they want to avoid misconception, lack of clearness, and consequently litigation, doubt, and differences of application, have the same expression in Clause I as in Clause 3. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept my suggestion which is given in good faith. There is no desire to make anything out of the suggestion but a more smooth and even working of the Bill, and I sincerely hope that my Amendment will be accepted.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have never been impaled on the horns of a dilemma from which it was an easier task to escape. It is perfectly obvious, if the hon. draftsman will look he will note in Clause I that it says:—
    "For the purposes hereinafter mentioned;"
    that is, purposes relating to pensions, grants, and allowances, in respect of the present War to officers and men in the naval and military service. The "allowances" include all kinds of sums of money which may hereafter be given. The "allowances" employed in the first Clause includes specific allowances; separation allowances are part of the family allowance—a very small part of the family allowance, though a very important part. In Clause 3 we are dealing, not with allowances, but with separation allowance. The term "allowances" is quoted in Army Orders. The terms are properly used in the first Clause and also properly in the third.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (c), after the word "disposal" ["other funds at their disposal"], to insert the words "make an advance towards and."
    I move this Amendment because I think that if some action is not taken in this matter we will not only have duplication of committees but three committees dealing with different stages of this work. At the present time there is a committee which administers the Prince of Wales' Fund; at the same time there is a committee set up by the county councils; at the same time, also, there is the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, which augments separation allowances where these are found to be insufficient. At the present time the latter body make advances

    901
    to wives and other dependants when the separation allowance has not yet come to hand. As I read the Bill, if advances are to be made to those in receipt of separation allowance, that work will remain, not in the hands of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, but in the hands of the working committee which is administering the Prince of Wales' Fund; whereas, if you are to augment separation allowance, then this work seems to come to the new committee. I cannot conceive that it can be the scheme of the Government to keep alive the committee of the Prince of Wales' Fund and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association for the one task of making these advances, while all the other work is going to be transferred to the new committee. Obviously that ought not to be so, for the committee now administering the National Relief Fund ought to be relieved of its functions or to remain with them. I think this proposition will receive universal assent—for the purpose of getting the matter cleared up, and for the purpose of preventing what will not only be a duplication but a triplication of administration.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: If I understand the hon. Gentleman aright, what he is anticipating will happen is this: That when the local committees have been set up the committee of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and the local relief committee will be moved off the field; those who have been in the habit of making advances on account of separation allowance to those to whom that allowance was due, but to whom it has not yet been paid—in the early stages in the War, not perhaps for many weeks. I think there is something in this Amendment. It has only just been handed to me, and I am not quite clear that there are words in this Clause defining the functions of the statutory Committee which would allow that statutory Committee to make advances in respect of separation allowances where those advances were very much heeded, but had not been paid—it might be for three or four weeks. I cannot accept these words in this particular place. I do not think that they are perhaps the best; but if the hon. Member will accept my assurance that in another place I will see that something is done to provide for the contingency he anticipates, I shall be very happy to meet him in that way.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Might I say the effect of that, if my right hon. Friend is able to carry it out, would be in the case of relief to limit their work to civil distress?
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: That is really the work of the civil distress committees now. They do not make allowances or grants.
    Mr. RAFFAN: In view of the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. PRICE: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (i).
    I desire to move the deletion of these words on the ground that this House appointed a Committee to inquire into the means and methods which should be adopted for dealing with disabled soldiers. Those who have read the Report will see that the Committee took evidence and made a great many suggestions. For instance, they were asked to report upon the methods to be adopted for providing employment for soldiers and sailors disabled in the War. The Report is divided into various sections. There are seventeen paragraphs suggesting what should be done in the case of officers and men whose health has suffered as a result of the War. Then you come to another section later on as to what should be done in the matter of employment of disabled sailors and soldiers, and there you have twelve paragraphs containing suggestions. And so on, right through this Report, you have a large number of suggestions made. The only question the Committee did not go into was that of the schemes for the settlement of disabled men on the land. The Committee examined a good many witnesses, but felt it was too technical a point, and suggested that the subject should be further considered by the Central Committee. But you will find right through the Report a great many suggestions on matters which, I presume, the Government wanted information about in order to legislate for these disabled men. Later, on the Committee recommends the appointment of sub-committees for Ireland and Scotland to deal with this matter. It seems to me it was no use asking the Committee to take evidence as to what should be done for these disabled sailors and soldiers unless the House intended to do something as a result of the Committee's suggestions. It was because it was felt that the nation had an obligation to deal with these men

    903
    that the Committee was appointed to consider what methods should be taken to carry out that obligation. But all that this Bill says is comprised in three lines. Is that all the House is going to do for these men when they come back? If this Bill goes to the country as the last word that this House has to say to the disabled soldier when he comes back, it will create a perfect scandal.
    A great deal of anxiety was felt on the Committee as to what should be done for these disabled sailors and soldiers. The result was that we had no end of evidence, and some wanted to get further evidence; but we felt it was necessary to make the Report as quickly as possible, because we were informed by many visitors to hospitals and infirmaries, where disabled soldiers were placed, that there was grave anxiety as to what would be their position when they came out of these hospitals. I saw, the other day, a soldier who was discharged because he had lost his eye. He only gets 7s. 6d. a week pension. He was discharged because the Army looked upon him as totally incompetent to remain as a soldier. I say it is not fair to these men if you have nothing further to say to them. We also say in this Report that there should be established all over the country technical schools to train these soldiers. Where they are unable to take advantage of the existing technical schools such schools should be set up. The Bill is largely taken up in dealing with pensions. Paragraphs (a) to (h) of this Clause deal with pensions and allowances, but there is only one paragraph of three lines dealing with the disabled soldier. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty will bear me out when I say I raised the question at the time he spoke of introducing the Bill, as to what they were going to do to meet the recommendations of that Committee. At that time he did not know, and I was obliged to wait until the introduction of this Bill. Now I find that all this Bill does is to embody in three lines the recommendations of the Committee.
    I would like to know what these local committees are to do to train disabled sailors and soldiers. There will be a conflict of interests, because the appeals will be to increase grants, and therefore there will not be sufficient funds at their disposal. Another point recommended by this Committee was that the men in addition to their pension, should have an
    904
    allowance made to them so that they could attend these technical colleges. Are they likely to get that when appeals are made to increase these allowances? I know the answer will be made that the Committee reported that one committee should deal with the two subjects. Quite so; but it is not enough to say this Committee is going to have the care of the soldiers. What is meant by the word "care"? It is interpreted in different ways. There are only four words in the paragraph which are taken out of the Report—"care," "health," "training," and "employment." Those four words are all you have in this Bill dealing with this important subject. I say it is a farce, having appointed a Committee to advise what should be done for the disabled sailor and soldier, to sift evidence week after week and to make certain recommendations to this House and, when it comes to frame a Bill, all that is done is to frame these four words. I move the deletion of this paragraph because I think it is wholly inadequate to meet the case in point. Secondly, I would recommend that a fresh Bill be brought in dealing-specifically with the disabled soldier and that, along with the functions or duties of that Committee, you should say that they should have charge also of soldiers who are coming from the front who are not disabled so as to find them employment. Unless you do that I have no hesitation in saying it will cause great consternation. As one man said, "You send down large numbers of Members of Parliament and appeal from the platform for men to join the ranks, but what do you say when they come home wounded—three lines." The allowance you are going to give the disabled soldier is not adequate for the loss of his arm. I say that for this House to appoint a Committee to make these inquiries and report to you what should be done, and then to put into three lines those recommendations without suggesting how to carry out the regulations, is wholly inadequate, and I shall divide the House upon my Amendment if I only get a seconder.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I beg to Second the Amendment. I think my hon. Friend does well to call attention to the very important Report of Sir George Murray's Committee. When I turn to paragraph 25, to which I call the particular attention of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, I find a very specific recommendation which the Government has entirely ignored in

    905
    drafting this Bill. The paragraph is important, and has a very close bearing on the paragraph in the Bill with which we are now dealing. This is what the Report says:
    "It has been suggested to us that an organisation so created might ultimately be utilised for the purpose of dealing with the employment of ex-sailors and ex-soldiers of all kinds, whether able-bodied or disabled. The numerous agencies at present engaged on this work in different parts of the country, and the complexity of their operations, make it highly desirable that some step should be taken to co-ordinate their activities and to prevent overlapping. But such a scheme does not come within the terms of our reference, and we are aware that the question has already received a good deal of attention elsewhere. It is only mentioned in this place because it seems to us almost impossible to contemplate the establishment of two unconnected organisations"—
    [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] I am glad to hear those cheers, because the words are very germane—
    "one dealing with disabled and the other with able-bodied sailors and soldiers."
    The Government have entirely ignored that. That Committee was constituted to deal only with the disabled sailor and soldier and to take no cognisance of the able-bodied sailor or soldier. The contention which the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. C. E. Price) makes, in my view, is a sound one, that the functions should be co-ordinated and that the same body that deals with the disabled soldier should deal with the able-bodied soldier who is coming back to civil employment. It docs not seem, to have been realised by those responsible for this Bill how big the problem of demobilisation will be. With all the good will in the world, thousands of the men now serving with His Majesty's forces will have great difficulty in getting into civil employment again; they will be in competition with the trained disabled soldiers, and the interest of this Committee will be to push the disabled soldier everywhere. I do not blame them for it, but I can foresee difficulties arising in the labour world when the disabled soldier, partially trained, perhaps recovered from his wounds, is being aided by this central Committee and by the local committee, and is in active competition with the able-bodied soldier, and is probably pressed for an appointment by the central or local committee at the expense of the able-bodied man, who probably requires and asks for a better wage because he is receiving no support from the statutory body. As a matter of fact, this statutory body to be set up is not so constituted as to deal fully with the duties which are thrown upon it under this Sub-clause. The Special Committee of Sir George Murray,
    906
    on which my hon. Friend sat, recommended very specifically, in view of the unemployment which might arise, that the statutory Committee should have represented on it certain persons and certain departments who are mainly concerned with the question of employment. When you turn to the constitution of the statutory Committee, the specific recommendations of Sir George Murray's Committee are ignored. Where is the representative of the Board of Trade on the statutory Committee in a matter which is vitally concerned with the Board of Trade like this question of the training and employment of disabled soldiers? Where is the representative of the Board of Education in a matter which is concerned with the training of the disabled soldier in technical institutions and the like? In paragraph 21 of the Report there is a specific recommendation which has been overlooked. The Committee did not deal with the question of placing the men on the land, but the Board of Agriculture is not represented on the statutory Committee and the employers are not on it. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made provision for representatives of labour, but he ought equally to make provision for the representation of employers who have a vital interest in this particular matter.
    What really is required is another body which can take over the function of employment both for disabled and for able-bodied soldiers, apart altogether from the statutory body which has to dispense relief to those who have not sufficient at the present time from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that that would unduly delay matters, but I do not think that that is dealing fairly with the House. This is a time when we have known Bills to go through in less than two days, and it ought not to be outside the powers of the various Government Departments concerned to make proposals to the House, even before the Adjournment is reached. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were emergency measures."] I know the Bills I refer to were emergency proposals, but this problem has been so adequately dealt with, and reported upon by advisory Committees, that the Departments of the Government concerned have the necessary knowledge for drafting a Bill and taking this question outside the scope of the Pensions Committee altogether. A committee composed of employers of labour and representatives of working class

    907
    organisations could deal with the problem of training and securing employment for disabled soldiers and sailors, and also make provision for the huge army which will come back to civil employment when the forces are demobilised at the end of the War. The Government have failed to realise the extent of the problem; and what is outlined in these three lines is entirely unsatisfactory.
    Mr. ANDERSON: This Bill is described as applying to "naval and military war pensions, etc." I am going to suggest that the health, training, and employment of disabled soldiers is too big a matter to be described as "et cetera." This Bill does not propose to take any public money, but is concerned with money from private quarters as supplementary to the ordinary public pensions. Is this question of the training and the employment of disabled soldiers a matter which ought to be thrown on private money drawn from private quarters? I suggest that the training and employment of disabled soldiers is a matter for the nation, and ought to fall upon the nation from pubilc money and not from private sources to make up supplementary pensions. I am quite certain that this matter has been dragged in as an afterthought and that it is no real part of this Bill. This is a measure to provide supplementary pensions in special cases, and we do not object to that in the least. We also see the difficulty of securing these supplementary pensions entirely from public money; but this matter affecting disabled soldiers is one for public money, and it is a question for a public committee. From that point of view I think this Section ought to be deleted. I am not in the least satisfied that the statutory Committee that is going to be set up to deal with pensions is the proper Committee to deal with a matter of this kind. I want to see a Committee representative of the employers of labour and of the workpeople of the country. I think it is right that both sides should be represented practically in equal proportion. A Committee that is going to undertake the large question of employment arising after the War, and dealing with disabled soldiers, ought to have upon it representatives of the Health Commissioners, the Labour Exchanges, and the Board of Agriculture, if you are going to deal with the question of getting men back to the land in many cases. I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gen-
    908
    tleman to the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee, paragraph 25, in which it is stated:—
    "It would seem almost impossible to contemplate the establishment of two unconnected organisations, one dealing with disabled and the other with able-bodied soldiers and sailors."
    And yet that is exactly what we are going to have. I do not suppose that the statutory Committee is going to deal with able-bodied soldiers in regard to employment, and I am not suggesting that they should do so. The whole of this problem is different from the question of supplementary pensions, and that is why I am arguing that both the question of able-bodied soldiers and the training and employment of disabled soldiers are outside the Committee dealing with supplementary pensions. There is need for a different organisation with a different composition, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet us in this matter, because I believe it is a question of very vital and real consequence. With regard to the wider question, I want to see the disabled soldier who is going to return to employment placed in the same position as the able-bodied soldier. They both fall into the same category, and a different organisation must be created. In this matter I would appeal to the Government that there is need for foresight at this moment in regard to these tremendous questions dealing with employment that must emerge from the War. There will be a very bad time again unless the Government begins to prepare for the able-bodied soldier, and particularly for the disabled soldier who is going to return from the War. I am sure in this Bill we are going forward on the wrong lines, and I believe the outcome will not be good.
    Mr. HOHLER: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in regard to this Amendment. I support the deletion of this Sub-clause on broader grounds. In my view the title of this Bill is intended by the Government to carry out the recommendations not only of the Pensions Committee, but also of the Committee which issued the Report which has been referred to, in order to meet the case of how soldiers wounded and otherwise are to be employed. This Bill does not do anything at all in regard to this matter, and there is no provision of funds wherewith to train wounded soldiers or officers or for making provision for their future. All we are permitted to do is to deal with the possible

    909
    or probable charitable contributions of the public. I know that we have a vague undertaking from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in case of any great difficulty arising as regards public money the State will find the funds, but if this Sub-clause goes through we shall probably never be able to get any more out of the Government. I think it is important that at the earliest possible moment the House should declare that it is not content with this Bill, which does not carry out the recommendations of the Pensions Committee, which has a paragraph directed specially to the employment of soldiers and sailors, and recommends that where possible public employment in the Government Departments should be given to soldiers and sailors. I produced a Clause for this purpose which was ruled out of order on the ground that it was outside the scope, of the Bill. It is quite clear that what is intended by the introduction of this Clause is to hand over the obligation of the State to a committee with a paid chairman and a vice-chairman, and there is no provision whatever for the clerks and the servants, the provision in this respect being left to the charitable public. I think we ought to stop this Bill and insist that a proper Bill shall be brought in dealing with this subject. Just consider how many permanently disabled soldiers and sailors and marines have already returned to this country. Are we to wait until the public contribute the money? The public are being asked for various sums at the present time, and are responding very well, but this is an obligation of the State, and if we are to' wait until such time as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is satisfied that the money is not forthcoming from private sources, we might as well adjourn the consideration of this matter for five or six years. We should make every attempt we can now upon this Bill, and insist that a proper Bill should be introduced dealing in a proper spirit with the problem now before Parliament.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOGGE: This is not a new discussion, because it is one that has been raised directly at every stage of the Bill. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment to a Division, because I think he is labouring under a misapprehension as to the powers which are given to this Committee. I moved myself the insertion of extra words to include schemes of housing to deal with disabled soldiers and sailors, and I withdrew my Amendment on the understanding and the undertaking from
    910
    the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that the word "care" in that Clause had a very wide interpretation, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself stated that the Government have accepted generally the recommendations of Sir George Murray's Committee, and instead of setting up, as would be very inadvisable, another committee to deal separately with disabled soldiers and sailors, the statutory Committee, which has large powers itself, can create a special committee to deal with this side of the work. The statutory Committee has power to do that, and it can carry out every one of the recommendations made by my hon. Friend and his colleagues in their Report.
    Another point has been made with regard to the employment of able-bodied soldiers and sailors on their return from the War. I should like to ask my hon. Friends who are supporting this Amendment why they draw distinction between able-bodied soldiers and sailors, who may be quietly reabsorbed into employment at the close of the War, and able-bodied munition workers and other special war workers who may be thrown out of employment at the end of the War from the same cause? We shall have all classes of men desiring to be reabsorbed into employment at the end of the War, and we already have machinery for dealing with that type of men. Under these circumstances, what is the use of creating fresh body after fresh body, when we have organisations in our hands at the present time for dealing with the question? The Labour Members of this House struggled in order to get such machinery as the Labour Exchanges, and we have got them now, and if at this critical moment, when some special machinery is required to deal with the problem of employment, you are going to transfer it to some new body, you might as well close down your old machinery. I think you ought to do all these things through the channels which you have already created. If you do not think they have sufficient powers, I suggest that their work should be speeded up with regard to the employment of able-bodied soldiers who have not found employment after the War. That is one thing, but it is surely an unnecessary duplication to suggest the creation of extra bodies.
    7.0 P.M.
    All we want to know from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has already been told us by the Chancellor of of the Exchequer, who is here in this

    911
    House, and can deny it if it is not true. He has already said that if he cannot get the voluntary funds which he hopes to secure for the purposes of this Bill, and for all the purposes of this Bill, the treatment of disabled soldiers and sailors as well as the other purposes, he will come to Parliament and provide the money that is necessary to make the scheme effective. Of course, no Cabinet could come to this House without such a definite statement. It is absurd to imagine they have so much to do with motor cars and so on at the Home Office that they would present this House with a machine without any petrol to drive it, and, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot sneak his petrol, then in some other way he will have to provide it from public sources. He has said so publicly in this House. Why, therefore, burden the discussion of this Bill any longer? We are all waiting to get this authority set up. Every day we go to our constituencies people ask us when they will have to apply, and where they will have to apply. This authority wants setting up at once, and I hope my right hon. Friend will not accept this Amendment.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I sympathise with the motive which has inspired this Amendment. It is really to bring before Parliament and the country the necessity of the Government setting up some machinery, and ultimately placing funds at the disposal of some committee or another, for dealing with the many disabled soldiers and sailors who will return from this War. I sympathise with that motive, but I think the hon. Gentlemen who seek to delete this particular provision from the Bill are doing an ill-service to those already disabled and already discharged, for whom nothing has been done except to give them a weekly allowance. I am afraid that any stranger listening to this Debate might think that this House of Commons has been signally neglectful of its duty towards those who are totally or partially, disabled by this War. Let me say that no House of Commons, and, I believe, no House of Parliament either in this or any other country, has ever awarded such just and generous treatment as is being awarded to those who have been disabled and who will be disabled in this War. The scale of allowances set up by the Select Committee and adopted, by this House with very little comment and very little criticism is a
    912
    generous scale. It is far in advance of anything we have ever done in this country, and I believe it is in advance of anything ever done in any other country.
    I recollect the time when I served as a Commissioner of Chelsea Hospital. On arriving at Chelsea Hospital and having to take the chair, I found the maximum pension I could award to a soldier or a sailor, often a married man with a family, called up from the Reserve, who was hopelessly or totally disabled, either from wounds or disease, and never able again to earn any money, was 1s. a day, or 7s. per week. That was the old scale. It was not very long before I found it was impossible to do the work if I was only allowed to give 1s. a day to men earning probably 30s. per week, or even more. I approached the Government of the day and suggested that it should be raised, and very considerably raised, and I requested if it were not raised that I might be relieved of my duties. It was raised. The total disablement allowance was raised to 2s. 6d. per day, or 17s. 6d. per week, and the allowance for partial disablement to something like 10s. 6d. per week. We have advanced beyond that; 17s. 6d. per week is not considered enough for those who are totally disabled in this War, and 17s. 6d. has been replaced by 25s. I am not talking of the corresponding allowances to those above the lowest rank. I am talking of the private soldier and the ordinary seaman. The rates were raised from 17s. 6d. to 25s. per week, with 2s. 6d. per week for each child. I hope we shall not content ourselves merely with paying those allowances. I hope that other things will be done for these men. I hope that the paralysed soldier especially will be our care. He may have a wife and family, and may himself want to be taken care of in a home. I am glad that a home for paralysed soldiers has already been established, and I believe that there is at least one labour representative on the committee. Hon. Gentlemen may come down and say, "There is a great deal more which ought to be done for disabled soldiers and sailors. We appointed Sir George Murray's Committee. Look what it recommends! Look at the numerous suggestions made by that Committee for restoring the health and strength of these men, and for restoring them once more to positions in the labour market!" And the hon. Member for the Central Division of Edinburgh

    913
    (Mr. C. E. Price), who himself did good service on that Committee, a very strong Committee, which made a most admirable Report, comes down and says, "But in your Bill you have ignored all the suggestions we have made." Believe me it is nothing of the kind. It is perfectly true that there are only three lines in the Bill:
    "To make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment."
    I have looked through all the admirable suggestions made by the Committee, and I say that every one of those suggestions is covered in those three very pregnant lines.
    Mr. PRICE: It is all left to the discretion of the Committee. It is specifically pointed out that the men whilst they are training shall get adequate allowance, but it all depends upon whether they do it or not. This statutory body is dependent upon private funds, whereas we say that the money ought to come from the State.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The general duty cast upon them is to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment. I do not think that it would strengthen the functions of the Committee one bit if you were to include in a Schedule the whole of the Report. The hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson), said that this Committee would only have funds collected from voluntary sources. Those funds may be all the funds at the disposal of the Committee at the first, and those funds at first may suffice, but my right hon. Friend (Mr. McKenna) has already in his place at this box stated to the House that if adequate and necessary funds for carrying out this all-important work are not forthcoming he will come down to Parliament and he will himself propose Grants which shall enable this body to carry out its work. I admit that sums of a very extensive character will be wanted if we are to do all that I think, and all that the House thinks, we ought to do for these disabled solders and sailors. Let us look at the difference between the hon. Members and myself. They want to delete from this Bill all power of this statutory body to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for
    914
    their health, training, and employment. What would be the result if they did that? Does the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Goldstone), when he says that I have not treated the House fairly, think that it would be possible now to frame and produce a Bill, to get it carried through both Houses of Parliament, and to get large sums of money placed at the disposal of another statutory body within the next fortnight?
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I do.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The hon. Gentleman is one of the most sanguine of men I have ever met. Let him look at the history of this Bill. How long has it taken to introduce the Bill? First of all, a Select Committee was set up, and then after long deliberation—
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: We have got all the preliminary material now in hand, and I know what this House is capable of doing when it sets its mind on getting legislation through quickly.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have no doubt that we might in a moment produce a very bad Bill and a thoroughly bad system for dealing with this question; but, after all, where is my hon. Friend going to find the men for another body? How is it to be composed? Will it be composed of stronger elements than this body? Then he has to set up all over the country other local committees. How are they going to be manned? It is going to be difficult to man one committee to deal with the case of disabled soldiers and sailors, and if you divide all these affairs you cannot expect to do it satisfactorily. One very useful criticism was made. It was that when the statutory body comes to make provision for the training, and above all the employment, of discharged soldiers and sailors it must get into communication with bodies of employers. That is so, but there is nothing in this Bill to prevent the statutory body from setting up a special sub-committee to deal with this special section of the Bill, and if I were a member of the statutory body one of the first things I should advise it to do would be to break itself up into committees and to form a special committee for this special purpose. I think a special committee ought to be formed on which employers and representatives of labour would be asked to serve, and on which perhaps Members of Government Departments would be asked to serve with a view of

    915
    throwing open certain forms of Government employment for discharged disabled soldiers and sailors.
    I believe that the statutory body can do all that any single body can do to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee. I do not think that it is necessary to have a new Bill, a new scheme, a new statutory body, and to rely possibly on new sources from somewhere or other. I do not think that it is necessary to do any of these things. I believe that the statutory body is perfectly capable of making a very good beginning. I do not say that it will be more. We can then watch it. Parliament will be meeting again in a few months time, and, if we see that this statutory body is proving incapable of carrying out its high duty, we can then bring in some new legislation. I do ask hon. Members who have a sincere and most earnest desire to come to the assistance of our discharged disabled soldiers and sailors not to take this Clause out of the Bill, but to allow the statutory body to endeavour to deal with this question, to make a beginning with this question, to set up these local committees wherever they are to be set up under the Bill, and to place some confidence in them that they will attend to one of the duties placed upon them, the duty of making I revision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including the provision for their health, training, and employment.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I am sure everybody who has listened to the eloquent appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman will feel that, if the decision rested on that alone, the House could not fail to agree with him. But, so far as I am concerned, the question of allowances seems to have nothing to do with the case. A few days ago we were discussing a Bill in this House dealing with registration. I agreed with that Bill, and I believe in it, because it asked us to take stock for a very big job, to see what we had in the place, and to do the best we can with it. But this Clause brings us back to the old condition of muddle, mess, and make-believe, and it is because I believe that the Clause lacks entirely all sense of proportion as to what is going to be the work of this particular Committee that I am supporting the Amendment. We have on our hands the biggest War the world has ever seen. Already thousands of men are coming into this country maimed in all sorts of ways,
    916
    and before the War is ended it must be obvious to anybody who has studied the question there is going to be an enormous body of men who will require all sorts of assistance in the shape of education or in finding employment.
    What I want the House to bear in mind is this, that past experience in this direction is going to be but a mere fleabite in comparison with what is going to happen as a result of this War, and yet here we are with a small, insignificant, tinpot Committee charged with the duty of looking after allowances, children, dependants, and so on. All sense of proportion in this matter seems to be utterly lacking. There does not seem to be any realisation, even for a moment, of the magnitude of the task the Committee are undertaking. The question of finding employment for the hundreds of thousands of men who will come back when this War is over is simply going to bring us back to the position we were in when the War started. We have been eleven months trying to get guns, rifles, and munitions, and even now we have not got up to the point necessary to enable us to make our Army really effective. Germany, so far, has set the pace; she has done it for eleven months, and is still doing it, and I sometimes wonder whether we shall ever get out of the muddle-headed system which now obtains, and whether we shall ever succeed in organising ourselves in a businesslike way. I am confident it will not be done under this Clause. I do not say that because I do not sympathise with those who are handling the Clause, or because I do not believe that they want to do the thing properly. But I do suggest it is impossible for them to realise the immensity of the problem they are undertaking, and because I believe they will make a mess of it, I say the sooner it i3 put right the better it will be in the interests of those who are laying down their lives on the field of battle.
    Mr. BIGLAND: After listening to the speeches made by the supporters of the Amendment I was inclined to think that on the face of it they had made out a very good case indeed. But still I hold we shall make a great mistake if we leave out these three lines. I appeal to the Proposer and the Seconder to accept the statements made from the Front Bench of the aspirations of those who framed the Bill. I have studied this measure. I have done considerable work in my own Constituency of

    917
    the nature of that which this Bill is going to give greater authority to do. Let one picture to oneself the position we shall be in when we run these local committees, which, in this respect, are to have the same rights as the statutory Committee. In the instructions given to the local committees we use exactly the same words as those which apply to the statutory Committee. They are to look after the disabled soldiers and sailors; they are to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment.
    Let us imagine what we may do if we are on these committees locally. A case comes before us in which a certain allowance is made, in addition to the pension, while the man is training for some better employment. When he has got the employment through the agency of the local committee, those who have given the extra money will withdraw that temporary allowance. But if you set up another committee to find the man employment, the committee which is giving him an allowance in the hope that he will better himself in the technical schools, will not know when he has secured the employment, and we are going to get into a worse state of confusion than ever.
    I appeal to the House to realise that the Government has made the very best effort possible to grasp this situation. It was absolutely impossible to put into this Bill the long Report of the Committee to which reference has been frequently made. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham has clearly explained to the House that one of the first acts of these local committees will be to appoint separate committees to undertake separate work. I can imagine no town council in the country appointing on this committee men who are not employers of labour or interested in the trade unions in the town. If they are not men of light and leading in the town they will not be appointed by the town council. We look to our local authorities to put the right men on this work, and I do not suppose, if all the town councils in the country were to, appoint two committees, those committees would do any better than one committee. The men who are going to undertake this work are the very men who will be wanted with regard to finding employment. Take the case of any constituency. The town council are certain to put on the committee not only members of the council,
    918
    but the best men in the town for this great service. I take it that this is going to be one of the most onerous works that ever a man has undertaken. I hope to be on the local committee in my own town, and I hope that all Members of Parliament will take the deepest interest in this work. I believe if we pass this Bill to-night we shall get the very best men in the country that can be got to carry out this great work. I trust that these words will not be deleted.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham has told us that it is absolutely impossible before the Adjournment of the House to get another Bill passed through Parliament. Personally, I am looking to begin work in my own Constituency at once, with a view to forming the new committee. The very moment the Bill has passed we shall ask the town council to set up the committee, and immediately we have authority to do so we shall get to work. If this Clause is deleted the work many of us are arranging for will be absolutely upset, and I hope therefore the Bill will be allowed to go forward.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): May I appeal to hon. Gentlemen to allow us to get this Clause? I really think there is a simple misunderstanding. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Price) was a member of a Committee which issued a very valuable Report on this subject. Before that Report was issued the Select Committee on Pensions also issued a Report in which it outlined the formation of a statutory Committee to deal with pensions and allowances. The Committee of my hon. Friend, having the Report of the Select Committee before it, inserted in their Report two paragraphs with which I will trouble the House:—
    "We observe, moreover, that the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants) has recommended the appointment of a statutory Committee to deal with the pensions, separation allowances, and supplementary grants payable to sailors and soldiers and their dependants.
    We therefore venture to suggest that some advantage might result from the constitution of one body, charged with all the functions to which we have alluded. In this way a more elaborate local organisation than we have recommended for the purposes of this Report might be justified."
    Mr. PRICE: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say that when I spoke I read those paragraphs? My point was that, if you take that part out of the Report—
    Mr. McKENNA: I know my hon. Friend's case; he did not allow me to

    919
    finish what I was about to say. When this Report was issued the chairman of the Committee called my attention to these particular paragraphs. We consulted together, and I agreed to bring in a Bill which would embody the purposes of his Committee as well as the purposes of the Select Committee. We accordingly made an abstract of all the purposes recommended by the Committee on which my hon. Friend sat, and those purposes are summarised in the three lines which my hon. Friend read to the House. The Bill was brought in as an omnibus Bill, and it covered the purposes of the recommendations of both Committees. Now we come to the question of finance. The Select Committee of which my hon. Friend was a member recommended that the cost of the care of the wounded and disabled soldiers should be thrown upon public funds. We introduced a Bill in which primarily we looked for support from voluntary funds, but, in so far as they are insufficient, we are prepared to supplement them out of public funds.
    Mr. PRICE: That is not in the Bill.
    Mr. McKENNA: How could a statement of intention be put into the Bill? It is never done. We do not, in the first instance, propose any amount from public funds towards the expenditure under this Bill, for the simple reason that the scale of expenditure must depend on the amount of voluntary subscriptions. You may rightly spend far more money on what may be termed the work of charity if the funds which are expended are partly obtained from voluntary subscriptions than if they are obtained only from taxation. We are far more generous, and rightly so, in what may be termed the expenditure of private contributions than in the expenditure of public moneys. It is a generally recognised principle that the State will assist private contributions where the State is not prepared to undertake an expenditure upon the high scale which is justified when private contributions are used to assist State moneys. If we start with a State contribution, the scale of expenditure will inevitably be based upon the amount of the State contribution, and no private subscriptions will be obtained. We look upon that as an axiom in regard to the expenditure in the management of a Committee of this kind. The moment you start with public funds you naturally dry up all sources of private subscriptions,
    920
    because persons will say, the Government has undertaken the duty and there is no call for us to subscribe. If, on the other hand, we do our duty and come forward and subscribe generously, that will all mature to the benefit of the wounded soldiers and sailors. We do not disregard our statutory duties, but we think our statutory duties ought to be supplemented by private subscriptions, therefore we have introduced the Bill in this form.
    My hon. Friend (Mr. C. Duncan) speaking from below the Gangway, stated that in everything Germany is setting the pace. I would ask, is Germany setting the pace in allowances, in pensions or in grants to a single wounded soldier? Really, I think I am entitled to complain, and the House is entitled to complain of this eulogy of Germany at the expense of this country. We are setting the pace. We have done for our soldiers and sailors what no other nation in the world has done. It is a farce to talk of the proceedings in this Bill and of the efforts the State is making as
    "small tin-pot efforts"
    and to hold up Germany to us as an example. No! we have acted fairly and upon sound and reasonable grounds in introducing the Bill in this form. The State does not intend to depart by one iota from its responsibilities. Those who are really anxious for the benefit of the wounded soldiers and sailors had far best come with us into the principle of obtaining as much by voluntary subscription as we can for the benefit of the wounded soldiers and sailors, and we upon our side can assure them that the State will find all the necessary moneys to carry out the full purposes of the Bill.
    Mr. HODGE: With my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. C. Price) I was a member of this Committee, and I must confess that I have been very much disappointed with the Bill which has been introduced. We usually find that the Government's intentions, so far as the Treasury are concerned, never come up to expectation. One of the things which the members of the Committee were up against from the beginning was an evident desire oh the part of some members of the Committee to raid the Prince of Wales' Fund. The Prince of Wales' Fund was never intended for such a purpose. That the care of the wounded should be left to philanthropic institutions was very largely in the minds of certain members of that Committee, whereas some others were

    921
    determined that, for the first time in the history of this country, there should be a determined effort made to put this duty solely upon the State and not upon charity. In the very forefront of the Report of that Committee it was stated that the primary duty of looking after those who have been broken as a result of their allegiance to their King and country should be with the country, and that the country should discharge its obligations towards them. I do not believe that the country, as a whole, will respond with charitable contributions for a purpose and a duty that is the duty of the State alone.
    It is not only a question of the pensions. There is a duty devolving upon the State with regard to the men who come back from the front with their nerves shattered as a result of the ordeals through which they have gone. These men ought not to be left to charity and the charitable. It is the duty of the State to do everything that is humanly possible to bring them back to their former condition, and should there be a recurrence of their attacks, again and again the State should do its duty by them and not leave them helpless, thrown upon their friends, or to be the care of any charitable institution. We have been shocked to see veterans of the Crimean war with their medals on their breasts begging either at the works gates, at the gates of a football match, or elsewhere. Do not let us have these things as a result of the present War. It will be so if this matter is to be left to the donations of the charitable, or to the raiding of the Prince of Wales' Fund, instead of being taken up by the nation as a national duty. I hope that the Government will even yet show more than intention. If my memory serves me right, in a certain Bill relating to Scotland, they inserted words saying that they were going to give a certain donation. Let the Government start right off by declaring how much money they are going to give to us, so that this institution get a fair start. Instead of my hon. Friend (Mr. Price) or the Committee who dealt with this matter being criticised for having suggested that one committee should deal with the question of pensions as well as the matters dealt with by them, surely they should be lauded for it. It is less expensive and less cumbrous to have one committee than a duplication of committees. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is the Bill!"] Yes; but my main point is, that you should discharge your duty to the men who have
    922
    done everything for their country, instead of leaving it to the donations of the charitable.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out to hon. Members that the Debate has gone far beyond the point at issue. The point at issue is whether the statutory Committee is to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men, including provision for their training and employment. That is the only point. There is no question before the House as to how the funds are to be supplied for those purposes.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I was just going to emphasise the very point which you, Sir, have been good enough to put to the House. I notice a very important distinction. While I have listened to my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Price), and practically entirely agree with all he has said, what he has said, to my mind so far as I understand the Bill, emphasises the necessity of voting for the retention of this paragraph. Clause 3 sets up the functions of the statutory Committee. The functions impose a duty. It is not something they may do, but something they must do. I notice a very serious distinction, which carries very strong significance, between that and the words in paragraphs (c) and (d). Under those paragraphs their duties are
    "out of funds at their disposal,"
    and so on. The uttermost limits of what they can do are absolutely described in those paragraphs. In the paragraph immediately before us no such words of limitation appear. The paragraph provides that they are
    "to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment."
    That casts upon them a statutory duty. They have to fulfil their duty. If they cannot fulfil their duty it is their absolute statutory duty to come back to this House to ask for the requisite funds to carry it out. The responsibility being thrown upon them, it seems a vital thing at this stage and under these conditions not to lose the chance of making it a statutory obligation upon them to make provision for these men.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: It would be very regrettable if the impression created by the speech of the hon. Member for the Gorton Division (Mr. Hodge) with

    923
    regard to disabled men were to go forward without somebody pointing out that there is no question of these men having to beg at street corners. Every one of these men, if he is totally disabled, will receive 25s. a week, and there is also to be an allowance for the children. What is proposed by this paragraph is that in addition to that the statutory Committee should have the duty of making some provision for the health, training, and employment of these disabled men over and above the 25s. per week and the half-crowns for their children.
    Question, "That paragraph (i) stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Pratt) [in Sub-section (1), paragraph (i), after the word "provision," to insert the words "out of moneys to be provided by Parliament"], is out of order.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert a new paragraph,
    "(j) to make grants in special cases for the purpose of enabling widows, children, and other dependants of deceased officers and men to obtain employment."
    My right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) in Committee put down an Amendment providing that the statutory body should have power to make provision for the training and employment of widows, children, and dependants of deceased officers and men. I was obliged to resist that Amendment. I thought it was too great a duty, which entailed too great an expense, to cast upon the statutory body. If those words were inserted, the statutory body would be compelled to make provision for the employment of all the children of all the deceased officers and men, and there is no limit as to time. They would have to make provision for tens of thousands of children of deceased officers and men, and that would be extending the financial obligations of this statutory Committee for fifty or sixty years, or even longer. That is far too great a duty and far too expensive an obligation to cast upon the statutory body. While I objected to that I have been thinking about the matter, and I think I may safely propose the words I now suggest. I am willing to meet my right hon. friend so far. The
    924
    words would mean that special grants might be made for special forms of education and special forms of training—for instance, to enable the widow to be trained to become a midwife or a child to be trained to go on the stage if she has a very good voice and could make use of that voice in some professional vocation. Provision could also be made for apprenticeship and outfits, and grants could be made for migration and emigration. I can speak from personal experience in connection with the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, which spends a large part of its money very profitably in giving some special form of education or training, or providing outfit or for apprenticeship, which fits either a widow or a child or a dependant for some occupation in which the person can earn very often a very good living. That is a power which might well be granted to this Committee.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, after the word "obtain," to insert the words "training and."
    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for meeting me to this extent, but I must say I think he has not gone far enough. I put down this Amendment in order to meet the demand of a committee outside which has been watching over this matter very carefully, especially from the point of view of women, who desire very much indeed that there should be powers in the hands of this statutory Committee for training young widows. My right hon. Friend has just practically accepted that position, because he says he is willing that they should take such steps as are necessary for training, so as to obtain employment, but he has cut out the word "training," and I cannot help thinking it would be far better to include the word "training," and I should like to move to insert the words "training and employment." If really is an important part of it in order to qualify these young widows, and some children perhaps, to obtain any particular kind of employment. If he omits the word "training" it will not carry out what both he and I desire.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I will accept those words. I intended in my observations and in the Amendment to cover them.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
    Proposed words, as amended, inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. KING: I beg to move, to leave out the words "relating to funds, accounts and audit."
    A good deal is to be said for this from the point of view of drafting and clearness, especially when one looks at it in connection with the Act of 1903. It is not clear from the wording of this phrase which I propose to omit whether it refers to the paragraph or to the Schedule, and if you look at the Act itself these words are only to be found in certain paragraphs in the Schedule. I believe nothing will be lost and a good deal of clearness will be gained by omitting the words.
    Amendment not seconded.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "included in the annual report made by the Corporation to His Majesty," and to insert instead thereof the words "presented to Parliament."
    There is an important distinction between my proposition and that contained in the Bill. If the proposal of the Bill be carried, this very important statutory Committee will publish a Report of its proceedings subsidiary to the report of a much smaller body, and this will be presented to His Majesty. But the work of this statutory Committee will overshadow entirely the work of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, and now that this statutory Committee is to concern itself with training and employment its functions are so important that its Report will be of a most important and far-reaching character. I suggest that it had better come as an independent document for the consideration of this House, apart altogether from any association with the minor matter, comparatively speaking, and that we should be allowed to have this by itself, apart from the Corporation, and be allowed to discuss it on its presentation to Parliament.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I beg to second the Amendment, and I think there is substance in it. It is much better that the Report of the statutory Committee should be presented to Parliament in place of being embodied in the Report of the Corporation to His Majesty. Parliament should have some control over this Committee and should consider its Report. If the Report will come to Parliament it is all right, but I think it should come to Parliament quite apart from the Report of the Corporation.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I imagine that the real object of this Amendment, after all, is to secure an opportunity to this House to discuss the Report fully. That is what we are all aiming at. The House will not get any nearer that object by having two reports, one from the old Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation and the other from the new statutory body. The Report of the old Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation is already presented to His Majesty, and as a Command Paper is presented to this House and circulated to every Member. I do not see any advantage in accepting the Amendment. What hon. Members who are really interested in what the Report is going to contain have to do is to see that the Prime Minister of the day gives a full opportunity to the House to discuss the contents of the Report. That can either be done on the salary of the vice-chairman, or by asking for a day to discuss the Report, or possibly in some other way. This Amendment does not bring us one moment nearer that time when we shall have an opportunity of discussing the Report. I should accept it if it did. At any rate, I see no good reason for making the change asked for in this Amendment, but at the same time I am in hearty sympathy and will use any influence I have to secure a proper and adequate time for a full discussion on the Report of the statutory body.
    Mr. PRINGLE: My recollection was that on the occasion of this question being raised on the Committee stage, my right hon. Friend gave an undertaking that the Report would be issued at a time when it could be discussed in Parliament on the Vote for the chairman's salary. The hon. Member's object will thus be secured.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, at end of Clause, to add,
    "(5) Pending the appointment of a local committee or sub-committee for any area, the statutory Committee may make arrangements with any organisation for the performance within that area by the organisation of the functions of the local committee mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), of Section 4 of this Act."
    We are half-way through July, and the probability is that this statutory body will come into being some time in August, that it will be found exceedingly difficult to appoint local committees in that month, and that to get them properly appointed

    927
    we shall have to wait until September. Meanwhile, it is most important that there should be no dropping of the work at present being carried on, and well carried on as a rule, by the 900 branches of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, and the various local relief committees, and that it should be carried on until the new local bodies get set on foot. Therefore I propose these words to empower the statutory body to employ all existing organisations to carry on the work pending the appointment of the various local committees, which I trust will be done without delay, and which I cannot help thinking would be better done probably in September than in August if we are to get the right people.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I just wish to make a suggestion. Some of us think this temporary arrangement should be for a limited period. There is an absolute obligation on the part of the statutory Committee to see that a local committee shall be established for every county and every county borough. Some of us think that if this new Amendment is put into the Bill some of the local authorities in all probability will be lax in bringing their scheme into operation. If the right hon. Gentleman will agree, after the word "arrangement," to add the words, "for a period of six months," that will meet us.
    Sir R. ADKINS: County councils meet mainly in October and in January. One can imagine that after conference arising from the October meetings it might need to be discussed at their January meetings. At the same time I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will see that the fixing of a date which is not an unreasonably early one would indicate to the public that it is a purely temporary matter. Could he not say six or even nine months?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I hope the hon. Members will not insert either six or nine months. I expect all these local committees to be appointed long before six months, and if you put six months into the Bill it will be an excuse for some of them to delay their procedure. The words "pending the appointment of a local committee" are quite safe.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to suggest to either of the Government Departments that they should, as in the case of the Education Act, 1902, send a circular to all the local authorities, pointing out
    928
    their duties in this respect. I think that is a very important factor, because under the Act of 1902 there was a similar scheme to be drafted by each authority, and the Local Government Board and the Board of Education sent out a circular to each county council and each borough council explaining their powers under the Act. In this case I think it would facilitate very much the appointment of these committees if a similar circular was issued.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. King) is out of Order, because it might increase the Grants.
    Mr. HOGGE: On that point of Order. Is it not the fact that illegitimate children are included in the Grant, and would that, therefore, increase the charge, as both the Admiralty and the War Office make this payment in the case of these classes?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Then the Amendment is unnecessary.
    Sir C. NICHOLSON: I beg to move a new Sub-section,
    "(5) For the purpose of enabling the statutory Committee to discharge their functions the Admiralty and the War Office shall, on request, supply the statutory Committee with such particulars as they may require with regard to any payment made by them to any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant, and the statutory Committee shall duly communicate all such similar information to any charitable body intimately interested in the case of any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant."
    8.0 P.M.
    I do not need to add much to what I said earlier in the proceedings on this subject. It is important that this statutory Committee should be the central clearing house for any information in dealing with these cases. I understand that the Admiralty and the War Office have expressed their willingness to give this information to the statutory Committee, and it is necessary that the statutory Committee should have a similar obligation put upon their shoulders of communicating information as to what they are doing to any charitable body who may apply for it for the purpose of dealing with any particular case.
    Mr. HOHLER: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir R. ADKINS: Can the Government include in this or in any other way, dealing with a point raised in Committee, provision enabling the statutory Committee to become aware of what the private trusts are doing in regard to these beneficiaries, because, when they are settling the amount of any grant or deciding to spend supplementary money, it is of the highest importance that they should know what these people are receiving from charitable trusts which are applicable to their cases, otherwise you may have in any town or neighbourhood in the country some persons getting far more in respect of their position as dependants of soldiers and sailors than others, and getting it because they are receiving from private trusts funds which are unknown to the members of the statutory Committee or the local committee?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I could not accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Sir R. Adkins) when he moved it on the Committee stage because it made it mandatory, not only on the part of the Government offices but on the part of those who were trustees for public and private funds, to give this information. Now he is trying again to get that into the Amendment. That is quite impossible. It would be impossible to make it mandatory on the trustees of private funds to give that information. We hope that they would give the information, because there is a class of person going about who tries to get everything from everybody without disclosing anything to anybody. That is what we want to stop if we can. It seems to me to be quite reasonable for my hon. Friend (Sir C. Nicholson) who moved this Amendment to ask that the War Office and the Admiralty should both give all the information which is available to them in connection with applications for supplementary pensions. I think they would have done that even if the words had not been put in the Bill. I have no objection to accept these words limiting it in the way in which they have been limited in the Amendment in its present form as now moved on the Report stage. I would communicate with my right hon. Friend at the War Office and with my light hon. Friend who represents the Admiralty, and who is now present (Dr. Macnamara), and see if they have any objection to the form of words used in the Amendment. I do not think they will have any objection. I need hardly say that the second part of the Amendment
    930
    also is acceptable, namely, that the statutory body should on all occasions give to any bonâ-fide person who is seeking information for a bonâfide purpose all useful knowledge as to anything the statutory body have done or is ready to do in the case of a particular application, so that they may be able to discover fraud and prevent overlapping.
    Proposed words inserted in the Bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words "and to furnish applicants for pensions or grants or separation allowances with information and advice."
    This is a matter which the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) put very well in Committee. We could not meet him altogether, but I think that these words put into the Bill will enable much to be done in the direction he desires. The words provide that the local bodies shall furnish applicants for pensions or

    931
    grants or separation allowances with information and advice, and generally shall assist them in obtaining such pensions, grants and allowances as they are entitled to.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like, if the right hon. Gentleman will agree, to omit the word "separation," so that it would read "grants or allowances." That would include motherless children. It is very important in regard to motherless children without anyone to look after them that the person who is interested should make the application.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I will agree to the Amendment in that form.
    Words, "and to furnish applicants for pensions or grants or allowances with information and advice," inserted in the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I beg to move, after the words inserted in the proposed Amendment, to add the words "especially in the event of payments being unduly delayed." The War Office and the Admiralty have both agreed to this Amendment. There is a strong feeling that these words should be added.
    Mr. G. THORNE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I should be glad to accept it.
    Words, "and to furnish applicants for pensions or grants or allowances with information and advice, especially in the event of payments being unduly delayed," inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I beg to move to add to the Clause a new paragraph:
    "(g) A local committee, if it appoints any officer, shall consider in each case whether the nature of the duties to be performed make it desirable that such officer shall be a woman."
    In moving this additional paragraph, I hope that it will not be out of order for me to say that I am not suggesting it out of my own mind, but that it has been suggested to me by one of the most important bodies of organised women in this country. It is the object of my proposal that when appointing an officer the committee shall consider whether it is not more suitable to appoint a woman. It does not bind the committee to appoint a woman, but it does
    932
    bind the committee to consider that question. The reason for my Amendment is that these officers will in the main have to make inquiries in regard to women and children. The women of this country quite recognise that it would not always be possible, or perhaps always advisable, to appoint a woman to make these inquiries, but they do think it is very desirable that it should be incumbent upon the local committee to consider in each case whether a woman or a man would be the more suitable. Women are recognised in this Bill to a very considerable extent, and I am sure that the women of this country are not ungrateful for that recognition. But it is not enough to have women on the statutory Committee or on the local committee, perhaps only a very few in each case. It is certainly a very important thing that where suitable women are available and where the duties are to inquire with regard to women and children, almost exclusively, a woman should, if possible, be appointed. I think that if this new paragraph is put in it would not tie the hands of the local committee, but it would ensure that when on the local committee it was suggested that a woman should be appointed it would not be passed over as it might otherwise be by people saying, "We have not heard of this sort of thing, and we think a man is more suitable for this kind of work." It will ensure a real consideration of the matter if it appears on the face of the Act of Parliament that it is the duty of the local committee to consider the question of the appointment of a woman in each case.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: We cannot really give directions to the committees to consider whether it is better to appoint a man or a woman. There will be women on every such committee, and though there may not be many I believe their voices will be heard and will compel attention, and that when it is desirable to appoint a woman, a woman will be appointed.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I am as anxious as anyone can be that the interests of women should be safeguarded, but I think it would be perfectly useless to do it in the form of this particular Amendment. I think it would not be at all suitable to merely say that the committee "shall consider." Of course, the committee will be perfectly free to consider, and we think they will

    933
    consider the circumstances of each case, and that where a woman is the best person to be appointed I am sure that will be done without these words being inserted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next (19th July).

  FINANCE (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Third Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I rise to move, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to insert instead thereof the words, "recommitted to a Committee of the whole House."
  I propose this Amendment on various grounds, the chief reason being to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of considering whether or not on the recommittal stage he cannot introduce a Clause to deal with Sub-section (2) of the Act of 1912. The House will remember that when we were in Committee it was not possible to deal with this Clause because the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that we should not deal with it at that time, as he was in the hope of some arrangement being made between those Members who wanted the repeal of the Clause and those Members who wanted the Clause or some sort of Clause retained. I do not think there was anybody who wanted the Clause retained in the form in which it stood. There was a general opinion that there should be some alteration, and it was for that reason that the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked us not to move our new Clause to repeal the existing one, but to consider whether something could not be done to meet the case. Since that meetings have been held, and it has been impossible to come to any agreement. Therefore the best thing to do now is to recommit the Bill and consider whether or not the Government can take the matter in hand and deal with it.
  The question is urgent, and for this reason. Very large sums of money are being spent on litigation. That money is certain to be wasted, because sooner or later the Clause will be either repealed or amended. I have no desire to do anything to prevent my hon. and learned Friends
  934
  from earning a legitimate living, but I am sure that they would be the last people to desire persons to go to law when it is known that the question about which they go to law is certain to be amended in this House. The right hon. Gentleman may say that he cannot agree to re-committal because he wants to get the Bill, but I would like him to give us some assurance that he will take action soon. I know that this Session is to be finished very shortly, but I understand that this year at any rate the right hon. Gentleman is going to introduce another Finance Bill. His predecessor has stated that this matter must be dealt with, and that if an agreement could not be arrived at the Clause would be repealed. I think the right hon. Gentleman recognises the injustice of this Clause, and if he will give us an assurance to deal with this matter—I do not mean a vague assurance, but an undertaking to deal with this matter seriously—very soon, my hon. Friends who are here to support me will probably not press the matter. [Laughter.] I do not know why that statement causes mirth, because there is a considerable number of hon. Members in this House who share the view to which I have given expression.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I beg to second the motion of the hon. Baronet. Of course I cannot go into the merits of this question, but I can press upon the Chancellor of the Fxchequer that there is a duty upon him to follow the promise, for it was a promise, of his predecessor, to repeal this provision, if the hon. Baronet who introduced the Section into the 1912 Act did not produce an Amendment which would meet the views of my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has gone really into this question, but I understand that he is going to abide by his predecessor's views upon it. I take the following quotation from the OFFICIAL REPORT of a speech by the late Chancellor upon the 29th July, 1913. The discussion began by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs saying this:—
  "The last point to which I wish to refer is with regard to Section 2 of the Act of last year. I regret very much that I am responsible for putting that Section into the Act of last year."
  Then the Chancellor goes on later on to animadvert upon it in the following terms:—
  "I did say that it was the intention of the Government to bring in some amending provision in regard to licences, and I had this in my mind. The Clause was introduced on the initiation of the hon. Baronet last year, and I think he will admit it has not been a

  935
  success…. It has inflicted injustice that is perfectly indefensible. I really have had two or three cases brought to my knowledge where the facts were very striking. It was a question as to amendment, or whether we should not get rid of it altogether."
  Efforts have been made to frame an Amendment. The hon. Baronet has been invited time and again to frame an Amendment, but has never been able to do so. Then later on the Chancellor goes on to say:—
  "Here is a Clause which the whole House considered to be a perfectly fair one, and which the Government accepted and incorporated in an Act of Parliament. It has produced the grossest inequity."
  He goes on further to say that the wishes of the Government and the House were perfectly clear, but when the matter got into the Courts they gave a totally different interpretation, and then he says, failing a way out of the difficulty, that it must be eliminated out of the Act of Parliament altogether. Here is a distinct promise in the first instance in 1913. I suppose that, as the War broke out last year, the then Chancellor could not overhaul this matter by—
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I remind my hon. Friend that the reason was that there was no Revenue Bill. It had been intended to put a Clause in the Revenue Bill.
  Mr. HENDERSON: That is very likely. Here it is on record that the Clause is condemned root and branch by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who says that if he cannot get some Amendment to meet this case, then he must eliminate the Clause altogether. I have not the slightest doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman had been Chancellor of the Exchequer now he would, as he always did as far as I can remember, have carried out the pledge which he gave. We are in this unfortunate position, that a private Member cannot introduce a Bill to repeal a Finance Bill or any portion of it. It must be originated in Committee of Ways and Means, and unless my right hon. Friend can give us an assurance that he will deal with this question, we are helpless, and a very gross injustice will go on. I cannot go into the question, but I can assure him, and no one knows it better than the ex-Chancellor, that there is a gross inequity and iniquity going on in the case of people who are being mulcted in sums which were never anticipated, and which Parliament never would have sanctioned. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some assurance that he will follow in the footsteps of the late Chancellor, and carry out
  936
  the pledge which the right hon. Gentleman gave to take steps to put this matter right.
  Mr. McKENNA: I entirely sympathise with my two hon. Friends who have made this Amendment. I agree with them that the operation of Section 2 of the Act, 1912, is most unjust, and I also agree with them that on the first available opportunity a remedy should be found. I do not think, however, that they have quite stated the whole of the difficulty in the way of finding a remedy. When the Amendment was introduced in 1912, how, why, or in what way I do not know—I have no recollection of the circumstances—
  Mr. HENDERSON: It was past one o'clock in the morning.
  Mr. McKENNA: It was introduced without a Resolution. No one thought of a Resolution; the matter was not called to the attention of the authorities, and no one thought a Resolution was necessary, and it was passed in that way per in-curiam. When we came to consider the Clause we found that it could neither be amended nor repealed without a Resolution.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know whether it is possible, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to appeal to you, but perhaps you will remember that I had a conversation with you upon this subject, and there was considerable doubt, I believe, in your mind as to whether a Resolution was necessary, provided the repeal was proposed by the Government. It must be brought in by the Government, but it does not follow that you must have a Resolution.
  Mr. McKENNA: It was held that either a repeal or Amendment of any sort or kind establishing a burden of charge from one subject to another could, therefore, only be effected by a Clause founded upon a Resolution. That was the condition in which we found ourselves, and to deal with the subject now would mean a fresh Resolution', so I understand and so I believe, and a reconsideration of the whole subject. An effort should be made, and it has been made, to find a way out between my hon. Friends opposite and behind me and the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs. No modus rirendi has been discovered, and therefore I most reluctantly have to take on myself to find a settlement of this question. I propose at

  937
  the first available opportunity to introduce a Clause dealing with the matter. The principle upon which I would have to proceed would be that no charge shall be thrown back upon any previous earlier interest except in so far as such earlier interest benefits by the licence. I do not pretend now to give details of the proposed settlement to the House, but it will be upon that basis that any person upon whom part of the charge of the new licence duty is thrown back shall be, must be, a person—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The right hon. Gentleman is now entering upon the merits of the proposed settlement, but at present we are only concerned with the technical point whether the Bill shall be recommitted.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am much obliged to you, Sir—rather relieved, in fact, from the necessity of stating now what will be the principle on which I think we ought to act. It is sufficient for me to say that I can give the assurance to my hon. Friend that on the earliest occasion possible I will do my utmost to find a settlement of this question.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I am very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he will at the very earliest possible moment introduce a Clause dealing with a great industry which, it is now agreed on both sides, is affected by this Section 2. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman committed a breach of order in telling us, in some measure, what he proposes to do, but I hope that we may cast aside what he has stated, and that he will not feel himself bound by it. As I understand him, he is prepared to consider the difficulties which are occasioned by this Clause. I do not understand him to say that he has fully considered them in all their depth and in all their bearings, and I think it unfortunate therefore, if by merely being out of order, and his not being able to proceed further, he should be regarded as being committed to a particular course, before he has had a full opportunity of considering the question in all its aspects. It should be remembered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the past few weeks has been engaged in financial transactions which are very important indeed, and which have happily been very successful, and it is impossible to suppose that he has had an opportunity of giving consideration to what is a technical difficulty and a tangle of Statutes, which in-
  938
  volve very careful consideration before we can form, an actual judgment upon the matter.
  For my own part I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even after this, will consider the matter de novo, and will give full representation to the various views that may be presented to him in reference to the Clause. There is one other point which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider and perhaps give us an assurance upon to-night. We are really all agreed on the injustice that is being done, and day after day claims may be made which cannot be resisted, because to do so would be costly. In any Clause which the right hon. Gentleman introduced for the purpose of the modification, alteration, or repeal of this Section, I hope he will, having regard to the inequity of the Section, deal with what has taken place from the time before the intervening period right up to the time of when the alteration of the law is made. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman may find time at the very earliest possible moment to consider this matter in all its bearings. I think we may leave the further pressing of the hon. Baronet's Motion, but I only hope that the observations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made may not be held to bind him as to the particular scheme he will adopt.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to deal with the matter in his Finance Bill in the autumn?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will take the earliest opportunity which I may have.
  Mr. HENDERSON: The Bill in the autumn would be a good opportunity.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any hope that he will be able to deal with it soon?
  Mr. McKENNA: I will take the earliest opportunity.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Under these circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Sir JOSEPH WALTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the splendid response made to his new War Loan. There has been contributed £585,000,000, from over a million subscribers, which is indeed an

  939
  impressive demonstration of the practical patriotism of the whole nation. I hope that a further large amount will be subscribed through the Post Office before the 1st December. I venture to suggest to my right hon. Friend that this would be largely promoted were the instructions that are to be found in every Post Office made simpler and clearer. There is one hindrance to small investors piling up their savings, and that is the Clause in the printed matter which says that if the small investor finds it necessary afterwards to realise his small investment that he shall only receive through the National Debt Commissioners the market price of the day, less a commission. That leaves the small investor absolutely in doubt as to how he is going to stand if in a short time he requires the five or ten pounds he has invested. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to definitely state the price that was to be paid by the National Debt Commissioners to small investors, say, up to a maximum of £50, that would greatly stimulate interest in the matter on the part of numbers of small investors. On the 30th June last I asked the Chancellor whether he would endeavour to provide a scheme of war taxation which would, as far as possible, impose equality of sacrifice on all the taxpayers of the country. He replied, that is a very valuable principle of taxation which should always be borne in mind. I think I shall be able to show that that principle was not sufficiently borne in mind in arranging the taxation dealt with in this Finance Bill. Not only was it not borne in mind, but this Finance Bill, in my judgment, largely violates the principle of equal incidence of taxation to which his predecessor declared himself to be profoundly attached, and to which I am sure he himself is equally attached. I have no objection to paying 2s. 6d. Income Tax, and indeed I look forward in the not remote future to paying an increased amount, and in present circumstances I fear that is inevitable.
  All that I object to in the present Bill is that the assessments are not made on an equitable basis. The making of assessments on a three or four years' average in normal times worked out not too unfairly, but we are not in normal times, we are in absolutely abnormal times, and to proceed on the same lines to-day operates with great unfairness on some of the taxpayers of the country. Let me give an example
  940
  and let me take the coal trade. The collieries in Northumberland and Durham had largely taken on pre-war contracts at low prices, and the completion of those has been spread over a far longer period than was anticipated by reason of the patriotism of the coal miners, 230,000 of them having joined the Colours. The output of the collieries has thereby been enormously reduced, and that has caused the prolongation of the low-priced contracts many of which are running at prices much below the cost. The result of all that, and of the commandeering of the ships which carry the coal by the Government, and of the heavy war bonus which through State intervention we gave, and rightly gave, to the coal miners to cover the extra cost of living, all that has tended to place the collieries of all those districts at a great disadvantage, with the result that since the War began many of them have lost money instead of making profit. As an example on the other side, in the case of the steam coal collieries of South Wales most of them have reaped, I have no doubt, a rich harvest since the War began. They have to pay double Income Tax, which is no burden whatever for them on the immense profits, but the extra tax of 1s. 3d. is also levied upon the coal-owners of Northumberland and Durham, and on the five years' average they have to pay that additional taxation, not out of profits but out of capital.
  There is much to be said even for taxation of capital under certain urgent conditions, and if it were applied all round equally objection to it would be largely diminished. But to have at the present time one set of coal-owners paying Income Tax out of large profits and another set of coal-owners paying it out of capital is not equal incidence of taxation. The woollen trade, the Army clothing trade, leather and boots, are enjoying a war boom. The same is true of armaments, shipbuilding, engineering, munition factories and the shipping trade. On the other hand, the cotton trade of Lancashire, except the tent canvas department, has been having a bad time. I say that this large increase in the Income Tax could not be foreseen. It is something entirely unexpected, and therefore the best managed concerns could not have made provision for it beforehand. Therefore I submit that the only fair and equitable way to levy this War taxation is to drop the average of years system and to levy on the profit of the preceding year. I

  941
  know we have the right to reclaim a certain amount if the estimated profits for the year are lower than the average profits of the years upon which the assessment has been based. That is a very small redress indeed. In the interests of sound finance I am strongly of opinion that it is necessary to impose additional taxation. So far it is estimated that we shall get from new taxation in this financial year £68,000,000 sterling towards the enormous expenditure on the War, which is estimated to be 1,293 millions. I submit that that is quite an insufficient contribution from taxation towards this enormous and unprecedented expenditure. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, that be should exercise his influence to prevent State intervention and interference with the trade and commerce of the country, and that he should boldly declare that no taxpayer ought to be allowed to enjoy additional income owing to the War.
  No system of taxation will prove entirely equitable, but I suggest that some approach to equality of sacrifice would be secured if my right hon. Friend imposed an excess Income Tax on every taxpayer during the War—that is, on excess incomes as compared with average of the two years preceding the War, which is the basis taken in the Munitions Act for controlled undertakings, with an allowance of one-fifth for increased cost of living— and, under some equitable arrangement, a war tax on the wage-earning classes who earn more than a living wage. In addition to taking the excess profits of every trade undertaking in the country, and paying them into the National Exchequer, we ought to consider the practicability and the desirability of imposing some graduated and equitable scheme of taxation on the whole national income, at any rate above what may be regarded as a living wage. I am aware that I shall not draw from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night any statement of the additional taxation that he will impose in his next Finance Bill, but I have ventured, very humbly as a private Member, to submit to him these suggestions, believing that he has an open mind, and that he desires to levy equitably the enormous taxation to which in present circumstances the country must submit, and to which everyone is patriotically willing to submit if it is levied on an equitable basis. I hope he will be encouraged to tackle what must prove to be
  942
  a most difficult and intricate problem. If he can only solve that problem at all in the same fashion as, by his comprehensive, equitable, and broad-minded scheme, he has solved the question of the National War Loan, he will indeed deserve well of the country, and stand high amongst our most successful Chancellors of the Exchequer.
  Mr. GORDON HARVEY: I also desire to compliment my right hon. Friend on his assumption of an office which I venture to say is second in importance only to the office of commander of the troops in the field. My right hon. Friend has many Friends in this House who remember the brilliancy and success with which he filled the office of Financial Secretary to the Treasury a few years ago; and we who admired him then look with confidence to his holding his present position and conducting the finances of the country with prudence and wisdom. The Finance Bill to which we are about to give a final assent is not, as we all know, the work of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and for its defects and shortcomings, so far as they may exist, he is not responsible. Having said that, I hope I may say very frankly that I feel greatly disappointed with this Finance Bill. It was framed and introduced at a time when there ought to have been great boldness and promptness of action; but boldness and promptness of action are quite absent from the Bill.
  I, for one, cannot understand why there are no new taxes in the Bill. I remember what the late Chancellor of the Exchequer told us on its introduction. He said that he was hampered, because he did not know whether the War was likely to last six months or twelve. That point is just as uncertain to-day as it was then. At the time the statement was made, I entirely failed to see the force of the argument, because, at the time my right hon. Friend spoke, for the liabilities that had then been incurred no adequate provision had been made. Those liabilities were going on. Whatever the duration of the War, even if peace had been signed the day after the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke, the liabilities would not have ceased. I venture earnestly to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer rapidly to mature his plans for extra taxation, to act quickly and with determination. I, for one, stand here and ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take money, to take it quickly, and to take it in large bulk. In speeches that he has recently made, he

  943
  has given to the country most excellent advice. I hope that every Member of this House will begin a crusade throughout the country, with those speeches as the text, inducing the people to save and to be economical. My right hon. Friend urged thrift and saving. I ask him to add the spur of necessity, and to do something to compel a steady stream from the resultant economy into the National Exchequer. I think that this House and the financial controllers of the country have a duty to the nation—to endeavour to bring home to the people the enormous financial difficulties which confront us.
  We are constantly told that there is in the country an apparent lack of appreciation of the situation. Perhaps that is only natural and to be expected. The first shock of war did alarm us. But that time has gone, and there is an appearance as if the nation was settling down to the idea of war. The economic life of the people is, after all, quite easy; and the whole picture, at any rate to people who do not bring their minds to bear on the situation, is in false perspective. We are like men— many of us—living on notes of hand. We are like people who have broken open their money-boxes, and, seeing their savings all round about, are using them as income. That cannot go on. Many of us must have noticed with regret—to some extent at any rate—the very unedifying scramble going on for the money which the Government is showering so lavishly abroad. Demands for commission, expectations, and demands for high profits, and, whenever something is to be done in the national interest, compensation. Now we are inundated with demands for war bonuses—to my mind a most hateful term. I believe that this presents a wholly wrong and mischievous conception of what war time should be. I believe it is only by taxation that we shall become steady in the situation as it really exists. I again appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put on taxes; to put them on all round, and make them as direct as taxation can be devised.
  9.0 P.M.
  War time should be a time of sacrifice, a time for unpaid and unstinted labour. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has two objects, I have no doubt, in view. He has to get more revenue, and he has to try to adjust the burdens of taxation to the capacity to bear those burdens. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) when he said that something might be done—should be done—as
  944
  quickly as possible in this direction. Sometime ago I ventured to make a suggestion to the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman. I suggested that the Government should boldly appropriate the surplus incomes that are being made at the present time. I am told that would be a very hard thing to do, and that it would press very hardly upon certain individuals. All taxation does that. We must be as fair as we can, but we must not be diverted from an attempt to do what is right by the fears of those who sometimes express those fears more loudly than other people who suffer with them. I would put a tax—on the greater part at any rate—of surplus incomes, so far as they are greater during the period of the War than they were before To all right-minded people it must be repugnant to make great wealth out of the nation's misfortunes. A tax on war contracts, I know, has been suggested. It would be most ineffective. It would be impossible to arrange. You might hit the direct contractor, but you would miss a multitude of others. By putting a direct tax or charge on those who undertake profitable war contracts you would possibly escape all the sub-contractors who work on these commencing parts of an article which he has to perfect, and you would escape those who make profits by the importation of raw material. You would escape, too, the profits of the mine-owner who supplies the coal, and you would escape also—this is very important —the profits of those—and there are many of them—who are working now on foreign war contracts which do not of themselves come before the eyes of the Government. We were promised in this House two years ago a Commission of Inquiry into the whole subject of the Income Tax. I very much regret that that Commission was not set on foot. I do not think it ought to be delayed even now, because in the press of increasing taxation nobody knows how important the Income Tax may be, or how heavy the charges upon it, and the heavier those charges become the more necessary it obviously is that full justice should be done to those who pay towards these taxes upon which the State now so much relies. I believe that the Income Tax might be much more fairly assessed. I believe it would be quite fair—as the hon. Member for Barnsley said—to take the Income Tax down to a much lower scale than it is at the present time. I hope that it may be done, and that as a quid pro quo

  945
  to the poorer amongst us, then in return for their new contributions, may be relieved from indirect taxation.
  I do not know that we shall see relief from taxation in any form, but I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he cannot see his way even now in the midst of all this turmoil and hard labour to institute a Commission on Income Tax law, so that he can see and have better knowledge—and so that we can all have better knowledge—how to make more easy and facile the taxation of the incomes of small people. We have to look at the future, not only to the requirements of the day. We have to look at the day when the War will cease and peace will return, when men will settle down to their own occupations, and when commerce again begins to flow. I do not know, I cannot imagine, how the nations of Europe will emerge from the devastation that faces them to-day. But I do venture to say this, that that nation will emerge with most hope and clearest prospects which most boldly faces the expenditure while that expenditure continues to go on. I venture to say that that people in Europe will emerge the worst, will be hampered and shackled most heavily, which defers its obligations until the lean years come and poverty and distress is over us all.
  Mr. MOLTENO: I join in the request of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that the imposition of special taxation should be considered, and considered at a very early date. Before I say a few words upon that subject I would also congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the success of his great Loan. He has every reason to be congratulated on the amount which has been subscribed. When we remember the difficulties of transferring investments, in view of the want of market there has been over the whole world, and other circumstances, I think we must congratulate him most warmly upon his achievement. That very success leaves him in a very comfortable position. He has breathing time to consider what should be his next step. I do hope that he is not going to rest on his oars. I know he will appreciate that simile. I think I have seen him on the river at Cambridge when I was there. We know what it is to go easy. I am afraid he cannot but go easy. After all, our severest criticism of this Finance Bill is that it does not really grapple with the question of the contribution which taxation ought to make to the
  946
  cost of the War. I might perhaps allude to what has been done in the past. It does not come up to our record or anything like it—at least, that is my reading of it. In the Napoleonic Wars 47 per cent, of the cost was paid out of taxes and 53 per cent, was provided by loan. Coming down to the Crimean War, there taxation has a better record, because taxation and loan contributed about equally to the cost of that war. Coming to a still later period, the South African War, there again we find a substantial and considerable contribution from taxation. The amount roughly was about one-third. So far as I can make out by the present Finance Bill, we are not going to approach any of these precedents. I may be wrong, but taxation so far proposed seems just about meeting the increased interest charges, leaving out, of course, all questions of pensions and items of that kind.
  There is a very peculiar hiatus in regard to this question of taxation. The late-Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech last May, led us up to the point of expecting him to announce at once fresh taxation. He entered very fully upon the gigantic liabilities which were in process-of being incurred, and pointed out that, even if the War stopped within a period of six months from the date at which he spoke, we should have to provide for a deficit of some £516,000,000. And he then entered upon a consideration of how the money was to be provided—what were the sources to which we were to look for the actual provision of the money — and he pointed out there were three sources. There was realisation of our securities. He pointed out there was only one market in the world, America, which was free to-purchase, and, therefore, that could not be relied upon to any great extent. Then, again, there was the question of paper money, and I think he very properly turned that down at once with very little further consideration. Then he told us the true source from which we ought to get a very much larger contribution was the income of the country, and that we must rely upon that to a much larger extent than we had done in the past. He also made the interesting forecast that income was perhaps a little inflated to-day because of the enormous war expenditure. All this pointed to an immediate demand being made upon the income of the country. I think everyone was ready for it. Certainly the whole country is ready practically to contribute all that is necessary, and that it can contribute towards meeting the

  947
  enormous cost of this War. I think the wonderful response to the Loan we have just seen shows how widespread and determined is that feeling in the country, and taxation imposed now would be paid readily and willingly by a patriotic people.
  We cannot forget that expenditure is going on. Every day that passes has its share of expenditure. We ought to get an increased sum from taxation to meet that expenditure day by day. Every day lost is a misfortune. We have the money to-day; there is no question that the country to-day can bear increased taxation infinitely better than it will be able two or three years hence. That is the alternative; it is either now or later on. Why not step in while there is ample money and anticipate some of the stream for the most necessary purposes of the Exchequer? As I said, there was an extraordinary hiatus; but we are in a worse position now than then, because the late Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that if the War went on beyond six months it was absolutely imperative we must have more taxation. To-day we are in July, and it is perfectly clear there is no termination of the War immediately at hand. Therefore the pressure of fresh taxation is now with us, on the showing of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, so that I share the regret of the hon. Member who has just spoken that this Finance Bill does not include some greater and more adequate provision from taxation for meeting these enormous sums spent daily.
  I should like to be allowed to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the note of economy which he has struck from the first assumption of his present office. I welcome that note, and I do indeed think it is most important that economy should be realised now the right hon. Gentleman is at the head of that great Department the Treasury, which is, or ought to be, the watch-dog of public expenditure and the guardian of the public purse. It is for him to see to it that the proper steps are taken to secure an adequate economy in public expenditure. I want to draw attention to this fact, that we have had withdrawn from the control of this House the greater part of this gigantic expenditure, which is, of course, incurred for the purposes of the Army and the Navy, and we have had token Votes of £15,000 and £17,000 to represent the sums spent by the Army and Navy, and naturally, as I say, the great expenditure, the
  948
  character, the details, have been entirely withdrawn from the House of Commons. What I want to put to the right hon. Gentlemen is this: Here we have two Departments which in the ordinary course of peace time have been dealing with an expenditure of £80,000,000 a year. That expenditure has suddenly leapt up to something like £800,000,000 a year. There surely is a need and necessity for some machinery adequately to supervise and control this expenditure. We have seen the very ordering of munitions, which, of course, causes this great expenditure, placed in a separate and newly-created Department of itself. The mere ordering of that gives us an idea of the magnitude of this expenditure.
  I know the right hon. Gentleman will tell me, and very properly tell me, that, of course, the Army and Navy must have what they want. I do not suggest there should be control of that character, but what I do suggest is that there should be some proper and adequate machinery, very similar to the ordinary Treasury machinery which prevails in peace time, which should be in active operation to-day, just as in a great business with its accounting department, which verifies expenditure, sees that value is got for the money, that accounts are not paid which are not due, sees that orders given by the head of the executive are carried out, and that whatever cheques are paid are paid for solid and substantial service. That is the character of the control which we want, but I am very much afraid, from the remarks of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 4th May, that that control, so far from being imposed, is being entirely relaxed, and that hardly any control from the point of view of accounting is now being made. Let me read the language he used. He said:—
  "Therefore we propose that the whole expenditure of the Army and Navy shall practically be covered by Votes of Credit. You cannot burden the officials of the Army and Navy with a system of book-keeping at the present time which would force them to keep two separate accounts. Therefore, we are only putting what are practically token votes for the Army and Navy, £lo,000 for the Army and £17,00u for the Navy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1915, col. 1008, Vol. LXXI]
  That seems to me to indicate that the accounts are to be so confused that neither the Army nor the Navy are to know what they are spending. I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that an entirely opposite course should be followed: that you ought to have most careful and accurate accounts kept as distinctly as possible of these vast items of expenditure.

  949
  After all, what are accounts? They are the means and instrument of intelligence for the heads to ascertain exactly what is being done. If you do not do that, everything will be in confusion. It is very difficult to bring in evidence that there is extravagance, but it is known that there is very great extravagance. Take the question of the wastage of food both in the camps at home and abroad. When these great Armies were first improvised, naturally it was impossible to organise at once a system to adequately control a matter of that kind. Of course we do not know whether the War may go on for two or three years, but we have now the means to deal with this question of wastage and it ought to be dealt with, for in this way we could effect savings of hundreds and thousands of pounds per week. Everyone knows that once we lose control and grip of matters of this kind and our control becomes lax, money will be poured out like water. When those who have the spending of this money feel the control of Parliament, then you naturally get economy setting in which will save you an enormous sum. I urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that inasmuch as the House has given the Government an absolutely free hand to spend these gigantic sums of money, it does expect the Government, and particularly the Treasury, to put its best foot forward and see that full value is obtained by the country for this gigantic expenditure.
  It occurs to me that it may be very difficult to finance this War. The liquid assets necessary for the raising of £3,000,000 a day expenditure are so gigantic that it is very difficult to say how any system of finance can stand this strain for any great length of time. In every way it is most important that everything should be done to-day, while a great deal can be done, to secure adequate economy. While we grudge no money to carry on this War successfully, we do grudge that any waste should take place. I do not think the House of Commons is altogether free from blame in this matter, for I think that we ought to set an example to the whole country in economy and readiness to sacrifice ourselves. I allude now to the fact that a considerable number of Members of this House — all honour to them and I think we owe every gratitude to them—have gone and joined the fighting forces of the country. At the same time I think they receive the remuneration which members of those fighting forces receive,
  950
  and they share it in common with all the other members in their respective grades and ranks. They are, however, now receiving a considerable sum for their membership of this House, and I think it is impossible for them to discharge these two duties at the same moment. I think we should show in this House that we are ready to realise the seriousness of the situation and the need of economy and I think hon. Members of this House ought to be in the same position as civil servants who have gone to the front. They ought not to suffer in any way by what they have done, but they should not receivs two salaries when they can only discharge one duty.
  I want to draw attention to this very remarkable fact, that the fiscal system of this country has stood the strain of the war in a way which the fiscal system of no other country has been able to stand it. It may be within the knowledge of hon. Members that all the other countries which are fighting in this War have all had to take off their food taxes. France, Russia, Germany, and Italy have all had to abandon their food taxes, and therefore, at a crisis like this, their taxes, instead of yielding a greater sum, are yielding less. The result will be that at the end of the War they will either have to reimpose those food taxes or sacrifice a most important portion of their fiscal system. What is our position? I do not think even the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises the strength of our position, because in November he estimated for a loss of some £15,000,000 not already estimated for in the taxation of 1914–15. When we came to the end of the year, not only had that £15,000,000 been made good, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a surplus of £4,000,000, so responsive had the taxes been to the strain which was put upon them. Therefore, it comes out that we are the only country whose system of taxation has absolutely withstood the strain.
  My object is to urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he considers his new taxes that he should keep within the limits of that system. I know that in times of war you cannot be absolutely certain that every item of financial purity can be observed, but when we look to the history of past wars we find that our financial system did respond, and was able to produce those very considerable sums which I have alluded to. In the Crimean War just half the cost of the war was

  951
  made good by taxation. What were those war taxes? The tea duty was raised from the very high figure it then stood at of 1s. 6d. to 1s. 9d. per pound. The sugar duty was raised from 12s. 6d. per cwt. to 15s., and a tax was imposed on coffee and malt which yielded £2,450,000. The Income Tax was increased from 7d. to 1s. 2d., or just double. Those were the taxes which produced the very large sum to which I have alluded. In the case of the South African War we may really claim that the additional taxes which produced one-third of the cost of that war were very closely on the lines of our existing fiscal system. I think that is evidence that within the limits of our existing fiscal system we may be able to provide very large sums of money still towards the cost of this gigantic War. I do hope that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to formulate his proposal he may find himself able to forecast a very large and substantial increase in the contribution of our taxation towards the cost of the War.
  Mr. GODFREY COLLINS: I desire to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the ability and success with which he has launched the new War Loan. The most gratifying feature about the Loan is not so much the amount raised but the large number of subscribers. For the first time in the history of this country the public as a whole have invested their savings with the Government, and I think we can therefore rely upon the public investing further savings if necessary in the near future. In that connection, as the public have been invited, they have voluntarily supported the Government in this matter, thereby showing that once the facts are put before the country, whether it be in regard to joining the Forces or lending their money to the Government, we may rely upon the voluntary efforts of the people of this country. I desire on the Third Reading of this Bill to raise, and in some respects to challenge, the financial policy of the Government. The Prime Minister during the last ten months has frequently quoted the example of Pitt and exhorted his fellow-countrymen to follow his example. How far and in what degree has the Prime Minister followed the example and the successful policy of Pitt of a hundred years ago? Last month in this House, when moving for a large Vote of Credit, he justified it by pointing out that the cost of the Napoleonic War amounted to £800,000,000, but he omitted
  952
  to point out that the Government of the day raised by taxation fully 50 per cent, of the cost of that war; and, so far as I can judge, the deliberate and definite policy of the Government is to finance this War by borrowed money.
  Pitt a hundred years ago financed his Allies on the Continent. Not only are we financing our Allies on the Continent, but we are financing our great Dominions as well. Pitt a hundred years ago maintained only a small standing Army on the Continent with miserable pay and small separation allowance. To-day we have raised, and raised successfully, an Army rivalling in size the Continental Armies, far outstretching in expense, in pay, in equipment, and in allowance the armies of our enemies on the Continent. Pitt a hundred years ago did not require to divert from, productive labour millions of men to make, munitions of war. Pitt enabled Great Britain a hundred years ago to increase during that war her exports, so as to permit her easily to pay for the imports she required; while it is well known that under the present policy of the Government our imports are increasing and our exports are steadily decreasing. These several striking divergencies from Pitt's policy forces me to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer two questions. Has an estimate been prepared and questions of ways and means considered for providing, if the War lasts for a further twelve, twenty-four or thirty-six months? Let us by all means pour out all our resources, but a fundamental difference of opinion may arise as to the best use to which we can put our resources, and as finance must ultimately determine our policy, I desire to challenge the wisdom of the policy of the Government in continuing to withdraw men from the productive industries, such as the coal fields, iron and steel, and other productive industries.
  The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) argued in favour of more strict accounting of the large sums being spent on the Army and Navy. This causes me to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer another question. How far and to what extent is the policy of the War Office and the Admiralty dominated and controlled by the Treasury? The Chancellor of the Exchequer may laugh, but he has ultimately to pay the bills of the Admiralty and the War Office, and as he has to pay their expenditure, finance must ultimately determine the policy of these two Departments. The spending power of Armies in

  953
  the past has brought down monarchies and overthrown constitutions. What effect the spending of these millions of money on our Armies to-day will have on this country no one can tell. I desire to ask these two questions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point. This leads me to another question in connection with their attempts and their successful attempts to inflate credit. At the outbreak of War, through the moratorium and other measures, credit was undoubtedly inflated, and for many months after the outbreak of War the cry of "business as usual" undoubtedly tended to create cheap credit by stimulating industry, and by encouraging the public to spend as usual. You increased on the one hand the manufacture of unnecessary articles at home, while, on the other hand, you increased purchases from abroad of commodities which were not essential. The natural restriction of trade which the War is bound to bring is now slowly resulting, and this policy of inflating credit has undoubtedly delayed the placing of business on its natural foundation.
  May I, as another instance of this matter, draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the terms of the November War Loan? Under that Loan the Bank of England offered to lend to the public the full value of the scrip, at 1 per cent, less than the Bank rate. Under that offer a man of straw and of no substance could borrow from the Bank of England and lend that money to the Government. He did not require the power to pay for that money. He did not require to invest his own money in that Loan for three years. The broad result of that policy was to postpone for three years the actual loan by the individual and the investment of his money. That offer in that Loan undoubtedly created false credit, and it did not tempt men naturally to invest their savings at that time. Few would seek to justify that particular offer in that Loan to-day. The terms were also so complicated that the public at that time did not fully realise that the terms offered were a clear 4 per cent. Loan, and the tempting terms of that Loan, I believe, forced the Government in this last War Loan to offer such tempting terms to owners of the November Loan to convert their stock into the new War Loan. Otherwise, I do not think that the terms offered under this Loan would have been justified.
  954
  What were the terms which the Government offered to holders of the November War Loan if they would invest further money in the new War Loan? If they invested further money and converted their stocks, the Government offered them practically 5¼ per cent, interest on their new money. To the public they offered 4½per cent., but to owners of the November Stock, provided that further money was forthcoming and they converted that Stock, they offered to pay £5 4s. 9d. per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head, but may I make my meaning clear; £95 of November Stock yielded £3 10s. interest. If one of the public invested a further £105, he was given £200 Stock of the new War Loan. £200 Stock in the new War Loan yielded him £9 per year interest. In other words, for an investment of £105 he received the difference between £3 10s. and £9. In still other words, for this investment of £105 he increased his income by £5 10s. a year, at the rate of £5 4s. 9d. per cent. If, on the other hand, he said to himself, in ten years time that £95 is worth £100, instead of the rate of interest being £5 4s. 9d., the old War Loan Stock yield being £4, he received practically 5 per cent, on the new money invested. I hope I have converted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my reading of the matter. I put it in two ways. I say distinctly, if the man invested further money in this new War Loan, holding stock of the last Loan, by the investment of that further money to-day the Government pay him at the rate of £5 4s. 9d. in yearly interest for the next ten years.
  The main argument I wish to address to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point is this. I want to urge the Government to place credit on a natural foundation, and allow the damages of war to be realised right off. Economic forces and economic laws are bound to assert themselves in time, and if credit is inflated the heavier will be the fall and the greater the hardship to all concerned. Previous speakers this evening have referred to the vital necessity for the Government increasing the present level of taxation. Before saying a word upon that point I desire to make one reference to some economies that might be effected in a Government Department. For the last three years in this House I have drawn attention to the loss on the telegraph

  955
  service. That service to-day is a parasite service. It lives on the proceeds of the taxation to the extent of £1,250,000 per year. The telegraph service is unable to pay its way. Why should that loss continue any longer? The Postmaster-General, in introducing his Estimates three months ago in this House, pointed out—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member really must not take this occasion for dealing with Supply. It is only in a very general way it is possible to refer to expenditure. We are now dealing with the raising of money.
  Mr. COLLINS: I was going to point out that through certain services being run at a loss, the general taxpayer has to find money, and money has to be borrowed to meet the losses incurred in that Department.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member had spoken in general terms, I should not have intervened. But it is obvious that if illustrations are carried into detail, it might lead to a discussion on Supply Votes.
  Mr. COLLINS: Having pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the loss on a particular service and the diminished revenue received by the State from the Post Office this year, in the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will press the Postmaster-General to effect economies, curtail the service, or increase the charges to the public, and so wipe out the loss in comparison with last year, may I say just one word on the subject of increased taxation? During the last four months the Government, with growing intensity, have urged the country to economise in its expenditure, but have not, by taxation, brought vividly before the country the necessity for increased economy, and until increased taxation has been brought into this House and passed into law the vital necessity for economy will not be realised by the country as a whole. I say deliberately the Government are allowing the country to live in a world of financial delusion. What is the position? At the outbreak of War we had 12,000,000 men working in civil occupations. To-day over 6,000,000 of those 12,000,000 men are employed by the State, either in the Army or the Navy, or in making munitions of
  956
  war. In peace time these 6,000,000 men support themselves by their labour. Today they have to be supported either by the labour of the remaining 6,000,000 or by taxation, or by voluntary loans to the State. It is apparent that no man can do the work of two, and therefore these 6,000,000 men must be supported by the labour of the remaining 6,000,000, and we require to fall back either on a voluntary loan to the State or on increased taxation to pay for the services which these men are rendering to the State to-day.
  In a time of high profits and big wages is it not fair and right that increased taxation should be put on by the Government of the day? I will put this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer: Is it fair that when peace is signed, and when the men return from the front, they should find that this country has not taxed itself to pay for the cost of the War during their absence, with the result that, at the end of the War, they come back to this country and are asked to pay yearly, not only the interest on the money spent during the War, but also some share of the capital spent by the country at this time? Is it fair, when we are to-day borrowing money which past generations have saved, and distributing that money as we are doing amongst the present inhabitants of this country, we should ask our soldiers when they return to share with us and to suffer with us these financial burdens? Is it fair that those burdens should fall equally on those who have been fighting in Flanders and the Dardanelles? The policy of the Government in this matter presents a complete paradox. On the one hand, men are fighting in the trenches to-day; on the other hand, masters and men, making large profits and earning good wages, are not asked to pay a single penny towards the cost of the War.
  The Government have taken strong powers in the Munitions Bill to stop economic waste and to check friction between capital and labour. Why do not the Government take powers by taxation to check the economic waste which is proceeding to-day at a rapid rate all over the country by the consumption of luxuries? It would be easy to point out, at the time of high prices prevalent to-day, that the financial position would be aggravated in the future through the largely increased sums which the Government require to pay for their services. It would be easy to point out that the state of prosperity to-day is

  957
  completely artificial. Taxes should be high during a period of inflation so that they can be lowered when, unfortunately, bad times arrive. It would be easy to point out that with the rate of interest allowed under the War Loan—4½per cent.—the financial position would be still further aggravated and accentuated in the future. The interest on the National Debt alone on 1st February next year will be at the rate of £90,000,000 a year. The Estimates for this year only allow a charge for the National Debt of £51,500,000.
  The time is long overdue when the Government should have asked the House of Commons and the country to realise the financial consequences of the War. I admit that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is not responsible for the Finance Bill we are now passing, but the Government have shown a lack of courage in this matter. The country will not raise unnecessary objections to increased taxation. They will condemn the lack of courage, if courage is not shown by our leaders. The country are prepared to foot the Bill as readily as they are to join the Forces. As I know that destructive criticism is not expected either in the House of Commons or outside at this time, I do not desire my criticism to be destructive, but to be effective. Therefore I put these four points to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would urge him to consider the financial position of the future; I ask him if it is wise to-day to continue drawing men from the vital productive industries of this country; I ask him to check all artificial attempts to maintain our credit, and to take the country into his confidence and reveal the financial consequences of the War, and to ask the country to support him in largely increased taxation at the very earliest moment.
  Mr. McKENNA: A very interesting Debate has been initiated by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton)—I may say a Debate which could not fail to be of the most satisfactory kind to anyone holding my office. Let me, in the first place, thank my hon. Friends for the kindness of the observations which they have made about the issue of the recent Loan. I was not referring to that particular feature of their speeches when I described the Debate as satisfactory. The most unpleasant part of the duty of any Chancellor of the Exchequer must always be to tax. It is most gratifying to me to find that in his arduous labours he is going to receive
  958
  not the criticism, but the vigorous support of the House of Commons. [An HON. MEMBEK: "Perhaps!"] I am warned to wait and to be cautious in my hopes, but I certainly anticipate, from the unanimity of the speeches on this subject to which I have listened this evening, that I have every reason to expect, when the time comes for imposing new taxes, that the House of Commons will be willing to give the country a bold and full lead. It will be very serviceable. I cannot help thinking, however, that my hon. Friend the-Member for Greenock (Mr. Godfrey Collins), who spoke last, has suffered from a slight lapse of memory. He spoke of our having made paltry or insignificant efforts to meet the cost of the War in some part out of new taxes. He, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) referred to the noble example of earlier Governments in meeting the cost of their current wars out of the taxes of the day. Before any percentage calculation of that kind is to be taken as a guide, you must have some regard to the totality of the cost and the relation of that cost to the total income of the year.
  What have we, in fact, raised in the first year of the War, by way of new taxes? No less than £68,000,000 sterling. It is quite true that that amount is a small proportion of the total cost of the War, but is it a small proportion of our total revenue? Those are the two figures which we must compare one with the other in the case of a war which, by the nature of its cost, must be comparatively short. We cannot anticipate for one moment that the War now waged at a cost of £1,000,000,000 a year to more than one of the combatants can be possibly maintained for the twenty years of the Napoleonic wars. If in those days 47 per cent, was paid annually out of the taxes, it is equally true that that the annual cost of that war was comparatively small. What is the true comparison we must take? We must compare the additional burdens which we have imposed upon ourselves during the War in relation to the burdens which we bore in peace. When that comparison is made, I do not think we shall stand in quite such an unfavourable light as that in which my hon. Friend presented us to be. If we take the most recent war—the South African war—we find that we have in one year raised very nearly as much in additional taxation as was raised in the whole three years of that war. It cannot be said that our annual revenue has anything like

  959
  doubled, much less trebled, since the year 1900. We have indeed made greater proportionate efforts, I venture to say, than have ever been made before.
  Mr. COLLINS: The right hon. Gentleman said we have raised by taxation £68,000,000 extra. How much of that money is to pay the interest on the debt created by the War?
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend is going on to a totally different subject. I am dealing with the burdens we have imposed. He argued that our brave soldiers when they come back would be disgusted with us because we have made no effort to pay for the War. I retort on that argument that, whether the disgust be justified or not, we have at any rate made greater efforts than have ever been made before. The difference between now and other occasions is that this War is so vastly more costly than has ever been the case in the whole course of history. Still, I do not argue in this way in order to maintain the position that still greater efforts are not needed. Nor for one moment do I say that. As I said in opening, I welcome most warmly the support which I hope to obtain in this House for such proposals as may become necessary in the not too remote future. I only desire to say in justice to ourselves — I am not speaking now as a Government, but as the House of Commons—that our efforts have not been so niggardly and so mean as we might be led to suppose from the strictures of my hon. Friend. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that we are bound to make great 'efforts. We could never face without shame the prospect of not meeting, not merely interest on the Loans that we have had to raise, but also some fair share of the actual cost of the War. We shall have to meet those charges. We must meet the charges for loan and for Sinking Fund, and we must do our utmost to pay so much of the current War as is within our power. These duties impose a tremendous burden upon us. I do not see why we need aggravate those burdens by any undue self-depreciation.
  My hon. Friend asked me whether I had formed any estimate of the cost of the War for twelve, twenty-four, or thirty-six months. Frankly I must admit I have not. I do not believe it is within the power of man to estimate the cost of this War if it lasted for thirty-six months. From day
  960
  to day we cannot say what the progress of invention or the new requirements in the field may be. It is impossible to reckon the cost, and all we can do is to give such estimates as we have given, that is of the cost for one year. In due course we shall present Estimates to the House and I shall be prepared to carry the Estimate forward, but to give now any sort of rational estimate as to what it might be two or three years hence is entirely beyond the power of any general or any accounting officer.
  Then my hon. Friend asked me how far was the policy of the Admiralty and the War Office dominated by the Treasury. I presumed to smile when he asked the question, because the question itself expressed a hope which I fear, in the actual circumstances of the War, cannot be realised. It is impossible for any Treasury to pretend to dominate the policy of the Admiralty and the War Office in war. It would lead to interminable friction. Our proper remedy is, if we have not sufficient confidence in those on the professional side who are responsible for carrying on the War, to dismiss them and put someone else in their places, but it is idle to expect any Treasury to be constantly interfering and deflecting the Departments from their proper duties in order to devote their time to explain the cost of this and that item of particular charges.
  10.0 P.M.
  My hon. Friend (Mr. Harvey) in a very powerful speech urged upon me the necessity for imposing extra taxes which he said should be done quickly and in large amounts and should be made as direct as possible. Of course, there is necessity for extra taxes, and I agree that when they come to be imposed they ought to be imposed with as little anticipatory discussion as possible, and should be of a productive kind; and I agree also that we should make them as direct as possible. But I would remind the House that there are very serious limitations to direct taxation. Several of my hon. Friends have expressed their wish to see a graduated Income Tax carried much further down than the present limits. I believe on examination it will be found that the cost of collection would render the amount collected hardly worth the trouble. When you get to the smaller incomes there is no practicable means of raising a proportionate amount except by some form of indirect taxation. With that qualification, I agree that taxation should be as direct as possible.

  961
  Then my hon. Friend (Sir J. Walton) developed a topic which he has alluded to more than once before, namely, the need for taxation of war profits. He is perhaps a little merciless, because, as I understand him, he wishes to take off all war profits. I have found generally a disposition, even amongst those who are earning war profits, to accept the proposal for a surcharge of the excess war profits, but I have not yet heard anyone, except my hon. Friend, who thinks it right that the whole of the excess profits should be absorbed.
  Sir J. WALTON: I allowed 20 per cent.
  Mr. McKENNA: Does my hon. Friend allow an increase of 20 per cent?
  Sir J. WALTON: Yes.
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend softens a little and allows the ox that treads the corn to get a bite at it. Then my hon. Friend (Mr. Molteno) asked me to pay special regard to waste in the spending department. I agree with him that it is a subject of the greatest importance, but, at the same time, of the greatest difficulty. I think—no one can be sure—that the charges of waste which are made are somewhat exaggerated. We all hear of the mistakes. We all hear of the particular cases of flagrant waste. They are reported from person to person and have become current, and as we all know and hear of the particular cases, we assume that they are general. In my observation, so far as I have been able to gather, while there have been undeniably specific instances of very great waste, that waste is not general. In nine cases out of ten, about which we never hear, the management is good and there is no waste. In the tenth case, of which we all hear, there exists waste. I am sure the War Office is most anxious to put a stop to it, and is most ready to consult with the Treasury and devise any means of which they or the Treasury may be capable, to put an end to it. No one wishes it, but we have to remember that the task which is now imposed upon the War Office is of a gigantic size. It is an improvised task, and the War Office has had of necessity to call in a vast number of men to aid them, not all of whom are geniuses, and some of whom may consequently, from time to time, let the War Office down. But the general work and the general attention to economy is, I believe, excellent, and it would be quite a mistake to suppose
  962
  that there is any very great waste if the whole country is examined in its entirety. But still I recognise the force of what my hon. Friend said, and I can assure him that I am going into that matter personally with Lord Kitchener, and every effort will be made to avoid any possible waste.
  I will not follow my hon. Friend into the subject of the analogy, or want of analogy, between Mr. Pitt's Government and the present Government. I believe that with care the want of analogy between us could be vastly extended. I think, on the other hand, that we might find some points of resemblance, but it would carry us a little beyond the scope of the present Debate to enter into a precise comparison of the Government of 120 years ago and the Government now. I can only assure the House, in conclusion, that I will do my best to act as a prudent Minister, safeguarding, as far as I can, expenditure. It will be my duty, with the assistance of the House, to devise taxation in order that we may be able to bear our fair share of the constant burden of this War. If I am to succeed, the support of this House is absolutely necessary. When we come to taxation it is unavoidable that we shall offend or alienate this section or that section of opinion. Everyone has his own favourite tax, and everyone his own principles of taxation. It is impossible in that most difficult of all discussions to please everybody and even to satisfy to a moderate degree everybody. But I shall hope, with the support of hon. Members, to be able to take reasonable and bold measures in regard to the taxation of this country.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: If I join in the congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman I am afraid he would regard my congratulations as hardly sincere after the criticism I ventured to make when his Loan proposals were before the House. I will only say as to the criticism I made on that occasion—and I think he will readily admit it—that it would have no evil effects on the success of the Loan, but would rather help to stimulate subscriptions, and therefore would not in any way hinder the success of that operation. I do feel that nothing has occurred since to alter the opinions to which I ventured to give expression on that occasion, when I predicted that the Loan would be a monetary success, but that the terms, particularly of the conversion, were extravagant to an abnormal degree, and would place an additional charge upon the tax-

  963
  payers, and particularly the poorer classes of this country. Subsequent events have not done anything to controvert that in any way whatever. A very interesting question was put by one of the labour Members, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thome), a few days ago to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what the cost to the country would be of these conversion operations, and the right hon. Gentleman stated in his reply, on the improbable hypothesis of the whole of the Consols being converted—I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—that the charge would be increased from £8,817,000 before conversion to £10,580,670, showing an increase of fixed charge which comes upon the people of this country of £1,763,470. If we take the increased charge on the old Loan of £350,000,000 that gives us an additional charge of £3,500,000, making a total additional interest charge of £5,263,470. As we know, that cannot be repaid before 1925 and possibly not before 1945. In the event of it running for ten years the additional charge to the people of this country will be £52,500,000, and if it is not repaid until 1945 the additional charge will be £157,500,000. In his reply on that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that we had got compensation in the repayment of part of the consolidated debt, but even if we take that into account I think the figure he gave us of the reduction of the debt from £352,000,000 to £235,000,000 — that is a reduction of £117,000,000—the House will see that the additional charge is still a very large one indeed on the taxpayers, and presses particularly hard upon the poorer classes.
  Another thing I would point out is that if this repayment of debt had not been provided for to-day there would have been no objection and nothing to hinder the Government later, by sinking fund or otherwise, redeeming the Consols at a low figure, which would probably continue to remain for some time. I submit that there is nothing to show that this conversion was necessary, and that we have as a result imposed upon the people of this country an additional burden of from £52,500,000 certain to £157,500,000 in the event of the War Loan running until 1945. It is unnecessary to labour that point because it must be evident to anyone, if they consider the situation. Let us take, for example, the position of a bank or insurance company with capital to invest. A
  964
  bank or insurance company would have invested that capital at a rate of interest of 4½ per cent, if it were offered to them without the conversion terms. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say, "I had to offer these terms in order to get the money." Let us take the example, then, of a bank or an insurance company. They have to invest their capital, and we all know that just now, owing to shrinkage of general trade, the figure works out at £100,000,000 a week, and the banks are finding great difficulty in employing their funds. As proof of that statement I would refer to the fact that when the right hon. Gentleman was issuing his Treasury Bills he was able to place something like £235,000,000 of Treasury Bills. The reason for that was that the banks were utterly unable to use their capital because of the shrinkage of trade. Therefore, they rushed at these Treasury Bills because they were offered by the Government as a means in which the banks could employ their funds. It is self-evident that if he had come forward with his Loan operations at 4½ per cent, he would have got the money, because the banks and insurance companies are bound to invest their capital and get a return upon it. As they have not got the trade bills—and we know that trade is badly disorganised and that our trade with the Continent has almost entirely ceased— they would have been bound to invest it in this Loan, because there was no other opportunity of investing these funds.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Does the hon. Member say that the trade shrinkage amounts to £5,200,000,000 a year?
  Mr. MASON: No, I did not say that. What I said was that taking the example the other day the bank clearing return showed a decrease of £100,000,000 in one week. That was a point which I had brought to my notice. The shrinkage is from £50,000,000 to £100,000,000 a week. If the hon. Member will study the clearing house returns I think he will confirm my views.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: It should not be misrepresented. That does not represent trade, that simply represents, as I understand it, the clearing house for cheques. It did not represent the actual trade.
  Mr. MASON: It is a very good index, and if the hon. Member wants any further index, may I refer him to the large

  965
  decrease in our export trade. It is self-evident that our trade with the Continent has almost disappeared, and that the only great trade we are carrying on is with the United States of America. I would like to refer to another point, and that is in regard to what has been said this evening as to the necessity for an increase in taxation. I rejoice to have heard from so many Members their enthusiastic support of the necessity for increased taxation, and that in the impressive speeches we have listened to they have urged upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity for facing the present financial position by an increase of taxation. When we consider this Loan of £570,000,000 and the Loan of last November of £350,000,000 and this great addition to the National Debt without any addition whatever to taxation, I think we have a very strong case against the present Government and the late Government for dereliction of duty in their utter inability to face this position of responsibility caused by the enormous amount that has been expended. It creates a position of apparent prosperity which deceives people and undoubtedly builds up an enormous amount of misery later on, more particularly for the poorer classes, who invariably suffer when there is a large proportion of the capital of the country drawn in the shape of Loans rather than in the shape of direct taxation. I think the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit this. I was very pleased, as we all were, to hear from him that—I suppose at a comparatively early date—he will bring forward some fresh proposal for taxation, and we can only wish him God speed in that direction, because as has been well pointed out by, I think, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Molteno), the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. G. Harvey), and the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. G. Collins), it is right to do this now, and not to wait until the later months of the year. I also observe with great interest—and no doubt the House made a note of it, and I hope that there is some foundation for the opinion expressed—the anticipation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this War would be a short one.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, I stated that in relation to the Napoleonic war this war would be a short one. I could express no opinion in a positive sense.
  Mr. MASON: I do not wish to misrepresent the right hon Gentleman.
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not a question of misrepresentation. It is a question of misquoting.
  Mr. MASON: The last thing which I would desire to do would be to misquote the right hon. Gentleman. I appreciate the opinion which he has expressed in his interruption, but still I hope that we may read into it that he does wish for a short war rather than a long war. If he is seized with the grave financial position in this country he must, I assume, along with his colleagues, be prepared to bend every possible energy to the task of bringing this War to a close as soon as possible. When this particular Bill was in Committee we had some Debate on various Clauses, of which I happen to propose one. That was in reference to the cessation of the continued issue of the Treasury Currency Notes The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Montagu) on that occasion spoke of the issue being a stationary one, and conveyed the impression, I think, that we were not going to be faced with a very substantial increase in these notes. It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Dumfries that, in an interesting speech, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the one remedy which the present Government, or any British Government, would not apply to the financial position, a grave one in many respects, would be to depend upon paper money. I find that so little effect has one's protest had upon the occasion when I ventured to move the Clause that the issue has been increased by £1,500,000, and is now just over £48,000,000, when we know that only £28,500,000 of gold is reserved against that issue. The point which the Secretary of the Treasury made was as to the convertability. I venture to warn the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there may come a time if he persists in the issue of this paper money, when we may approach the parlous condition in which Germany is, as a result of her action, in this respect.
  I have referred to the position of our foreign exchanges and to the fact that gold was leaving the country, and will continue to leave, as the result of this policy, largely aggravated by the continued issue of these Treasury Notes. And therefore I again ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the point. He seems quite oblivious of the argument which I addressed to him. The Under-Secretaries to the Treasury, in

  967
  their replies were entirely beside the argument which I submitted by continually urging the point of convertibility. It is impossible for the Bank of England, which endeavours to control the exchanges and money market, to bring about a higher rate in this country, to turn exchange more in our favour, and to put a stop to this gold outflow, if the Treasury is continually calling upon the printing press and issuing these Currency Notes. I would like to refer to the necessity of immediate increased taxation. I do not anticipate from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that he will bring in any measure before we adjourn. We can hardly believe that possible, and I think from what the Prime Minister said this afternoon that we cannot anticipate that. Therefore it will be, I am afraid, the later autumn before we can have new taxation proposals. If any words of mine, or of those who have spoken this evening, can have any effect upon the Government in leading them to reconsider their position, I believe that they would not only have the support of many in this House, but many throughout the country, in the interests of sound finance.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I want to correct one statement by the hon. Member who has just sat down, because I really think it may be quoted in Germany or in other parts. He said that our export trade had practically gone.
  Mr. MASON: No, no. I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I said that our general trade had very much shrunk, except with the United States of America.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: That is what I want to correct. I have in my hand the trade and navigation returns for six months, and if the hon. Member only studies those returns he will find that we are exporting to all parts of the world. The hon. Member stated that we were practically only exporting to America.
  Mr. MASON: No, no!
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: Excuse me, you made that statement. The facts are that during the last six months our exports amount to £234,000,000 to all parts of the world. In the corresponding period of last year we exported £314,000,000, a decrease
  968
  of £80,000,000 during the last six months, which, after all, is an enormous trade. Take cotton: I find that we have exported cotton to all parts of the world, and in the six months we are only down practically something like £20,000,000, or from £60,000,000 down to £42,000,000. I think it is only right that somebody should correct the hon. Member, because we find in the pamphlets which come from Germany that those statements about the decrease of our trade, and about all sorts of things, are published broadcast in the world, and if my hon. Friend's speech is of such importance that it will be published. I hope that this correction will also receive publicity.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1913–14.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
  "I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1914, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total surpluses

  …

  341,539

  17

  3

  Total deficits

  …

  264,861

  1

  11

  Net surplus

  …

  £76,678

  15

  4

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
  1. Resolved, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Dr. Macna-mara.]

  SCHEDULE

  Number of vote

  Navy Services, 1913–14. Votes.

  Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

  Surpluses.

  Deficits.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

  99,997

  3

  10

  —

  2

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  —

  16,246

  6

  10

  3

  Medical Establishments and Services

  —

  9,181

  10

  8

  4

  Martial Law

  —

  240

  3

  3

  5

  Educational Services

  3,232

  8

  1

  —

  6

  Scientific Services

  12,824

  11

  3

  —

  7

  Royal Naval Reserves

  35,971

  15

  4

  —

  8

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:

  I. Personnel

  22,992

  7

  3

  —

  II. Matériel

  —

  162,113

  17

  11

  III. Contract Work

  134,170

  14

  10

  —

  9

  Naval Armaments

  —

  31,829

  2

  4

  10

  Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

  —

  12,026

  1

  1

  11

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  —

  20,790

  17

  4

  12

  Admiralty Office

  —

  10,220

  14

  8

  13

  Half Pay and Retired Pay

  15,566

  13

  8

  —

  14

  Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities and Compassionate Allowances

  7

  2

  9

  —

  15

  Civil Superannuation, Compensation and Gratuities

  16,777

  0

  3

  —

  —

  Amount written off as irrecoverable

  —

  2,212

  7

  10

  Total

  341,539

  17

  3

  264,861

  1

  11

  Net Surplus

  £76,678 15 4"

  "II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1914, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

  SCHEDULE.

  Number of vote

  Army Services, 1913–14. Votes.

  Differences between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

  Surpluses.

  Deficits.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay, etc., of the Army

  …

  …

  …

  195,621

  13

  5

  —

  2

  Medical Establishment: Pay, etc.

  …

  …

  …

  —

  6,818

  18

  9

  3

  Special Reserve

  …

  …

  …

  27,915

  15

  8

  —

  4

  Territorial Forces

  …

  …

  …

  —

  5,452

  6

  3

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  295,633

  1

  9

  Total Deficits

  …

  245,735

  8

  2

  Net Surplus

  …

  £49,897

  13

  7

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
  2. Resolved, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."— [Dr. Macnamara.]

  SCHEDULE—continued.

  Number of Vote

  Army Services, 1913–11. Votes.

  Difference between Exchequer Grants and Net Expenditure.

  Surpluses.

  Deficits.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  5

  Establishments for Military Education

  —

  8,962

  4

  11

  6

  Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

  —

  88,644

  9

  2

  7

  Supplies and Clothing

  —

  54,342

  13

  9

  8

  Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

  —

  75,418

  10

  3

  9

  Armaments, Aviation, and Engineer Stores.

  43,657

  4

  4

  —

  10

  Works and Buildings

  —

  164

  1

  1

  11

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  3,937

  18

  3

  —

  12

  War Office

  716

  10

  7

  —

  13

  Half Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc.

  21,247

  17

  9

  —

  14

  Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Men, etc.

  —

  487

  7

  4

  15

  Civil Superannuation, Compensation Gratuities

  2,536

  1

  9

  —

  —

  Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned

  —

  5,444

  16

  8

  Total

  295,633

  1

  9

  245,735

  8

  2

  Net Surplus

  £49,897 13 7"

  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow: (Thursday).

  NATIONAL REGISTRATION BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  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 Half after Ten o'clock.

WAR.
  LETTERS TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CENSORSHIP).
  LETTERS TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CENSORSHIP).
  MILITARY STORES AND EQUIPMENT (OFFICERS' LIABILITY).
  MILITARY STORES AND EQUIPMENT (OFFICERS' LIABILITY).
  ROYAL IRISH REGIMENT (RIFLE RANGES).
  ROYAL IRISH REGIMENT (RIFLE RANGES).
  ARMY BLANKETS (SCOTTISH CARPET MANUFACTURERS).
  ARMY BLANKETS (SCOTTISH CARPET MANUFACTURERS).
  CLIPSTONE CAMP, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.
  CLIPSTONE CAMP, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE.
  ORDERLIES (INSURANCE ABROAD).
  ORDERLIES (INSURANCE ABROAD).
  Pyrene Fire Extincteurs.
  Pyrene Fire Extincteurs.
  Net Fishing (Inland Lakes).
  Net Fishing (Inland Lakes).
  Post Office (Complaints).
  Post Office (Complaints).
  Scarborough Mail Driver.
  Scarborough Mail Driver.
  Labour Exchanges (Female Clerks).
  Labour Exchanges (Female Clerks).

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
(Southampton (Extension) Order).
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Mayo, the Lord Bateman, and the Lord Barrymore be proposed to the House as Members of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Earl of Craven, the Lord Annaly, and the Lord Aberdare; read, and agreed to.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL (HIDERS (No. 2) BILL.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE (RAVENINGHAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
GAS AND WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE (OUSE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LONDON ELECRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES' FACILITES BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS (EXTENSION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Hylton). (No. 132.)
GLASGOW CORPORATION (PARKS, HARBOURS, TUNNEL, GAS, &c.) ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee. (No. 133.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Post Office Servants—First Report of a Committee appointed to examine the issues arising out of the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Post Office Servants, 1912–1913:
Mercantile Marine (Examinations for Certificates of Competency)—Report on the Examinations of Candidates for Certificates of Competency in the Mercantile Marine and the Sea Fishing Service for the year ended 31st December 1911:
Fisheries (Scotland)—Thirty-third Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland for the year 1914:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Children Act, 1908 (Grant to Day Industrial Schools)—Recommendation made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under Section 80 of the Act, as to the Parliamentary Grant to Certified Day Industrial Schools:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX considered (according to order) and suspended for the remainder of the week.

PUBLICATION OF DESPATCHES
LORD WEARDALE LORD WEARDALE had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether there is any reason why the system hitherto prevailing, of avoiding or delaying, the publication of despatches interesting to the country in general and particularly to the families of the gallant troops engaged in the operations, should he maintained in the case of the Egyptian Campaign, and that the important despatches of the General Commanding relative to the attacks upon the Suez Canal February and March should not now be published.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my object in rating this Question is, in the first place, to elicit from the Government some statement as to the system governing the publication of despatches and the communication of important news to the public. We are aware that under the late Administration we lived under a system of "wait and see," and we have waited a long time without seeing many things of supreme importance which we think might have been seen without any inconvenience to the Government to the military authorities. In framing this Question I have been guided by the very natural condition that one must, not expect the publication of any information that could reasonably be supposed to be of advantage to they. No doubt it may be said, in ret to certain incomplete operations in various parts of the world, such as the Persian Gulf, East Africa, the Cameroons, and other places, that there would probably be inconvenience in giving very careful particular; but with regard to the attacks the Tuikish forces upon the Suez Canal in the early Months of this year, it surely cannot be contended that those operations have not been closed for the time being at any rate, whatever may be the imminence of danger at a later period. I think we may fairly ask that the report of tine distinguished General who commands in Egypt the British Force which so valiantly repelled the Turkish invaders should now be communicated to the public. There surely can be nothing in that despatch which cap afford any information of a useful character to the enemy. On the other hand, it seems to me very unfair to the families whose sons and relatives have been engaged in those operations that no information whatever is given to the public of the valiant deeds that they performed.
410
Therefore I think we have sonic ground for asking the War Office, whether there is to be in future any relaxation of the very rigid rule as regards the publication of these documents, and whether they do not think that the tithe has come to take the public a little more into their confidence and give them a little more information. It seems to me that we have been treated throughout this terrible war as if we were a nation of hysterical children who were afraid to be told the truth. That is not My opinion of the British people. I believe that the more we are told the truth, even if it he altogether unpleasant to hear, the more we should set our teeth and be determined to early this war to a successful concluaion. Therefore I press on the Government that. the time has come when they should be a little more thoughtful of the public requirements in the matter of information, and that they should now publish all the despot lies that without substantial inconvenience can he communicated to the public, and I make special reference to the despatch relative to the doings of our Expeditionary Force in Egypt
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, the official view with regard to the publication of reports and despatches is as follows. Reports of military operations; are tendered from time to time by officers in independent command in the field. These are primarily professional in character and for trill information of the superior military authorities, and they are net published unless the operations are on a considerable scale and the results really substantial. The necessity for the observance of this rule lies in the fact that the publication of a so-called despatch, as distinguished from a report, gives it great military importance, and care has to he taken that operations are not endowed by the fact of publication with importance beyond their real military value. Especially at a time when the theatres of war are as numerous as they are at the present moment, care must la, exercised to secure a due proportion amongst the operations under the various commands. Publication for the purpose of informing the public is occult in the loan of communications from time to time to t lie Press at various stages in the progress of t he operations. These communications are based upon the telegraphic reports received from the commanders.
The long and short of this is that the primary object of the reports and despatches

411
is to explain to the Government the progress of military operations from the professional point of view rather than to afford information to the public. I would like to call attention to the following extract from the Field Service Regulations—
"It will rest with the responsible Government acting upon the advice of the Commander-in-Chief to determine what reports and despatches are not to be made public, and the manner in which those to be published we to be made generally known."
I am afraid that the reply which I have given is not likely to find much favour in the eyes of my noble friend or in all probability in the eyes of that portion of the Press which, apparently, considers that one of the objects of the war is to increase the circulation of their organs. But I think I may take upon myself to remind my noble friend that the whole tendency of modern warfare is in the direction of reticence, and if there is one thing which must be more carefully avoided than anything else it is the danger, as the noble Lord himself admitted, of giving information to the enemy; and I believe that even in this Assembly, which I suppose is one of the most reticent in the world, some unguarded remarks have fallen which might possibly have been of some use to the enemy.
As to the statement of the noble Lord that information is withheld front the public and that the public is treated as a mass of hysterical children, I would like to point out that as far as the communication of news goes the British public is in a much better position than is, so far as I am aware, the public of any other country. It is not the practice of other Governments to issue any communiqués or reports or despatches beyond an extremely threadbare daily announcement, and a long compilation prepared by the General Stall which appears many months after the war is concluded. At any rate, the British public gets a good deal more information than does the public of any other country; and I think the statement which I have just made will be borne out by my noble friend, who has a better acquaintance with the Continent than, perhaps, any other Peer present this afternoon.
There is another circumstance to which I should like to refer. We are not waging this war single-handed, and that being so it must be perfectly obvious that in the publication of despatches or reports the views of the Allies must be taken into consideration, just as in the preparation of a
412
Blue Book the views of the Governments concerned have to be considered. I an admit that this, perhaps, does not apply so strongly in the case of the. Egyptian campaign, because that campaign has been carried on with a very small participation on the part of any of our Allies. But I would remind my noble friend that there have been no less than six long communiqués with regard to the actions to which he referred. These appeared in the Press here on February 3, 5, and 8, and on March 15, 22, and 29. Therefore with regard to these particular operations my noble friend has not a very strung cause for complaint. At the conclusion of his remarks my noble friend expressed what. I trust may be a correct opinion, that the operations in that part of the world had finally terminated; but I cannot help thinking that it would be somewhat rash to make any assumption of that character. In view of this mid in view of the facts which I have stated, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it is not advisable at present to publish any further information with regard to the actions which took place on the Suez Canal in the months of February and March.

PUBLIC ECONOMY.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to recommend to local authorities that schemes of social improvements not of urgent necessity be postponed until the termination of the war; and also whether they will give a comparative statement showing the loans sanctioned from March 26 to June 30 in the years 1914–15 respectively in respect of the matters in which—

1. The Local Government Board,

2. The Board of Education,

3. The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and

4. The Home Office are concerned, and generally the way in which the loans for which the Local Government Board are primarily responsible are made up, e.g.,

a. War requirements.

b. Expenditure already incurred under contracts existing at the date of their Circular Letter of March 25.

c. Urgent requirements of public health.

d. Other purposes.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, last week my noble friend Lord Midleton initiated a debate on he question of the civil expenditure of the country, and in the course an interesting and exhaustive speech he gave instances where he thought extravagance had occurred and made suggestions as to how in his opinion economies could he effected in the future, and I was glad to note that he received a very sympathetic reply from the noble Lord Lansdowne. The subject which my noble friend raised was so great a one mid comprised so many different Departments that it was impossible for him to allude to a less important but. still a very important question—namely, the expenditure of local authorities in this time of war. He did, however, allude to one branch of that subject, that of education, but what he said had the effect of bringing the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Haldane, to his feet and of showing that their' was not that unanimity on that subject which one might have hoped for; and as I am most anxious not to refer in the course of my remarks to anything contentious I shall not say anything on the subject of education, except, to express my entire agreement with the opinions that were so ably given utterance to by my noble friend.
In ordinary circumstances this question would not be raised at all. Parliament would be very loth to interfere in any way with the discretion of local authorities, to whom certain powers have been entrusted; but when we find that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Colonies thought it desirable, perhaps even necessary, to attend a public meeting for the purpose of delivering a lecture to everybody in these islands on the subject of thrift, I do not think it will be considered unseemly that a little similar advice should be administered by some one on behalf of His Majesty's Government to local authorities. I do not mean for a moment to say that nothing has been done by the Government with reference to this. Of late I think a great deal has been done. I date say many of your Lordships have seen two Circulars which were issued by the late President of the Local Government Board, Mr. Samuel, on March 11 and 25, and I believe that a similar Circular to the one of March 11 was issued with regard to Scotland. These Circulars have appeared in the public Press, and I therefore do not
414
intend to inflict them upon your Lordships; but I should like with the permission of the House to read Our or two extracts from them. In the Circular of March 25 it is stated—
"Treasury are anxious that the, attention of local authorities should be particularly drawn to the have that economies and restrictions borrowing are possible not only as regards new works but also as regards works in progress."
I think I shall be able to show your Lordships that up to he date of this Circular the policy of the Local Government Board had rather been that expenditure should be made these directions than that it should lie curtailed, and no doubt this accounts for the fact that we see so many works still in progress which we think might well have been brought to a standstill. However much local authorities may wish to stop works which have been undertaken, if contracts have been entered into they must appeal to the patriotism and good will of the contractor before die contract can be held up, and it is quite easy to understand that the contractor himself may have made contracts and purchased material and may find it impossible to agree to the work being suspended. That may be the explanation of the continuance of work in connection with the erection of that stately palace at. the other side of the river which we can see from the windows of your Lordships' House. I have no doubt that both the London County Council and the contractors engaged in that work would be glad, if they could do so, to stop it during the war, but for the reasons I have stated it may be impossible to do so.
But even supposing that the local authorities are doing their best to suspend works and to discourage extravagance, I think there are still some matters in connection with which economies could be effected. Let tile state one or two of them. First I should like to mention the subject of lighting. Except in places where Zeppelin raids are expected I believe there has been no diminution of public lighting in any town in England. I know that on occasions when I have motored through the country and found myself at dusk in some provincial town I have been perfectly amazed, accustomed to the gloom of London, at the blaze of light which has met me. We all read the interesting speech of the Minister of Munitions the other day in which he told us of the absolute necessity of economising every ounce of coal we

415
could, and it seems to me in these circumstances unwise that lighting in our provincial towns should be continued exactly the same as it was before the war.
Another instance of extravagance—and this may strike a more contentious ground—is the continuation of the building of sanatoria under the Insurance Act. I believe a Circular has quite recently been issued by the Local Government Board suggesting that this should cease, but denying the early months of the war the policy of the Board, as I understand it, was that this work should be continued. I yield to no one in my wish that we should do everything in our power for those of our fellow-countrymen who are suffering from the dreadful disease of consumption, but it seems to me that our first duty at the present time is to save the lives of those who are fighting for us at the Front, and that can only be done by concentrating all our efforts and spending all available money for that purpose.
I should like now to give two or three instances where I think local authorities are asking individuals to spend money in an unnecessary manner. I believe that when new Streets are erected in the neighbourhood of a town the ordinary course is for a builders' road to be first constructed, and then as houses are gradually built on each side and it becomes a street the frontages are called upon to make an ordinary road. That has been done, I am told, to a large extent during the past few months, and it seems to me that this is an unnecessary expense to put these people to at the present time. I will give a rural instance. Before the war began we heard a great deal of the cry "Back to the land," and we were met by the reply that unless the condition of rural housing was improved von could not get people to go hack to the land. Some owners tried to improve their houses, and some, from want of means or because they thought it would not he a profitable investment, did not do much in that direction. But a good mane local authorities have thought it advisable to put in force their powers and gradually to apply pressure so that these people should be brought into line with those who had improved their houses.
I know something about a district committee in Scotland which determined
416
that all cottages should have lath and plaster between the cottage wall and the wall-paper, and in the case of old cottages where you go down a step into the kitchen they determined that it was necessary that the floors should be above the ground level. The latter requirement has necessitated new floors being laid, with the result that in certain cases this has made the ceilings too low td comply with the regulations and sonic of the cottages have had to be rebuilt. Then where there is a water supply in close proximity the owner has been required to provide a water supply to the cottage. This entails, in the first place, a great deal of labour which could otherwise be more usefully employed, not only ordinary unskilled labour lint also that of carpenters and plumbers. In the second place, it entails the employment of a great deal of material which might be more usefully employed—for instance, timber which might lie used for constructing huts for our soldiers, and lead which might be used for making bullets for our enemies. In the third place, it entails the expenditure of a large amount of money which might otherwise be available for the War Loan. The Circular of March 11 states—
"Moreover, it is essential to see that capital as well as labour is made available in the directions in which it can best further the national interests doling the war."
There may be a flaw in my last argument, because it may be contended that the money is available whether it is hi the hands of one person or divided amongst many, as it would be if these improvements were made; but. I think it is more likely that one person with £500 would invest it in the War Loan than that the money would be similarly invested if divided amongst forty or fifty people. I hope no one will think that I am advocating that owners should be allowed owing to the war to suffer houses that are in an insanitary condition to become dilapidated. On the contrary, what I am urging is that a new standard of what is sanitary should not be introduced during the war.
The reply that will be given to me will probably be that the local authorities have no option in the matter, and that the sections of the Act under which they have these powers mire mandatory and provide that if there is a nuisance the

417
local authority shall do so and so. But surely it remains for the local authority to decide, what is and what is not a nuisance. They very often consider a state of things a nuisance which a few years ago was considered perfectly sanitary. I know hat in some cases this discretion has been exercised by local authorities. A short time ago it was so exercised in Lanarkshire, where the district committee had called upon the sheriff, who had no option in the matter, to declare certain houses insanitary. The houses were to cease to be inhabited and to be demolished, by which time they hoped that their new housing scheme would be carried into effect. Bat when they tried to carry out their new housing scheme they found that, owing to the scarcity of labour and the impossibility of obtaining materials, they were unable to do so, and they were obliged to go back to the sheriff and get him to rescind the order so that these houses could be used again for habitation.
I think the whole secret of this is to be found in the fact that the policy of the Government with regard to these matters has changed. I will read one more extract from the Circular of March 11—
"At the outset of the war there was reason to fear that unemployment might be widespread. The Government committee on the Prevention and if suggested to local authorities that they should hare in readiness schemes for new works and buildings which could be put into operation in case serious unemployment should arise. Local authorities have in general responded to this suggestion, and in most cases suet schemes are ready or in OM advanced stage of preparation."
That is to say, at the beginning of the war it was considered desirable to encourage expenditure in every way. We were told by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Business as usual." I think that cheery note of optimism was useful at that time, but I doubt very much whether the distinguished statesman who is now Minister of Munitions would repeat it at the present; time. I think it is more likely that he would say that only such business is essential as will enable the war most successfully to be carried on. I am asking a long series of Questions. The object of them is to obtain a comparison between expenditure in normal times and that now sanctioned under the policy of the Government as set forth in the Circulars to which I have referred.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I think the House will consider that my noble friend Lord Oranmore has done no small public service in renewing attention to the fact that it is at this moment absolutely vital that the country should see that as little public money as possible is spent on what one may call civilian expenditure. Since the speech of the Prime Minister a short time ago, in which he implored the citizens of this country to exercise thrift and economy in every possible direction, there have been many letters addressed to the newspapers pointing out how difficult it, is for private individuals to initiate any general scheme of thrift unless they see the Government and the local authorities doing the same thing with regard to public expenditure. The speech of Lord Oranmore this afternoon, I dare say your Lordships will consider, forms a valuable corollary to the Motion that was brought Forward by Lord Midlaton the other day and to the discussion that was initiated by Lord St. Davids on the sauce subject. They all appear to be directed to the same object—nailaly, to endeavouring to impress upon all public authorities the absolute necessity, in every quarter where it is possible, of exercising greater thrift and economy.
Lord Oranmore ore was very fair in admitting, as I chink he was inclined to do, that local authorities were not perhaps so much to blame as people might think in apparently spending large smuts of money at the present moment On building schemes, for at the beginning of the war a. Circular was sent out he the Local Government Board urging every local authority throughout the kingdom to set on foot, or at all events to get ready and have prepared, schemes of public utility in order to obviate what at that time appeared to the Government to be threatening—namely, a large measure of distress arising from unemployment. Your Lordships will remember, in connection with that, that large relief funds were opened throughout the country with a view to alleviating the great distress that it was supposed at that time was likely to arise from unemployment, and the Local Government Board followed up the matter by sending out a Circular, to which my noble friend alluded, urging public authorities to prepare in all cases large schemes on which public money was to be employed so as to provide labour.

419
There is, as every noble Lord who is a member of a county council or connected with a local authority well knows, a considerable number of items on which it is absolutely impossible that public expenditure can cease. First, there is education. Again, as your Lordships are aware, all over the country great additional expenditure has been necessary on the roads owing to their having been so very much cut up by military traffic. County councils are also practically powerless to cut down the expenditure on the Police. This expenditure is regulated and determined by a public Statute, and it is impossible, with the best will in the world, to cut it down. But, as the noble Lord frankly admitted, His Majesty's Government have been alive for sonic time past to the great importance of doing everything in their power to urge on local authorities the necessity of cutting down expenditure where possible.
The noble Lord very properly referred to the Circulars that were sent by the Local Government Board on March 11 and 25 last to all local authorities throughout the country. In the first of those Circulars the Board referred to the fact that at the outset of the war there was reason to fear that unemployment might be widespread; that the Government Committee on the Prevention and Relief of Distress had suggested to local authorities that they should have in readiness schemes for new works and buildings which could be put into operation in case serious unemployment should arise; and that local authorities had in general responded to this suggestion and in most cases such schemes were ready or in an advanced stage of preparation. Unfortunately not only are such schemes in some cases ready or in an advanced stage of preparation, but some of them have already been begun, and in those cases, as my noble friend said, there/is great difficulty in bringing such work to a standstill unless with the free will of the contractors themselves. The Circular of March 11 went on to say—
"Happily, however, after the first few weeks, the trade of the country recovered from its dislocation, and the enlistment of large numbers of men and the execution of war contracts have in most districts converted the problem to be faced from one of unemployment to one of shortage of labour. In these circumstances an opposite policy is indicated, and it becomes necessary to avoid the inception of all new works, except such as are of pressing necessity either for reasons of public health or on account of war requirements."
420
I hope that language will have done something, at all events, to satisfy the very natural desire of my noble friend that the Local Government Board should impress on local authorities the necessity of saving all the public money possible. The second Circular, dated March 25, my noble friend has in his hand, and I think he is to a certain extent satisfied with its terms, and therefore I need not dwell upon it.
I will now furnish my noble friend with the comparative statement which the Local Government Board have prepared showing so far as they can the effect of the Circulars of March 11 and 25, and this comparative statement I venture to think proves that to a large extent the language of the Circulars has had good effect in limiting and checking what I may call civilian expenditure by the local authorities. This statement shows the number and amount of loans sanctioned by the Local Government Board, exclusive of Poor Law Loans, during the period from March 26 to June 30 inclusive for the years 1914 and 1915 respectively. As regards the Local Government Board, whereas in the period in question in 1914 no less than 1.042 loans involving a sum of £2,491,534 were sanctioned, in the same period of the current year the loans sanctioned numbered only 293, involving a sum of £1,452,254; this does not include 104 loans amounting to £231,352 for paying off old loans. Of this total amount of loans sanctioned by the Local Government Board from March 26 to June 30 in time current year, amounting, as I have said, to £1,452,251, no less a sum than £1,129,246 was for war requirements—for instance, electric current for power, and houses for employees engaged on war work; £183,030 was for expenditure already incurred; £88,958 was for public health; and £51,020 was for various other purposes. This last amount is principally made up of (1) a sum of £6,576 for urgently required sea defences, (2) sums for works needed to safeguard the efficient carrying on of existing undertakings, and (3) a large number of small loans the sanctioning of which in various special circumstances—for instance, where an unusual opportunity for purchasing property at a low figure occurred—it was considered desirable not to postpone. As regards the Board of Education, whereas in the three months in question in 1914 loans numbering 383

421
and involving a sum of £607,514 were sanctioned, in the same period of the current year only 61 loans involving a sum of £54,345 were sanctioned. As regards the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, whereas in the 1914 period 163 loans involving a sum of £94,694 were sanctioned, in the same three months of this year the loans numbered only 88, involving a sum of £39,158. And as regards the Home Office, the loans in the period in question in 1914 numbered 39 and the amount £118,240, whereas in the same period of this year they numbered 17, involving a sum of £63,655. If my noble friend has had the patience to follow these figures he will see that whereas there was in all 1,627 loans in these three months last year involving a total of £3,311,982, this year during the snow period only 459 loans were sanctioned amounting to a total of £1,609,412. Therefore the Local Government Board may claim at all events credit for having sanctioned a vastly smaller expenditure for civilian purposes for the three months from March 26 to June 30 this year than they did during the same period last year. And though it is called civilian expenditure, your Lordships will see that a very large proportion of it was needed for what may fairly be called war requirements.
The necessity for the sanctioning of loans by the Local Government Board is, I am afraid, the only safeguard that can be devised in order to limit expenditure by local bodies during the time of the war, and I am authorised by the Department to assure the noble Lord that any application that is received from local authorities at the present time for a loan in connection with expenditure of this kind will be scrutinised with unusual care. My noble friend also asked a question, apart from public expenditure, as to what he called private works, such as frontagers being put to expense towards the making of roads, and matters of that kind. I am afraid that all can say to satisfy him on this point is that up to the present, wherever opportunity has arisen, the Local Government Board have advised local authorities to be more lenient than usual. But, as my noble friend admitted, many of the Acts of Parliament governing matters of this kind use the word "shall," and I believe I am right in saying that unless further legislation is carried providing to the contrary it is difficult, if not impossible, for the Local Government Board or any
422
other public Department to interfere in a case of that kind. The noble Lord will be glad to hear that the President of the Local Government Board is, however, about to issue a further Circular calling the attention of local bodies to this branch of the subject. As regards the particular matters in Scotland to which the noble Lord referred, I am not in a position to-day to give him an answer in detail, because they come under the Scottish Local Government Board; but if he would care to put a supplementary Question on the Paper my noble friend Lord Stanmore, who answers for the Scottish Office, would do his best to satisfy him on that point.
I have no doubt that the House was entirely in sympathy with my noble friend when he alluded to what appeared to be a most deplorable waste of money in respect to public lighting in various provincial towns; and the Local Government Board authorise me to say that they deplore as much as any one, any waste such as of coal, and so on, which would necessarily be involved. But I am afraid that the local bodies in large provincial towns must be to some extent masters of their own house, and the Local Government Board have no power absolutely to stop anything of that sort. The Prime Minister, in a speech that he made on May 14 last on the Board of Education Vote in the House of Commons, whilst fully recognising, as every one must, the absolute necessity of cutting down expenditure, pointed out that there are a great many branches of public service in connection with which it is difficult, if not impossible, to stop expenditure. But I hope, even if the answer that has been furnished by the Local Government Board to the noble Lord is not altogether satisfactory to him, he will recognise that since the issue of the Circulars of March 11 and March 25 at all events they have been doing everything they can to induce local authorities to limit their expenditure in every possible way.

GROUSE (CLOSE TIME) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the House of yesterday committing the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House discharged, and Committee negatived.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords I understand that there will be no opposition to this Bill, and that in another place it will be in charge of the member of the Govern-

423
ment representing Scotland. Therefore by agreement with my noble friend Lord Lovat I move the remaining stages in this House on behalf of the Government.
Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NATIONAL REGISTRATION 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 Marquess of Lansdowne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Registration authorities and districts.
2. The Registrar-General acting under the directions of the Local Government Board shall be the central registration authority, and the Common Council of the City of London and the councils of metropolitan and municipal boroughs, and of urban and rural districts, and the Council of the Scilly Islands shall be the local registration authorities for their respective areas, and each such area shall be a separate registration district.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I beg to move to add to this clause the following words, "but any such council may delegate to a committee of the council all or any of their powers as such local registration authority as aforesaid." This will enable the local registration authorities to delegate their powers to committees. It appears that this power is not enjoyed by these bodies, and it is thought better that it should be given to them. A great deal of the work in connection with this Bill will be better done by a small committee than by the full body of the council.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 1, line 16, after ("district") insert ("but any such council may delegate to a committee of the council all or any of their powers as such local registration authority as aforesaid").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
EARL FORTESCUE: May I ask the noble Marquess whether the committees appointed under this Amendment would be limited to members of the councils appointing them? It is anticipated that there
424
will be a great deal of voluntary assistance offered in connection with this Bill, and it is possible in some cases that councils might be glad to co-opt persons on to their committees who were not members of their body. Would these words cover that, or would the Government approve of that?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am afraid I cannot tell my noble friend whether the council would have power to go outside its own members in this case. That is a legal point which I am not able to dispose of. But I feel quite sure that any assistance forthcoming will be gladly availed of in a case of the kind.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Duty to fill up and return, ferns,
4.—(1) For the purpose of enabling such a register to be compiled it shall he the duty of every such person as aforesaid, within the prescribed time, to fill up and sign a form showing the following particulars—

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

(b) whether the work on which he is employed is work for or under any Government Department;

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

(2) The central registration authority shall cause forms to be prepared and issued to the local registration authorities, and every local registration authority shall, in accordance with instructions from the Local Government Hoard, cause the forms to be distributed so as to secure that, as far as possible, a sufficient number of forms shall be left at every dwelling-house within their registration district, and shall also give public notice as to the places within the registration district where forms can be obtained.
(3) The local registration authority shall also make arrangements for the collection, in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed times, of forms when filled up and signed.
LORD HAVERSHAM: I should like to ask the noble Marquess what is exactly meant by the words "such person as aforesaid" in the early part of sub-

425
section (1), and whether this expression alludes to all those people mentioned in Clause 1. That is three clauses on, and this is an extraordinary way of alluding to them. I should prefer the words "every person to whom this Act applies." Again, who are "dependants"? A dependant might be the "poor relation," or a groom or a footman, or anyone else. We have no definition clause in this Bill, so I do not understand who dependants are. But perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to move, instead of "every such person as alotesaid," that the words "every person to whom this Act applies" should be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line leave out ("every such person as aforesaid") and insert ("every person to whom this Act applies").—(Lord Haversham.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I rather hesitate to accept this Amendment. I think the meaning of the clause is obvious. The persons, aforesaid are surely the persons limo whose ranks the register is to be formed—that is, the persons who are described in Clause 1.
LORD HAVERSHAM: Then I will withdraw the Amendment. But I should like to ask the noble Marquess to explain how many people are to fill up these forms. Is the householder to fill up the form for the whole family and include his wife, chiidren, and dependants, or are all those between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five to make out their own forms, including the wife?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The intention of the Bill is that the form should be sent to each individual person and filled up by that person. I know it has been suggested that the same purpose could be accomplished by sending a form to each occupier, but that proceeding has been deliberately set on one side.
LORD HAVERSHAM: Every person over fifteen and under sixty-five is to have it separate form?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HAVERSHAM: Would the noble Marquess explain what is meant by the word "dependants"?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend a legal definition of the meaning of the word, but I think we all know pretty well what is meant. My noble friend must remember that this register is not to be a document propounded with scientific accuracy. What we want is a rough-and-ready inventory of the people in their different classes, and I am sure it will not be difficult to arrive at a reasonable meaning of the word "dependant."
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Duty of employers to furnish information.
10. For the purposes of facilitating the compilation and maintenance of the register, it shall he the duty of any employer of labour (including heads of Government departments) to supply to any registration authority such information as may be prescribed in respect of such persons in his employment as are required to be registered under this Act.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I have to move in Clause 10, after the word "information," to insert the words "and render such assistance." The Amendment only very slightly extends the present wording of the clause. It seems, indeed, quite obvious that if employers of labour are expected to supply information it is not unfair to ask them to supply such assistance as they may be able to give. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 10, page 4, line 15, after ("information") insert ("and render such assistance").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Application to Ireland.
15. This Act shall apply to Ireland to such extent and subject to such modifications as are hereinafter mentioned—
(1) The Lord Lieutenant may by Order apply section one of this Act with the necessary modifications to Ireland or to any area or areas in Ireland specified in the Order:
(2) The register for Ireland, or as the case may be for any such area or areas as aforesaid, shall be formed under the directions of the Lord Lieutenant by the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in Ireland (in this section referred to as the Registrar-General for Ireland) whose duty it shall be to compile and maintain the register from information at his disposal or furnished by any other officer or department of the Government pursuant to such directions or by the council of any county or of any county borough which may be desirous of assisting in the formation of the register:
(3) The register shall contain as respects the persons registered the particulars set forth in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), of subsection (1) of section four of this Act, so far as the same have been ascertained from the information at. the disposal of or furnished to the Registrar-General for Ireland as aforesaid and the Registrar-General for Ireland shall tabulate the contents and make them available for such purposes as may he ordered by the Lord Lieutenant:
(4) The expenses of the Lord Lieutenant and of the Registrar-General fur Ireland in carrying this Act into operation, shall to such an extent as the Treasury may sanction be defrayed out of money provided by Parliament:
(5) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament towards expenses incurred, with the sanction of the Local Government Board for Ireland, by county councils and county borough councils in assisting in the formation of the register, allowances on such scale as the Treasury may approve, and such expenses, so far as not covered by the allowances, shall be defrayed in the case of a county council out of the poor rate as a county at large charge, and in the case of a county borough council out of the rate or fund applicable to the purposes of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907:
(6) Save as provided in this section, the foregoing provisions of this Act shall not apply to Ireland.
THE EARL OF MAYO: The noble Marquess will remember that I drew attention on Second Reading to this clause, which deals with Ireland, and to the fact that in areas to which the Lord Lieutenant had not applied the Bill those people who wished to register would not be able to do so. I have sent the noble Marquess an Amendment to meet this point, and I hope he will be able to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 40, after subsection (2), insert as a new subsection: "Any person or persons residing in any area or areas which do not conic under the operations of this Act as applied to Ireland shall on application to the Registrar-General he provided with the necessary forms for registration."—(The Earl of Mayo.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I have considerable sympathy with the object which my noble friend has in view. What I understand him to desire is that in Irish areas to which the Act has not been applied by the action of the Lord Lieutenant and in which consequently there is no register, persons desiring to place their services at the disposal of the Government should have an opportunity of obtaining registration forms, and should have their names recorded as persons who wished to make themselves useful in whatever manner may be open to them. I do not think that the wording suggested by my noble friend would quite meet the case, because there would in fact be, as the Bill now stands, no Register at all in the areas which my noble friend is discussing. But I think I can suggest to him words which will answer his purpose, and I will read them. I propose to add as a new subsection these words, "As respects areas in Ireland to which section 1 of this Act does not apply, lists of persons desiring to be registered may, if the Lord Lieutenant thinks proper, be compiled by the Registrar-General for Ireland under the direction of the Lord Lieutenant, and the Lord Lieutenant for that purpose may cause forms to be issued to any such persons on their application." I think that will do quite completely what my noble friend desires.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Then the persons would have to apply to the Lord Lieutenant?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No; they could apply to the Registrar.
LORD CLONBROCK: That is, to the Registrar-General?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I presume they would. But they will find the means of ascertaining to whom to go.
LORD CLONBROCK: I am exceedingly glad that this Amendment has been brought forward, because there has been great disappointment in various parts of Ireland on the part of people who were anxious to offer their services to His Majesty's Government. This will be a great relief to such people, to exclude whom from the operations of the Act by reason of the accident of residence would be very hard.
LORD TENTERDEN: I beg to second most strongly this Amendment, which very largely meets the objection that I raised in the House yesterday to the manner in which the Bill is to apply to Ireland. This Amendment will give all the Irish people are opportunity of showing their loyalty to this country in a time of great stress and crisis. I think the new subsection has been very aptly worded by the noble Marquess, and I am sure it will make the Bill more complete and more satisfactory to the Irish people in general.
THE LORD CHAMMAN: I understand that Lord Mayo will withdraw his Amendment in order that the one read by Lord Lansdowne may be substituted.
THE EARL OF MAYO: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 40, after subsection (2), insert as a new subsection: "As respects areas in Ireland to which section 1 of this Act does not apply, lists of persons desiring to be registered may, if the Lord Lieutenant thinks proper, be compiled by the Registrar-General for Ireland under the
430
direction of the Lord Lieutenant, and the Lord Lieutenant for that purpose may muse forms to be issued to any such persons on their applicatMo."— (The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am told that it will make a great difference if this Bill call pass through its remaining stages to-night. I feel that I have no right to press that upon the House, but there have been very few Amendments put down and not very much criticism. If your Lordships would allow us to take the remaining stages this evening I should be very glad.
Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended: Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.