Sitting of 26 July 1915

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
GAS UNDERTAKINGS.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 14th July, 1914; Mr. Robertson] to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 311.]
GAS UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 14th July, 1914; Mr. Robertson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 312.]
BANKRUPTCY.
Copy presented of thirty-second General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under Section 131 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 313.]
PILOTAGE.
Copy presented of Returns relating to Pilotage in the United Kingdom for the year 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 314.]
SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
Accounts presented showing the interest accrued in respect of the Securities standing in the names of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to the credit of the Post Office Savings Banks Fund for the year ended 31st December, 1914, and of the Fund for the Banks for Savings and the Fund for Friendly Societies for the year ended 20th November, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 315.]
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE).
Copy presented of University Court Ordinance, No. 48 (Edinburgh, No. 16) (Institution of a Degree in the Theory, History, and Practice of Education, and relative Regulations) of the Commissioners under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 316.]
COAL MINING ORGANISATION COMMITTEE (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire into the conditions prevailing in the Coal Mining Industry due to the War. Part II. Minutes of Evidence and Index [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the undermentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
County of Leicester (urban district of Coalville);
County of Cardigan (town of Tregaron) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

UNITED KINGDOM (TRADE, COMMERCE, AND CONDITION OF PEOPLE.
Return ordered, "For the United Kingdom for each of the years 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, and 1914, showing the following particulars so far as available: (1) Population (millions); (2) Death Rate per Thousand; (3) Birth Rate per Thousand; (4) Paupers, total average number, Indoor and Outdoor; (5) Number of Paupers per 10,000 of the Population; (6) Total Cost of Poor Relief; (7) Net Passenger Movement outwards to Places out of Europe; (8) Average Gazette Price per Quarter of Wheat, Barley, and Oats;

1929
(9) Average Price of Beef at the Metropolitan Cattle Market; (10) Total Value of the Imports of Grain, Corn, and Flour; (11) Total Value of the Imports of Meat, Alive and Dead; (12) Total Value of the Imports of Food and Drink (exclusive of Tobacco); (13) Total Value of the Imports of Food and Drink (exclusive of Tobacco) from British Colonies and Possessions; (14) Total Value of the Imports of Food and Drink (exclusive, of Tobacco) per Head of Population); (15) Total Quantity of Home-grown and Imported Wheat and Wheat-Hour retained for Home Consumption; (16) Consumption of Wheat and Wheat-flour per Head of Population; (17) Value of Fish of British Taking landed on the Coasts of the United Kingdom; (18) Net Imports of Merchandise (deducting Re-exports), Total Value and Value per Head of Population; (19) Exports of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom, Total Value and Value per Head of Population; (20) Imports of Bullion and Specie; (21) Exports of Bullion and Specie; (22) Income Tax, Yield of each Penny; (23) Gross Income brought under Income Tax; (24) Amount standing to Credit of Depositors in. Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks; (25) Consumption of Pig Iron per Head of Population; (26) Total Registered Tonnage of British Shipping; (27) Tonnage of British Shipping entered and cleared in the Foreign Trade at Ports in the United Kingdom; (28) Tonnage of Foreign Shipping entered and cleared in the Foreign Trade at Ports in the United Kingdom; and (29) Total Clearings at the London Bankers' Clearing House (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 375, of Session 1914)."—[Sir Walter Essex.]

COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
Address "for Returns from every County Court in England and Wales of the total number of Plaints, etc., entered in each Court from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December, 1914, both days inclusive, distinguishing those not exceeding £20, those above £20 and not exceeding £50, those above £50 and not exceeding £100, and those by agreement over £100; and of the Sittings of the County Courts in England and Wales holden before the judges of such Courts in the year 1914 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 402, of Session 1914)."— [Mr. Brace.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Expiring Laws Continuance Bill,
Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Isle of Man (Customs) Bill,
Public Works Loans Bill, without Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    COLOMBIA (WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY STATION, CARTAGENA).
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to give the House any further information as to the attitude of the Colombian Government in regard to its neutrality and the question of the wireless telegraphy station at Cartagena?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFT A IRS (Lord Robert Cecil): From information -which has reached His. Majesty's Government since the statement by Mr. Roberts on this subject, they gladly recognise that the Colombian Government have at all times been animated by a sincere desire to observe strictly their obligations as a neutral Power; and His Majesty's Government are convinced that the measures taken by the Colombian Government to control the use of wireless telegraphy in Colombia will, if effectively and adequately carried out, be sufficient to prevent the abuse of this means of communication in the interests of our enemies. The Government at Bogota have, moreover, caused a preliminary inspection by a neutral wireless telegraphy operator of the station at Cartagena, in order to ensure the efficient local execution of their instructions; and they have further stated that a competent neutral will be invited to inspect this station and report upon the adequacy of the measures taken, so that no doubt may remain that their instructions have been effectively carried out by the local authorities. His Majesty's Government feel

    1931
    convinced that, should this report show that further measures are still requisite to attain the desired result, the Colombian Government will be prepared to take action without delay.

    NEUTRAL GOVERNMENTS (NEGOTIATIONS).
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with a view to emphasising the solidarity of the allied Powers, he will, so far as practicable, conduct all negotiations with neutral Governments relating to questions of contraband, international law, or other affairs arising out of the state of War, in conjunction with the Governments of France and Italy and by means of Joint Notes signed by those Governments as well as by His Majesty's Government?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: His Majesty's Government will keep in mind the suggestion put forward in this question.

    DUTCH ARMY.
    Mr. NEVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the strength of the Dutch Army has recently been increased; and, if so, whether this increase has formed the subject of official or private communications between the British and Dutch Governments?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I understand that up to the present there has been no increase in the Dutch Army- Any such increase is entirely a matter for the consideration of the Netherlands Government, and certainly has not formed the subject of communications, official or private, between that Government and His Majesty's Government.

    CAPTURES BY MOORS.
    Mr. HINDSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if one lieutenant and three seamen belonging to His Majesty's Navy, together with two officers of the British merchant service, have been captured by Moors in Almanza Bay and are held for ransom since 13th May; and, if so, what steps he has taken for their release?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: According to my information, Sub-Lieutenant Kent, R.N.R., and three seamen from the armed merchantman "Richard Welford," together with seven seamen from the British merchant steamer "Eburna," are in the hands of the villagers of Ain Deshisha in the Anjera, having been captured on 13th May. His Majesty's Agent at Tangier entered into communication with the tribes immediately after the capture. A ransom was demanded which it is not considered advisable to pay. I can give no further information at the moment as to the steps which will be taken in the future, but meanwhile I am informed that the captives are being well treated and that there is no reason for anxiety as to their safety.

    INTERNED BRITISH SUBJECTS (GERMANY).
    Mr. AGG-GARDNERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any arrangement had been agreed to by the German Government for the release from internment of certain British citizens who had been connected with banking institutions in Germany; and if there is a prospect of such an agreement being fulfilled?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Among the British subjects who were interned on 6th November last by the German Government were seventeen employés of British banks which had branches at Hamburg. As the result of repeated representations on the part of His Majesty's Government, who pointed out that 120 German employés of German banks in London were not interned, the seventeen British subjects were released from Ruhleben on 17th April last. Unofficial information has been received to the effect that some, at least, of these persons have been recently re-interned- This is presumably due to the change of policy adopted by His Majesty's Government with regard to alien enemies in this country.

    OPTICAL GLASS AND OPTICAL INSTRUMENTS.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make a statement as to the steps he has taken to increase the supply of optical glass and optical instruments; whether the supply is adequate to the requirements of the two services; and, if not, what further measures he proposes to adopt?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): Important steps have been and are being taken to increase the supply of optical glass and optical munitions generally. As, however, negotiations are now in progress with this end in view, any statement as to the measures which it is proposed to adopt would be premature and expedient.

    FEEDING-STUFFS.
    Mr. DIXONasked the President of the Board of Trade if any feeding-stuff for cattle or millers' offals or meals are still being exported to foreign countries and, if so, to which; and if, considering the price of meat and the price British farmers are having to pay for food-stuffs, he will withdraw the Board of Trade permits?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): Practically no licences for the export of milling offals have been passed by the Board since October. Applications for licences to export other kinds of feeding-stuffs are very carefully considered in each case and no general permits are given. Limited quantities of those kinds which are in most plentiful supply in this country are, allowed to Allies and British possessions, and, under special arrangements, to certain neutral countries from whence we receive large supplies of food products. The interests of British farmers are borne steadily in view, but it is not possible to exclude from consideration other national interests. The high price of meat cannot be attributed to the price of feeding-stuffs, which has indeed, compared to the price of meat, remained fairly steady.

    MESOPOTAMIA (HEALTH OF TROOPS).

      STATEMENT BY MR. CHAMBERLAIN.
      Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any recent information concerning the health of our troops in Mesopotamia; whether any considerable number of soldiers are suffering from fever, the result of exposure to the excessive heat; and whether there is adequate hospital accommodation and sufficient hospital comforts for the sick men?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): From information received during the past week, it may be said that the health of the troops in Mesopotamia is good. There were during June twenty-seven cases and nine deaths from enteric, but there has been no special prevalence of enteric at any time.
      The heat has been, and is, intense but every effort has been made to minimise its effects. The troops have been supplied with spine protectors and goggles, mosquito nets and veils, ice, mineral waters and fresh vegetables from Bombay. Electric lights and fan's have been fitted in buildings where possible. It has been found practicable to give some of the men a change in India during the unhealthy season. There is ample hospital accommodation and a good supply of comforts for the sick.
      I would like to add to the answer some account of recent operations conducted by this force, derived from telegrams which have just reached me.
      The operations on the Euphrates between Sukh-es-Sheyukh and Nasiriyeh, which were described in the communiqué issued on the 22nd instant, have been continued, and during 24th July the British forces, under Major-General G. F. Gorringe, attacked and captured in succession the enemy's advanced and main positions displaying the greatest gallantry and endurance in face of a most stubborn resistance.
      On the same evening the gunboats with the force pushed on and shelled Nasi-riyeh, with the result that during the night the Turks retreated much disorganised towards the North, and our troops occupied the town without further opposition on the morning of the 25th.
      During the earlier part of the fight on the 24th we captured eleven guns, two machine guns, and several hundred prisoners, while about 500 dead Turks were counted in their main position. Since then considerable additional captures have been made, but reports are incomplete.
      Our own casualties are estimated to be between 300 and 400 all ranks. General Gorringe reports that throughout the action the troops displayed the greatest gallantry and endurance, and in forwarding his report General Sir John Nixon states that these operations, lasting for twenty days and culminating in an attack on a series of entrenched positions, have been carried out in a shade temperature

      1935
      of 113 degrees under the most difficult and onerous conditions, the country being a network of marshes and canals.

    INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE (MILITARY PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary for India as regards persons declared to have passed the examination for the Civil Service of India and permitted to spend the following year of probation in India and in military service with the regiment there, if he will state the period to be spent in such military service, and what pay and allowances are given in that period; and in what manner and after what examinations, if any, the officer is allowed to enter the Civil Service of India?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Selected candidates for the Indian Civil Service who have been allowed to proceed to India in military service are receiving the military pay and allowances of their rank. The duration of this military service must depend upon military necessities. They will be exempted from the usual final examination, but before entering upon their civil duties they must pass the lower standard examination in the principal vernacular language of their province and must qualify in riding.

    MUNITIONS.

      CENSORSHIP OF PRESS INTERVIEWS.
      Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the "Canadian Gazette" were recently refused permission to cable to Canada an interview which their London representative had with Mr. Butler, the manager of the Canadian Car and Foundry Company; and whether, in this interview, Mr. Butler stated that his company were able to turn out large quantities of shells, that Canada could multiply her output four or five times, that the War Office had declined to place orders, and that Canadian manufacturers resented skilled labour being brought from Canada to this country when the factories in Canada were only partially employed?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I have made inquiry, and learn that permission was refused because the interview (which also dealt with another matter to which my hon. Friend quite properly makes no reference) would have furnished information to the enemy as to the sources of supply available to this country and its Allies.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Is that any reason why the statement was excised that skilled men were brought to this country from Canada, while Canadian factories were short of work and Government orders were not placed there?
      Sir J. SIMON: I think the rule that the publication of information which might be useful to the enemy should be prohibited is a sensible rule.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: Has not the Canadian Minister of Munitions placed very large orders since he has been appointed?
      Sir J. SIMON: I still think it undesirable to publish, either by question or otherwise, information as to where our supplies are obtained, as it might be of use to the enemy.
      Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that an officer in the 3rd Battalion of the Canadian contingent from Ottawa recently had an interview with the representative of the "Canadian Gazette"; will he say why the Press Bureau excised the portions relating to Artillery in which the statement was made by this officer that more shells were required and that it was disheartening when our reply was one shell to twenty shells of the enemy's; whether the Censor passed the latter part of the same sentence, that the men were as happy as could be when they had a good backing of Artillery; and why were these last words passed by the Censor, which resulted in false news being circulated in Canada owing to the first part of the sentence having been struck out?
      Sir J. SIMON: I have seen the full passage referred to. The excisions were made for military reasons. The passage which was allowed to stand—"When there is a good backing of Artillery the men are as happy as men can be. It puts heart into them"—was not dependent for its meaning on the words omitted; and there is no ground for the suggestion that false news was circulated.

      ENLISTMENT OF SKILLED MEN.
      Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Minister of Munitions whether he can yet state what principle has been adopted or action taken for protecting firms or under takings doing work essential to the production of munitions from losing by enlistment skilled men whom they cannot replace?
      Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend will make a statement on this subject on Wednesday next.

      WAS BADGES.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Manchester Ship Canal Portland Cement Company are issuing war badges to employés of military age; and whether this action has official sanction?
      Dr. ADDISON: The matter has not hitherto been brought to my right hon. Friend's notice. He will make inquiry and let my hon. Friend know the result.

      MOULDERS.
      Mr. O'GRADYasked the Minister of Munitions whether Messrs. John Brown and Company, Sheffield, are putting off work for a week men employed as moulders; whether these highly skilled men are anxious to work at shell turning and shell testing when not required to work at moulding; and whether, in view of the appeal of the Munitions Department for unskilled and semi-skilled workers to help in the production of shells, steps will be taken to see that moulders who are in the employ of firms now turning out munitions shall have preference as against un skilled labour in the production of shells if their whole time is not required at the work of moulding?
      Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid it would be difficult to lay down a strict rule such as that suggested particularly if, as appears from the question, the moulders are only unoccupied for a part of their time; but I hope that employers will take every opportunity of keeping skilled men fully employed.

      VOLTINTEEE WOBKERS.
      Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Minister of Munitions the number of volunteer munition workers that has been accepted for service in munition factories?
      Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend will make a statement on this subject on Wednesday next.

      ADVISORY COMMITTEE, LEEDS.
      Mr. O'GRADYasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Leeds branches of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and the Amalgamated Union of Clothiers' Operatives have claimed representation on the local munitions advisory committee, and that such claims have been refused; and, if so, will consideration be given to the fact that the branches of the two unions named represent a number of work people employed in the production of munitions and equipments, and that their claims to be represented on the local ad visory committee shall be granted?
      Dr. ADDISON: I will make inquiries into this matter. The question of the labour representation on munitions committees is under consideration in consultation with the National Advisory Committee on Labour. It is hoped to link up the work of the local labour advisory committees with the National Advisory Committee, which is housed at the Ministry of Munitions, and with the Labour Department of the area offices of the Ministry of Munitions.

      RADSTOCK INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.
      Mr. KINGasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the difficulties experienced by the Radstock Co-operative Industrial Society in getting delivery of machinery for their bakery; whether he is aware that this machinery was ordered long be fore the War broke out, that the bakery supplies over 20,000 persons with bread and has also supplied soldiers in training; and whether, in view of the labour saving character of this machinery, the demands of economical production of food, and the public interest, he can arrange that the machinery may be de livered from the factory which has been commandeered by the 'Government?
      Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend's attention has not hitherto been called to this matter. He will cause inquiry to be made, but he can make no promise that any machinery required for Government work can be allowed to be used for any other purpose.
      Mr. KING: Will the hon. Gentleman look into this matter in view of the fact that the contract is almost completed and only wants a very little more to complete it entirely?
      Dr. ADDISON: We are doing that.

      GAS WOBKS.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether gas works, in consequence of manufacturing tarzol and other chemicals for high explosive shells, are, or may be, made subject to "the Munitions of War Act; and whether any difference between gasworks' employés and the management would come within the scope of Part I. of the Act or be made the subject of proclamation?
      Dr. ADDISON: Part I. of the Munitions of War Act can be applied by proclamation to any difference between employers and workmen which in the opinion of His Majesty is directly or indirectly prejudicial to the manufacture, transport, or supply of munitions of war. This is clearly wide enough to cover differences affecting the employés in question.
      Mr. THORNE: My hon. Friend has not answered the first part of the question, whether gas works, in consequence of making these chemicals, come under the Munitions of War Act?
      Dr. ADDISON: At the present time they are not being declared controlled establishments.

    DURHAM COUNTY POLICE (WAGES).
    Mr. WINGasked the Home Secretary why the Home Office refused to confirm the rise of wages to the Durham County Police, though recommended by the county authorities; and if he is aware that the refusal of the Home Office to confirm the rise of wages recommended is now aggravated by increased duties, decreased holiday, non-issue of clothing, etc., the whole combined resulting in grave discontent in the force?
    Sir J. SIMON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness on the 28th of June. The policy of meeting the exigencies of the case by means of a special war allowance, rather than by raising the fixed scale of annual pay, is being adopted by an increasing number of police authorities, and I do not see why it should not be adopted in Durham.
    Mr. WING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these advances were made previously to the War, and that constables who desired to enlist are called upon to resign? Has that the right hon. Gentleman's approval?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that question really arises out of the one on the Paper, but I will make inquiries if the hon. Member desires.

    DISTRICT EMERGENCY COMMITTEES.
    Mr. COWANasked the Home Secretary what are the functions and powers of district emergency committees; by whom and on what principle the members of such committees are appointed; and whether individual committees are permitted on their own initiative to issue warnings instructing the civil population as to its action in the event of invasion by Germany; and, if so, whether, in order to avoid unnecessary panic in isolated districts, he will take steps to ensure that such warnings shall for the future be issued only on the instructions of some competent superior authority and with due regard to uniformity in all areas similarly circumstanced?
    Sir J. SIMON: Emergency committees have been appointed at the request of the Government by the Lords Lieutenant of the counties on the East and South Coasts. These committees include representatives of the military and police authorities, and their chief duty is, in co-operation with the military authorities and the police, to organise the action to be taken by the civil population in the event of a hostile landing. The Government laid down certain general instructions which have been issued by the Home Office, and the committees carry them out under the supervision of the Lord Lieutenant, who is assisted in each county by a central organising committee, on which the military authorities are also represented. In view of the varying conditions in each locality the details of the arrangements are necessarily left to the local military authorities and the committees, subject to the general instruction that they should avoid any action or statement likely to cause alarm or panic
    Mr. COWAN: Is the House to understand that this is done only after the consultation with the military authorities?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think the information I have given is correct.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question, whether these

    1941
    orders are given by the Home Office after consultation with the military authorities?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think I have answered that question.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (FIRE REGULATIONS).
    Mr. COWANasked the Home Secretary what steps, if any, the London County Council has taken, or proposes to take, to enforce the provision by the proprietors of residential flats and other similar inhabited buildings unprovided with safety staircases of adequate means of egress in case of fires due to incendiary bombs or other causes; and whether, in the event of the county council's powers being insufficient to enable it to insist upon such provision being made, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to confer such further powers as may be necessary for this purpose?
    Sir J. SIMON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him to the same question on 28th June. The powers of the council are adequate.

    AIR RAIDS (FIRE EXTINGUISHERS).
    Mr. COWANasked whether permission has been given to an Eastbourne manufacturer of powder fire extinguishers who is advertising his appliances for air raid fires, in lieu of the use of water as re commended by the Commissioner of Police, to describe his appliances as having been passed by the Board of Trade?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): No such permission has been asked for or given to any manufacturer.
    Mr. COWANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the recommendation of the Chief Commissioner of Police that the public should buy only liquid fire extinguishers complying with the Board of Trade's and certain other specifications, and whether, having regard to the practice of His Majesty's Office of Works and the London County Council Fire Brigade discouraging the use of powder extinguishers for general purposes, he will consider the advisability of discontinuing the tentative acceptance by the Board of Trade of proprietary powder extinguishers on all shipping under his
    1942
    control; whether, in the event of powder extinguishers being still tentatively allowed, such limited acceptance of these appliances gives any powder extinguisher maker the right to use the Board of Trade's name in general terms; and, if so, whether he will take steps to prevent such use of the Board's name in the future?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The recommendation to which the hon. Member refers dealt with fire extinguishers for use on shore in the event of fires due to hostile aircraft. The employment of fire extinguishers on board ship is governed by different considerations, and, as at present advised, I do not propose to prohibit totally the acceptance under certain conditions of powder fire extinguishers as part of the equipment of passenger and emigrant ships. I doubt whether I can usefully take any steps with regard to the advertisements referred to, but I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. COWANasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the various powder fire extinguishers on the market, and the manner in which some of them are erroneously described and advertised as reliable remedies against air-raid fires; whether he is aware that the contents of such extinguishers generally comprise merely powdered chalk, lime, ordinary bicarbonate of soda, or a mixture of these inexpensive ingredients, costing only a few pence, and that they are being sold to the public for as much as 5s. to 7s. 6d.; and whether he proposes to take any steps to protect the public against such unnecessary expenditure and misrepresentation1?
    Mr. NEVILLEat the same time asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has noticed that, whilst the advertisements of powder fire extinguishers have been less numerous and scandalous since the 28th June, such advertisements in recent Sunday newspapers and certain provincial newspapers still contain misstatements of fact as to their effectiveness for enemy aircraft incendiary bombs in distinct contradiction to the recommendations of the Metropolitan Police, which urge the use of water and sand or liquid extinguishers complying with certain specifications; and whether some action will now be taken to protect the public against this form of trading on their credulity or ignorance of the police warning?
    Sir J. SIMON: I understand the composition of the powders used in these extinguishers is substantially as described. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer to my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Wigan on 28th June, to which I have nothing to add at present.
    Mr. NEVILLEasked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that national funds are now directly affected through the State insurance scheme by any fire loss accruing from incendiary bombs, he will consider the advantage of a regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act that would restrict the sale of chemical fire extinguishers for air-raid purposes to patterns conforming with any of the specifications for liquid fire extinguishers named in the Metropolitan Police warning of 17th June, and circulated by the Home. Department to the other police forces?
    Sir J. SIMON: I regret that I do not see my way to adopt this suggestion.

    PROTECTION OF YOUNG GIRLS.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the protest of the Association of Head Mistresses against the practice of sending young girls into the streets to sell flowers, flags, and favours for charitable objects; and whether, having regard to the dangers of this practice, he will intervene to stop it?
    Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. A further regulation on this subject is. under consideration.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that in many cases these young girls are sent out by charitable institutions?
    Sir J. SIMON: I understand the present regulation prevents girls under sixteen going about the streets for these purposes unless accompanied by an older person, and the regulation under consideration is whether they should not be prohibited altogether.

    GRETNA RAILWAY DISASTER (VENUE OF TRIAL).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Home Secretary whether a railway servant is at present in custody awaiting trial in connec-
    1944
    tion with the Gretna railway disaster; whether the offence with which he is charged was committed in Scotland or in England; whether, in the event of the offence having been committed in Scotland, it is proposed to hold his trial in England and, if so, why; and whether the trial is to take place at Cumberland Assizes?
    Sir J. SIMON: Three persons are awaiting trial in Scotland in connection with this disaster but they are all admitted to bail- The disaster took place in Scotland, but owing to the deaths of some of the injured passengers in England the same accused persons were committed for trial to the Cumberland Assizes as the result of the verdict of a coroner's jury at an inquest held at Caulicle. I understand that all the accused will be tried in Scotland at an early date, in which event steps will be taken with a view to the abandonment of any criminal proceedings which may be pending in England.

    CONVICTION OF LESLIE J. MINTER.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Leslie Joseph Minter, who was sentenced at the Liverpool Police Court, on 21st July, to imprisonment for two months for having flashed a light from one of the portholes of the steamship "Megantic" in a part of St. George's Channel where German submarines were known to be present; and whether he will give an assurance that Minter shall be immediately interned on the expiration of his sentence?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am not at present fully informed as to the facts of the ease. The question of what action should be taken with regard to the prisoner at the end of his sentence will be carefully considered in consultation with the Admiralty.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of an amendment of the Defence of the Realm Act which would give power to the captain of a vessel, when one of the crew by his conduct endangers the vessel and the lives of passengers, to throw him overboard?
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the case of Leslie Joseph

    1945
    Minter, who pleaded guilty at the Liverpool Police Court, on 21st July, to the charge of having, while acting as under-steward on board the steamship "Megantic," done an act likely to cause damage to the ship or its destruction; whether he is aware that the act of which the prisoner was guilty was the opening of one of the ship's portholes, contrary to orders, and flashing a light therefrom in a part of St. George's Channel where German submarines were known to be present; and that the sentence inflicted for this offence was two months' imprisonment; and, having regard to the gravity of the danger to the country and shipping liable to arise from such offences, he will take steps, if necessary by legislation, to provide for adequate penalties for offences of this character?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir E. Carson): This case was investigated by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who was of opinion that the evidence was insufficient to convict Minter, a youth of seventeen, of any serious offence against the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Minter was prosecuted for charges under the Merchant Shipping Act, as stated in the question. The magistrates had power to inflict a punishment of six months' imprisonment with or without hard labour.

    IRISH VOLUNTEERS (PRESS CENSORSHIP).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary, having regard to the impartiality of the censorship, will he explain why the "Northern Whig," of Belfast, has been for several days prevented from publishing news relating to the Irish Volunteers, which appeared in other newspapers, as set forth in the "Whig," of 17th July?
    This question has been altered since I handed it in at the Table. I had written the words strict impartiality, but either by Mr. Speaker or with his authority the word "strict" has been struck out. I sympathise with the Home Secretary, and ask the question in its altered form.
    Sir J. SIMON: The Press Bureau has explained to the editor of the "Northern Whig" that there was no want of strict impartiality in the orders given by the Bureau. I much regret that this paper should have suffered when it was loyally observing the instructions it received.

    ENGLISH WIFE OF INTERNED GERMAN.
    Mr. DIXONasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the hard case of an English girl who married a German, named Jungk, the day before War was declared and returned to her parents' home at Gravesend, a prohibited area, when her husband was interned, for which offence she was sent to prison for a month; and, considering the number of enemy aliens still at large, will he order the immediate release of this English girl?
    Sir J. SIMON: I had already caused inquiries to be made into this case when the fine, in default of which imprisonment was imposed, was paid for this girl. I am proposing to advise its remission.

    TREASURY (NATIONALITY OF OFFICIALS).
    Mr. BIGLANDasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether there are any officials in his office of German birth or parentage; and, if so, will he state their names, their respective posts, and the remuneration they are receiving?
    Mr. ACLAND: All the officials in the Treasury are natural-born British subjects.

    CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS (WAR SERVICE).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether young men studying at colleges for Civil Service examinations who enlist will be expected when they come home, perhaps wounded or shattered in health, to compete with those who have declined to take part in war service; and whether the Civil Service Commissioners, when instituting future examinations, will reserve places for competition among those who have volunteered?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Government is anxious to give every encouragement to the men serving with the Forces to qualify for appointments in the Civil Service after the War. Various proposals for securing this are now under consideration, including one for holding special examinations at which only men who have served with the Forces will be entitled to compete. If this proposal proves practicable, the difficulty anticipated will not arise.

    DESTRUCTION" OF FOXES.
    Mr. ANEUR1N WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the efforts now being made to increase the production of eggs and poultry in this country, and generally of the present necessity of producing the largest possible amount of food, His Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of securing, by legislation or otherwise, the destruction of foxes during the War?
    Mr. ACLAND: The destruction of poultry by foxes is a very serious matter, particularly at a time when it is necessary to make every effort to preserve our food supplies. The Masters of Fox Hounds Associations called the attention of masters of hounds to the imperative need for making a special endeavour to reduce the number of foxes below the normal in September last, and the President of the Board will communicate with the association on the matter with a view to further action being taken this year. He is confident that those interested in fox hunting will do their best to take such action as will make legislation unnecessary.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this question is considered by the Committee on Food Production?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. DIXON: Is it a fact that the compensation funds are more than adequate to buy all the poultry throughout the country?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am sorry I cannot confirm that. There are many cases where adequate compensation is not given.

    ROYAL NAVY (WRITERS).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether over 600 commissions as assistant paymaster, Royal Naval Reserve, with pay and allowances ranging from 12s. to 15s. 6d. a day, have been granted to men from the shore who possess absolutely no knowledge of naval accountant work, whilst only twelve positions as warrant officer have been given to writers who have served in the Royal Navy for periods varying from fifteen to thirty years, over 150 of whom have been specially recommended for promotion; and, if so, will he give the reason why the claims of writers,
    1948
    experts in naval accountant duties, are consistently overlooked; and (2) what would be the difference in cost to the country in the pay of 600 assistant paymasters, Royal Naval Reserve, as against the same number of warrant officers doing the same work?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The facts are substantially as stated by the hon. Member, though I may point out that the total number of warrant or acting warrant writers appointed is considerably more than the number he refers to, and the question of making further promotions is now under consideration. If the hon. Member contemplates the substitution for assistant paymaster, R.N.R., of a similar number of warrant writers, the apparent immediate saving would be very considerable, but I must point out that the appointments filled by assistant paymasters, R.N.R., are almost entirely temporary appointments due to the War, which would cease on its termination, and it would be very undesirable to fill such appointments by the temporary promotion of men belonging to the Royal Navy proper. There would be no grounds to justify such a number of permanent promotions, which would also entail a large extra cost for pay and pensions which would have to be set off against any apparent saving.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider whether something cannot be done for this very deserving class of naval writers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question of opening the assistant paymasters' rank to the writers has been often discussed, but not adopted. There have been a number of promotions to warrant writer rank—twelve, I think—during the War.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Stockton Heath Spade Company, Warrington, has a contract for the supply of material to the Admiralty; that the firm declines to pay workmen engaged in overtime at the proper rate of wages of time and a half and allege that the contract prices allowed do not permit of such remuneration being given, and that the Government agent has refused to revise the contract prices; and if he will have inquiry made, and request

    1949
    the firm to pay the current rate of wages in accordance with the Fair-Wages Resolution of the House of Commons?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No contracts with the firm in question have been placed by the Admiralty.

    AMMUNITION (CARRIAGE THROUGH POST OFFICE).
    Mr. PETOasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the number of officers at the front who are using Colt's automatic pistols, he will arrange that ammunition for these weapons can be sent through the post when addressed to the British Expeditionary Force?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): The transmission of explosives by post is expressly prohibited by the Post Office Act of 1908 (Section 63) and by the International Postal Convention. My right hon. Friend is therefore unable to comply with the hon. Member's request.
    Mr. PETO: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the transmission by post of the cartridges in question is in any way more dangerous than the transmission of matches, which are at present allowed?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: It is true that a certain amount of ammunition is sent irregularly by post, but it' is the wish of the War Office that it should be stopped.

    FRAULEIN VON ROTTEN.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Home Secretary whether a German woman named Von Rotten, in the employment of the Red Cross department of the German War Office, has arrived, or is expected to arrive shortly, in England; whether her visit is at the invitation of His Majesty's Government and for what purpose; whether any and what undertaking has been given as to her freedom of movement while in this country and to return to Germany; what precautions are being taken to prevent her acquiring information that may be useful to the enemy; and, in view of the fact that an escaped German prisoner of war recently published in the German Press lying statements as to the state of affairs in England, how it is proposed to guard against the danger of Fraulein von Rotten publishing similar misrepresentations on her return to Germany?
    Sir J. SIMON: The statements on which this question is based are inaccurate. The lady's name is Fraulein Rotten, not Von Rotten. She is Swiss, not German. She came to this country last Wednesday. She is not connected with the German Red Cross; and the English Government did not invite her and had no knowledge of her coming. She is secretary to a Women's Emergency Committee in Berlin which has done very useful work for English women stranded in Germany and also for English soldiers in German hospitals. She had previously been resident in England, and she came here, I am informed, partly on her private affairs and partly to confer with a ladies' committee in London engaged in similar work to her own. On arrival at Tilbury she was subjected to a very stringent search, and her papers were retained for examination; but this was done, not because any suspicion attached to her, but as part of the precautionary measures now taken in regard to all persons, even of friendly nationality, coming from Germany. Her movements here are all known to the police, and the fullest precautions have been taken, but I am quite satisfied that no danger can arise from this Swiss lady's visit to England, and that she is entitled to our gratitude for her philanthropic work.

    OXFORD UNIVERSITY (RHODES SCHOLARSHIPS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has consulted with the authorities of Oxford University with a view of some arrangement being made whereby funds for the Rhodes scholarships held at Oxford by German subjects nominated by the German Kaiser may be diverted during the War; and whether any action will be taken in this direction?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): These scholarships are in abeyance, and nothing has been or can be paid in respect of them during the War. It would require special legislation to divert these scholarships to other purposes, which in present circumstances I am not prepared to initiate.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether there would not be a unanimous approval of legislation of this kind which might be carried through without any discussion or waste of time.

    CIVIL SEBVICE (CANDIDATES' NATIONALITY).
    Mr. BIGLANDasked the Prime Minister whether upon appointments to the Civil Service being made the candidate or applicant is required to answer any questions regarding his parents' nationality or to state whether he him self is British born or a British subject by naturalisation; and, if so, to what special object are such questions directed?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Candidates for appointment to the Civil Service are required to state whether they are natural born or naturalised British subjects in order that it may be ascertained whether they fulfil the condition of British nationality which is imposed upon all Civil servants of the Crown. Candidates for appointment to the Foreign Office, Admiratly, War Office, and Colonial Office, are required to state also the nationality of one or both of their parents in order to comply with certain rules which have been prescribed for persons seeking posts in those Departments.

    OPERATIONS IN CAMEROONS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the anxiety amongst the relatives of officers and men who are engaged in military operations in the Cameroons at the lack of news; and if he will say when dispatches from the officer commanding will be published?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The War Office will answer this question.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I am sorry to say I have not received notice of the question.

    MORTGAGES (INCREASED INTEREST).
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation debarring mortgagees of house property who have lent money on such before the War from raising the rate of interest chargeable on such loans, in view of the facts, first, that the Court (Emergency Powers) Act of 1914 has proved ineffective in bringing about this result, notwithstanding the statement of his predecessor that it would do so, and, second,
    1952
    that such advances in rates of interest are bound to tell in advancement of the rents of working-class houses?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on this subject on Wednesday last, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire.

    RETIRED MEDICAL OFFICERS.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why a difference is made between the total amount of remuneration granted to retired medical officers and others receiving civil superannuation allowances who have accepted fresh service under the military authorities and the amount of remuneration, including supernnuation allowance, granted to retired naval and military officers who have similarly undertaken new duties in either of the two Services?
    Mr. McKENNA: The issue of superannuation allowances to retired Civil servants who are reappointed to any civil office is governed by the provisions of Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, 1834. The differences in the regulations applicable to naval or military service, on the one hand, and the civil service on the other, are due largely to historical reasons, and the conditions of the services are too dissimilar to enable any useful comparison to be drawn in this respect.
    Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the question of giving an officer who is to be employed his full pension without question, and make his pay equal to the difference between that and the amount he was drawing when last employed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I shall have to have notice of that question.

    WAR LOAN.

      SOLICITORS AND BROKERAGE.
      Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the prospectus of the new War Loan contained the usual provisions for the payment of brokerage to financial houses, etc.; whether, in accordance with common practice, solicitors were excluded from participation in the brokerage; whether, notwithstanding this, the Bank of England has agreed to

      1953
      pay brokerage to a certain solicitor; practising in Scotland; how, if this be so,: the Bank came to select this particular member of the legal profession for such a special concession; whether the action of the Bank in so doing was taken under a misapprehension; whether it will be overruled by the Government; and whether he is aware that the granting of any such special privilege to one solicitor in this way is most unfavourably regarded by the legal profession and others legitimately interested in such matters in Scotland?
      Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that the Bank of England informed the particular solicitor in Edinburgh to whom the question presumably refers that commission would be allowed to him in connection with the issue of the 4| per Cent. War Loan, the Bank's statement being based on the assumption, which appeared at the time well founded, that the gentleman in question, although registered as a solicitor, was entirely engaged in financial business. Further inquiries have since been undertaken by the Bank, in view of representations made to it, and if it should prove that the gentleman concerned is or has recently been transacting business as a solicitor, no commission will be paid to him.

    FORGED NOTES.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there are in circulation a considerable number of forged notes of the new issue, particularly notes of the value of 10s.; and, if so, whether any steps can be taken to prevent this fraud upon the public?
    Mr. McKENNA: The design of the new issue of Currency Notes was adopted after careful consideration, and the cases which have come under review do not suggest that the number of forgeries is considerable. With regard to the second part of the question every case of forgery is brought to the notice of the police authorities at Scotland Yard for investigation.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of forged notes have recently been in circulation in the Midlands?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, I am not aware of that, but I am glad to have the information.

    SOUTH WALES STRIKE.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the estimate that the loss occasioned by the strike of coal miners in South Wales amounts to not less than one million and a-half sterling may be taken as approximately accurate?
    Mr. McKENNA: The reduction in the output of coal consequent on the stoppage of work for a week in the South Wales coalfield may be roughly estimated at a million tons. The consequent loss in wages may be estimated at about £450,000, but there is no sufficient material on which to estimate other losses.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (BUILDING RESTRICTIONS).
    Mr. REMNANTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the request of the Treasury to the London County Council that all large building operations under their control should be restricted or postponed during the present crisis is interpreted by the council as an invitation to throw the burden of such restriction exclusively upon their contractors, the effect of which will be to inflict loss on the contractors and financial embarrassment on many of the sub contractors; and whether he intended that the request of the Treasury should be so interpreted?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The intention of the Treasury was that such postponements in regard to works already under contract should be made by arrangement with the contractors.

    POLITICAL MEETINGS (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the interference of General Frend with the civil right of citizens in Ireland to attend political meetings, he will say by whom and under what Statute he is instructed to take this political, as distinguished from military, action?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The hon Member has already been informed that the recent action of the Competent Military Authority in Ireland was taken on the initiative

    1955
    of that authority in pursuance of powers vested in him under the Defence of the Realm Acts, and was dictated by military considerations.
    Mr. GINNELLfurther asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the administration of the Defence of the Realm Act in Ireland against political opponents is in the hands of the military authorities, will he say under what Act and by whose direction the Under-Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant telephoned to the Dublin newspapers on the 30th March last, and wrote to them on the 8th April, forbidding them to report the proceedings at any stage in two political cases then pending, on the ground that it was against the public interest that details of the evidence or of the speeches of counsel should be published; and whether this prohibition is still in force in respect of all cases of expulsion from Ireland for political opinions whether with or without accusation or trial?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second that the communications therein referred to were not a prohibition but a request requiring no statutory or other authority. No prohibition is at present in force dealing specifically with the publication of reports of proceedings under the Defence of the Realm Acts, but the circulation of statements likely to cause disaffection to His Majesty or to interfere with the success of His Majesty's Forces, or to prejudice the recruiting, training, discipline, or administration of those Forces is forbidden by Article 27 of the Regulations.
    Mr. GINNELL: Does it follow from that answer that the Under-Secretary at Dublin Castle can issue restrictive orders to-day without statutory authority?
    Mr. BIRRELL: They issue no restrictive orders of any kind or description.

    MILITARY BADGE FOR INVALIDED SOLDIERS.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will consider the desirability of supplying a distinctive badge to soldiers invalided out of
    1956
    the Service, and who may have returned to civil employment, in order that (apart from their discharge papers) they may carry some public indication showing that they have served their country in a military capacity?
    Mr. TENNANT: This question is under consideration.

    SICK LEAVE AND INOCULATION.
    Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that Private R. H. O. Mears, 4th Battalion Hampshire Regiment, stationed at New-sham Park Camp, Northumberland, although recommended by the doctor for sick leave on account of illness contracted in the course of his military duties, failed to obtain such leave when it was found that he had not been inoculated against typhoid fever; whether soldiers are being informed that they cannot have leave unless they have been inoculated; and, if so, whether he will take steps to inform commanding officers that the absence of inoculation should not debar men from their proper privileges?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have had inquiry made, and I find that the statement that Private Mears was not granted leave owing to his not being inoculated is entirely without foundation. The medical officer did not recommend Mears for sick leave. He was informed that the preference as regards leave was given to men who had been inoculated, but there are, I understand, about 300 inoculated men who have had no leave.

    WAR OFFICE (ALLEGED PRO-GERMAN).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary for War whether a Mr. Voigt, who returned from Germany in October last, having been through the German lines with the Crown Prince, and who is alleged to entertain pro-German sentiments, is now or has been recently employed at the War Office?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am unable to trace that anyone of this name has been employed at the War Office.

    UNREGISTERED DENTAL SURGEONS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether the decision of the War Office is final with regard to the employment of unregistered dental surgeons; whether this is due to the objection of the British Dentists' Organisation; and whether, seeing that trade unionists have waived their rules for the period of the War, the War Office will use its influence to induce this professional union to waive its rules too?
    Mr. TENNANT: Registered dentists are employed by the War Office because to be registered a dentist must have complied with conditions which imply a prolonged, practical, and skilled training, tested as to its results by examination. In the interests of the troops it is essential to know that the dentists who treat them have been properly trained. It is not proposed to alter the present practice.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does the War Office suggest that these other dentists have not been trained?
    Mr. TENNANT: They have not been trained quite so well.
    Mr. WATT: Is there a sufficient supply of registered men to meet the War Office demands?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes.

    SOLDIERS' HOME LEAVE.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware that many soldiers have been at the front in Belgium for over ten months without being allowed Home leave; whether it was publicly announced that no soldier should remain at the front for a longer period than seven months without being granted Home leave; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to this undertaking being carried out?
    Mr. TENNANT: The question of leave from the front is entirely in the hands of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief. Subject to the exigencies of the Service, leave is given to men who have been at the front for a considerable period. I have no knowledge of any public pronouncement regarding leave to soldiers at the front.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall be losing a large number of soldiers in August
    1958
    through their refusing to go on if the men are kept away with no leave?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am very sorry the hon. Member has information to that effect. I can scarcely credit it. The Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief is most anxious to give leave to the men so far as military exigencies will permit.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I have two letters giving that information. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
    Mr. BOWERMAN: Is it not the case that some men have had two periods of leave, while other men for long periods have had no leave?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid it is impossible that justice can be meted out absolutely with equality in an Army of a great many thousands of men.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that the men who win the V.O. are granted furlough at once?

    LOST RAILWAY TICKETS (ARMY ORDER).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary for War whether an Army Order was published last month, No. 5,845, to the effect that, in the case of soldiers on short leave from the front who lose their return tickets, they not only have to pay their fare but if they find the ticket are now refused any claim for refund in respect of the second ticket; and whether this is contrary to the railway practice in civil life?
    Mr. TENNANT: There is no Army Order with the number mentioned. Soldiers on short leave from the front who lose their tickets and have had to pay are granted a refund in the event of their tickets being found.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Here is the Order.
    Mr. TENNANT: There has been some confusion as to the word "lost" and the word "found."
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Are not these the words of the Order?—"Refund—Cancellation of payment warrants. From the date of these instructions no claims for refund on lost tickets or requesting cancellation of payment warrants will be entertained."
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes; that is on lost tickets. I thought it was on found tickets.

    SHRAPNEL FUSES (KRUPP'S DRAWINGS).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he has any official information to the effect that Messrs. Krupp, of Essen, supplied to certain British armament firms the full detailed drawings of the shrapnel fuses now being used by the British Army in France?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The drawings of a fuse from which one of the fuses used by our Army in France may be said to have been evolved were obtained through an English firm from Messrs. Krupp's, but the full drawings of the fuse as used in the British service were not obtained from Messrs. Krupp's.

    TERRITORIAL TROOPS (COMMISSIONS).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary for War whether, in view of the official announcement that permanent commissions in the Army are not refused to Territorials, he has received from a Member of this House two letters, dated 16th June and 8th July, respectively, from general headquarters expressing regret that permanent commissions cannot be granted, as the regulations do not admit of this, and that this was a ruling of the War Office; whether he has also had a sight of two letters from Brigadier-General Lowther, and from Colonel Green, of the London Scottish, dated May last; and whether, seeing that both these officers stated that they believed no permanent commissions are now granted in any unit, he will inform Sir John French that Territorials from the ranks are eligible for permanent commissions the same as Regulars?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have received from my hon. Friend several letters addressed to the father of two soldiers serving in the London Scottish which- appear to be replies to letters addressed by him to officers at the front requesting that his sons should be recommended for permanent commissions in the Regular Army, although they have not fulfilled the required conditions. A similar request had been previously received in the War Office, and in reply thereto the conditions to be fulfilled by the two soldiers in question were fully explained to their father. Many
    1960
    soldiers of the Territorial Force have obtained commissions by fulfilling these conditions, and there appears to be no reason why these two soldiers should not do so. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the printed memorandum in which the conditions are set forth.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right, hon. Gentleman aware that he definitely stated in reply to a question I put in this House that the Territorials were enabled from the ranks to obtain commissions? I ask him whether the statement on the paper that general headquarters had definitely stated in writing, and that the brigadier and the commanding officer had also stated, that permanent commissions are not granted to Territorials from the ranks is correct. Is that not the statement made from general headquarters in writing?
    Mr. TENNANT: What I think happened was that the hon. Member asked me a question in regard to Territorials getting permanent commissions. I assumed that he was referring to officers in the Territorial Force and not to soldiers. If I made a mistake I am sorry. It is true that the officers in the Territorial Army can receive permanent commissions in the Regular Army in the manner I have described. Soldiers in the ranks in the Territorial Force are in a different position. They are in the position I have described in my answer.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Had not these two privates been at public schools, and would they not have been eligible for commissions if they had come direct from the public schools?
    Mr. TENNANT: If they had gone in the ordinary way through Sandhurst and Woolwich they would have been eligible.

    ROYAL LONDON INSURANCE SOCIETY (STAFF ENLISTMENTS).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that some of the agents employed by the Royal London Insurance Society who are of military age desire to enlist and hand over their books to their wives, so that the latter may carry on the business in their absence; whether he is aware that the society are objecting to the course suggested; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is presumed the hon. Member is referring to the Royal London Mutual Insurance Society, Limited. This and other insurance companies have recently been approached on the desirability of employers utilising to the fullest extent men outside the recruitable age, and where practicable women and boys, to replace men available and desirous of joining His Majesty's Forces. Since this answer was prepared I have received a letter from, the Royal London Mutual Insurance Society, who inform me that there is no truth in the statement that they have put any obstructions in the way of their men. They add: "Some 500 of our staff have already joined His Majesty's Forces."

    SPECIAL LIEUTENANTS R.A.M.C. (PAY AND PROMOTION).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can now say if the War Office have arrived at any decision regarding the question of pay and promotion of special lieutenants in the Reserve and Territorial Force Royal Army Medical Corps; and, if so, will he tell the House the result of the decision?
    Mr. FORSTER: It has been decided to promote to the rank of captain all lieutenants of the Special Reserve and Territorial Force Royal Army Medical Corps who have given six months' mobilised service, with effect from 1st April last, and steps are now being taken to carry out this decision.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the same privileges will be extended to qualified dentists now holding the rank of lieutenant?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think the dentists are serving under a special engagement. I do not think they are included in the officers to whom the question refers.

    ACHI BABA (MAPS).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the height of Achi Baba is given on the Admiralty chart as 730 feet and on a published War Office map as 709 feet; and whether the approximate height is the one given on the military map in the Tea Room as 591 feet?
    Mr. TENNANT: The height of Achi Baba as indicated by the contours on the one-inch to one-mile War Office map of the Gallipoli Peninsula is something over 700 feet. The figure 591 on. the same map is not the highest point. The exact height of the highest point is not known, but the War Office map is believed to be substantially correct in this respect.

    MARESFIELD PAEK CAMP, SUSSEX.
    Mr. CAUTLEYasked whether the roads at Maresfield Park Camp, Sussex, constructed during the winter of 1914–15, were constructed by the War Office under contract or day work, and, if by contract, what was the amount of the contract and the amount expended also on day work; whether the War Office have received reports to the effect that such roads were improperly constructed and are already useless, and that the moneys then expended have been practically thrown away or to a similar effect; whether estimates for the reconstruction of these roads or some of them have been, received; if so, what are the amounts of such estimates, and if for a portion of these roads the estimate is £1,648; and whether any steps are being taken to prevent such waste in the future?
    Mr. FORSTER: These roads were constructed by the War Office on day work. I am unable to give the amount expended. A report to the effect stated in the question has been received, but I must not be taken as admitting that it is in all respects well founded. These roads had to be constructed in the shortest possible time in order that the camp might be occupied, and only work of a temporary kind was attempted. Work of a more permanent character is now being undertaken through the Road Board. The hon. Member's information as regards an estimate of £1,648 is quite accurate.

    LOFTHOUSE PAEK INTERNMENT CAMP.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked whether Germans interned at Lofthouse Park, near Wakefield, are often given permission to visit Leeds without any escort whatever; whether the management of the camp is generally very lax; and whether he will take steps to enforce stricter discipline?
    Mr. TENNANT: Steps were taken some time ago to enforce with greater stringency the regulations as regards discipline in the internment camp at Wakefield.
    Mr. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is true, as asked in the question, that Germans interned in Lofthouse Park are allowed or have been allowed to visit Leeds without any escort?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid that I cannot say that.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are two kinds of treatment accorded in this camp, and that those who are inclined to be liberal in the way of tips are treated a great deal more leniently than the rest?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (PROMOTION).
    Colonel YATEasked the number of captains of the Royal Army Medical Corps who have received accelerated promotion to fill the vacancies created by the promo-lion of the ninety-seven majors to lieutenant-colonels, in addition to the fourteen captains promoted previous to 31st March, 1915?
    Mr. TENNANT: The promotion of majors to lieutenant-colonels rank in the Royal Army Medical Corps does not necessarily create vacancies in the list of majors. Promotion to the latter rank is ordinarily by time service irrespective of numbers. Fifty-one captains have received accelerated promotion in addition to the fourteen mentioned and to others who were promoted after the usual regulation period of service.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

      ABKESTS IN IRELAND.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to say whether the order for the expulsion of Mr. Denis MacCullagh from Ireland for his political opinions, without trial or accusation, has been executed; if the period allowed him for preparation was extended, to what condition was the extension subject; and what part of the Defence of the Realm Act is relied upon to impose this condition?
      Mr. TENNANT: MacCullagh has been arrested and will be brought up for trial on a charge of failing to comply with the order made against him by the Competent Military Authority. The period within which he was directed so to comply was extended at his request on condition that he refrained in the meantime from attending or addressing any political meeting. The right of the competent authority to grant this conditional extension is vested in him by Article 14 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
      Mr. GINNELLasked why Mr. Herbert Pim has been arrested and imprisoned in Ireland, instead of being expelled, for his political opinions; why his mother has been refused permission to visit him except in the presence and hearing of officials; whether protests have been made against this treatment of a gentleman neither tried for nor accused of any illegality; and under what law or rule be is subjected to this treatment?
      Mr. TENNANT: Herbert Pim is charged with an offence against the Defence of the Realm Regulations in that he failed to comply with an order made against him by the Competent Military Authority, and he has been arrested as a preliminary for his trial for that offence, in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations. It is a matter of prison regulation that visits to prisoners other than those of persons acting as legal advisers to them or conducting legal proceedings on their behalf are only permitted in the sight and hearing of a prison officer. I am informed that a protest has been received by the Competent Military Authority against the enforcement of this regulation in the case of Pim.
      Mr. GINNELL: By whose direction have these Irishmen been served in Ireland with copies of the Aliens Restriction Act and of the rules thereunder, and is there any other purpose in serving these orders than provocation?
      Mr. TENNANT: I shall be obliged if the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that.
      Mr. LYNCH: Is it true that the Government is using the extraordinary powers of the Defence of the Realm Act to harry or in any way persecute men on account of their political opinions?
      Mr. TENNANT: There is absolutely no truth in it.

    MOTOR OPERATING-THEATRE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether any offer has been made to the War Office of a motor operating-theatre; and, if so, whether a fair trial will be given to this system with the view of reducing the rate of mortality from abdominal wounds?
    Mr. TENNANT: So far as I am aware, no offer of a motor operating theatre has been made to the War Office, but the question of sending motor operating theatres to the front has been brought to notice, and has been carefully considered in communication with our expert advisers overseas, with the result that it has been decided not to send any motor operating theatres to the front, as the opinion of our expert advisers on the spot is that their provision would not diminish the rate of mortality of abdominal wounds.

    WINDSOR BARRACKS.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked whether it is in contemplation to make alterations in the barracks at Windsor; if so, what is the nature of such alterations and what is the estimated cost?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is intended to remodel the officers' quarters and to provide infirmary stables at the Combermere barracks, Windsor, at an estimated cost of £10,000. The work has been deferred for some time, but owing to the very defective state of the existing buildings, the alterations ought not to be long delayed.

    SCOTTISH SOLDIERS (HOSPITALS).
    Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that English and Irish soldiers are under treatment in Llanchoil hospital, Forres, Gray's hospital, Elgin, Gordon Castle, Fochabers, and other hospitals in the North of Scotland; and whether he will arrange that so far as practicable Scottish soldiers are sent to hospitals in Scotland in preference to English and Irish soldiers in order that their relatives may be able to visit them without incurring what is frequently the prohibitive expense of a journey to England?
    Mr. TENNANT: I had understood from my hon. Friend that Belgians were occupying some of these hospitals. Every endeavour is made to send our own patients, arriving from overseas, to hospitals in the neighbourhood of their homes, but, owing to the fact that men are sent from the port of disembarkation in ambulance trains, each carrying 100 or more patients, it is not always possible to do so. My hon. Friend will realise that in many instances it is not to the advantage of the patients themselves that they should be sent on a long railway journey on arrival in this country.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Is it not equally possible for a Sottish soldier to stand the journey as an English soldier? Numbers of English soldiers are sent up there. Is it not the case that two at least of these hospitals were occupied by Belgians in the month of January and February? Why should not Scottish soldiers have the preference in their own country?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have told my hon. Friend before that the preference is always given to soldiers of sending them to the convalescent hospitals or homes which are nearest their own homes. But I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise the difficulty of sorting out all those cases and putting the right man in the right place. That is a difficulty which is occurring every day in my life. My hon. Friend will realise that much depends upon, the nature and condition of the wound.

    BOARD OF TRADE (GERMAN OFFICIALS).
    Mr. BIGLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are any officials in his Department of German birth or parentage; and, if 6o, will he state their names, their respective posts, and the remuneration they are receiving?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The number of officials employed in my Department is so large (between 6,000 and 7,000), and they are so widely distributed over the United Kingdom that it is not possible to give my hon. Friend the information he desires at once, but inquiries shall be made, and the information sent to him.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (GERMAN COMPANIES).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the resident of the Board of Trade whether, out of 5,000 shares belonging to the Tudor Accumulator Company, 4,699 are held by a German firm in Berlin; whether a further 150 shares are held by Germans resident in Germany; whether the firm is doing Government work; and if he will explain why, when English firms could do the work, German firms should be allowed to continue to trade merely with a penalty of postponing their dividends until after the War?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The statement as to the shareholding in the Tudor Accumulator Company, Limited, is correct, except that the number of shares held by persons resident in Germany in addition to the German company is eighty instead of 150, as stated in the hon. Member's question. I am informed that some Government work is being done by the company. As the company is incorporated in this country it is entitled to trade here, but I may inform the hon. Member that, under the Trading with the Enemy Acts, an inspector of the company was appointed last October, and a supervisor was appointed last December in order to ensure that there should be no trading with the enemy.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The only result of that is that the Germans will get their dividends just the same after the War is over and the company is allowed to trade for the benefit of Germans?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have not departed in this case in the slightest degree from the policy followed in other cases. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to infer that the Germans will get all the dividends.

    COAL STRIKE (GERMAN AGENTS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any evidence exists to the effect that German agency and German money have promoted, instigated, aided, or abetted the strike in South Wales?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I know of no such evidence.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.
    Mr. AGG-GARDNERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Act prohibiting trading with the enemy is being evaded by the establishment of German factories in Holland which, such as the Gautsch Incandescent Light Company, a branch of a German firm working with German capital, at Sloterdyk, near Amsterdam, flood the British market with their produce; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken to make the Act more effective?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, goods (with certain minor exceptions) cannot be imported into this country from Holland unless accompanied by a certificate of origin issued by a British Consul. Such certificates are not granted in cases where the manufacturing firm is known to be a branch in Holland of an enemy firm. I shall be glad to consider any information which the hon. Member may be in a position to send me respecting the particular firm to which he refers.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the following applications for patents recently filed, namely: 6664, 1915, mechanical time-fuses for projectiles, Rheinische Metallwaarenund Maschinenfabrik; 6649, 1915, propeller device for projectiles and the like, Aktieselskabet Carl Lunds Fabriker; 7144, 1915, sighting devices for airship- repelling guns, Fried. Krupp Akt.-Ges.; will he say whether these patents were granted to German firms; and whether Germans are still allowed to register patents in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Letters Patent have not been granted on these applications, and will not be granted during the War. Applications for the grant of Letters Patent are received from alien enemies, and are proceeded with down to and including the acceptance of the complete specifications; but the granting of any patent rights on these applications is entirely suspended. I am sending my hon. Friend a printed notice respecting the procedure followed in this and other similar cases.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Does not the filing of these applications give provisional protection until such time as the complete specification is granted, and therefore in

    1969
    effect is not the Government granting provisional protection to the Germans?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No. That is not my information. The only effect so far as that goes is that we get the fees and the Germans do not get protection.

  LIVERPOOL REGIMENT.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War whether, in the casualty lists of the battalions of the Liverpool Regiment, the nationality of the Irish battalions has not been mentioned, and whether he will see that this, no doubt unconscious, slight of Irish soldiers in this regiment will be removed?
  Mr. TENNANT: I hope that the suggestion of my hon. Friend will be carried out, and that in the casualty lists the battalion known as the Liverpool Irish, which I understand the hon. Gentleman has particularly in mind, will always be mentioned.

  Trafalgar Square Improvement.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether it is still proposed to make a new road joining Leicester Square with the north side of Trafalgar Square by a cutting through the vacant land on the western side of the National Gallery; and, if not, what are the changes in the original scheme for the improvement of this communication and when will the improvements decided on be put into operation; is he aware of the dilapidated condition of the Government property on the eastern side of St. Martin's Street; and can he do anything to put the walls and temporary buildings into better order?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): I understand that the proposal for a new road has been abandoned. The interest of the Commissioners of Works in the matter was confined to securing the National Gallery against fire risk on the west side. That object has now been attained by negotiation with adjoining owners. The ground on the east side of St. Martin's Street is held for the purpose of extensions to the National Portrait Gallery and National Gallery, and till the question of such extensions arises, only temporary structures can be put on it. In the present state of
  1970
  the public finances, I do not see my way to spend money in improving the appearance of it.

  Welsh Church Act.
  Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Home Secretary whether any applications have been made to the Welsh Commissioners since 18th March last by lay patrons or others for compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Welsh Church Act, 1914; whether the Commissioners have given any decisions as to the validity of claims for compensation made by individuals, by colleges in the University of Oxford, by the Simeon Trustees, or by the trustees of the Church Patronage Society; and, if so, how many claims so made have been sustained and how many rejected?
  Sir J. SIMON: One claim in respect of one living has been received by the Commissioners since the 18th March, 1915. They have also received a communication with reference to a possible claim in respect of three other livings. As regards claims lodged within the six months, as prescribed by Section 16 (of which particulars were given on the 27th April, in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for the Eifion Division of Carnarvonshire) the Commissioners have been proceeding with the investigation of titles; but they have not so far given decisions as to the validity of any of these claims.

  Capital Punishment.
  Sir W. BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in the year 1914, out of 102 persons charged with murder, twenty men and three women were convicted and sentenced to death; and will he say in how many of these cases was the sentence carried out?
  Sir J. SIMON: The figures in my hon. Friend's question are correct; the sentence of death was executed in the case of fourteen men and no women.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether it is with the knowledge and approval of the Government that old age pension officers in Ireland are opposing, and the Local Government Board for Ireland disallowing, all old age pensions to persons now becoming legally entitled to them; if any inducement as regards salary or promotion for success in so doing this has been offered; whether it will be withdrawn; and whether he will take any

  1971
  steps to maintain the impartial administration of the Old Age Pensions Acts until Parliament has decided otherwise?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There is no foundation for the suggestions made in the first and second parts of the question. The suggestion that pension officers have a personal interest in opposing the grant of pensions is a scandalous one. The Government will continue, as in the past, to take all necessary steps to maintain the impartial administration of the Old Age Pensions Acts.

  Postal Correspondence (Delay).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General what report he has received regarding the sealed letter addressed to a Member at this House and posted in Dublin on the 12th instant, bearing the Dublin post marks of the 13th and 15th instant; if not delayed and tampered with by postal officials, will he say by whom; under what law it was transferred for that purpose; and on what grounds?
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: My right hon. Friend has received no report at all, nor has he any means of ascertaining from whom he should seek a report. He said on the 21st instant that he would make inquiry if the hon. Member would give him any information, and he asked for the cover of the letter or a description of it. As the hon. Member has not complied with this request matters remain as they were.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman take the cover?
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: Yes; I shall be very pleased to.

  Beef Trust of Chicago (Income Tax).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that, with one exception, the companies operating in Smithfield Market and elsewhere in this country, and known as the Beef Trust of Chicago, have paid no Income Tax for over ten years, although their turnover in this country aggregates about £20,000,000 per annum; whether he is aware that the matter has been under the consideration of the authorities at Somerset House for nearly three years; and whether any proceedings have been, or are likely to be, taken against these companies, or are they to continue to be permitted to enjoy preferential treatment over British traders?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am aware of the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. I
  1972
  understand from the Board of Inland Revenue that some progress has been made which it is hoped may eventuate in a satisfactory settlement.

  Foreign Investments.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked what is the amount of British capital invested over seas; and how much is invested in the British Empire?
  Mr. McKENNA: No official information is available on this question. It has been estimated by good authorities that the total British capital invested abroad amounts to £4,000,000,000, of which nearly one-half has been supplied to the British Empire.
  Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that something like £200,000,000 is realised every year, and: will he keep his eye on that when he makes his next Budget?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I do not think that has ever been lost sight of.

  Income Tax Assessments.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked what was the gross assessment to Income Tax for the financial years ending 1912–13, 1913–14, and 1914–15?
  Mr. McKENNA: The gross income brought under review for Income Tax purposes for the year 1914– 15 is estimated to have been approximately £1,206,000,000. The corresponding figure for 1913–14 is £1,167,184,229, being about £55,000,000 in excess of the figure for 1912–13. If the hon. Member will refer to page 100 of the last published Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue he will find full particulars for 1912–13 and the nine preceding years.

  Increment Value Duty.
  Mr. POLLOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a claim for Increment Value Duty of £50 has been made against Mr. A. Taylor, of No. 395, Stockport Road, Manchester, in respect of a sale by him of leasehold property, and that, although request has been made for the consideration of this claim to stand over pending the introduction of a One-Clause Bill to deal with the Lumsden judgment, foreshadowed by the Prime Minister, the Commissioners have threatened to take proceedings unless the £50 is at once paid; and whether, having regard to the fact that there has been no increase in value of the bare site, he will give instructions that the consideration of

  1973
  this claim shall be postponed until the amending legislation already referred to has been introduced in the House of Commons, so as to avoid raising these questions at the present time?
  Mr. McKENNA: The occasion for collection of this duty occurred early in 1911. I am not aware that any legislation has been foreshadowed which would have retrospective operation to such a date, and in these circumstances I cannot interfere with the collection of the duty.

  Passenger Transit Services (London).
  Mr. PARTINGTONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that a resolution has been passed by the Highways Committee of the London County Council to the effect that the President of the Local Government Board should be informed that, with a view to avoid the waste in men, materials, and money due to unnecessary duplication of passenger transit services in London, the council is prepared to enter into a conference, to be held under the chairmanship of a representative of his Department, with other traffic authorities and undertakings; and will he say what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I have had this matter under consideration, and hope to be in a position to summon a conference at an early date.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    TUBERCULOSIS (DISPENSABY SEUVICES).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the chairman of the Insurance Commission (England) informed the London Insurance Committee that the Local Government Board stipulated for a sum of £9,300 annually for a scheme of dispensary services to deal with tuber-culous patients; and whether he can give the committee any information to enable it to come to a decision about the proposed expenditure?
    Mr. LONG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I understand that the London Insurance Committee have come to a decision in the matter.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the only decision they have come to is to ask for further particulars?
    Mr. LONG: No, I think the hon. Member is mistaken. I am informed they have arrived at a decision as to the amount to be paid excepting the amount which was estimated by the Local Government Board to be the annual cost of the maintenance of the services. I have no special knowledge.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the London Insurance Committee refused to endorse the action of the sub-committee, rejected the paragraph, and asked for further information? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the minutes if I send him a copy?
    Mr. LONG: I shall be glad to consider anything. I have no control over the London Insurance Committee, and no right to represent them here.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he is aware that the chairman of the Insurance Commission (England) attended the London sanatorium sub-committee and asked for a yearly grant of £9,300 to be given to the Local Government Board for dispensary services, and that no particulars were given nor the grounds stated upon which this charge was based; and whether he can give any information as to how this sum has been arrived at?
    The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. C. Roberts): No, Sir, no such request was made to the London Insurance Committee as is stated in the question. The Insurance Commission merely communicated to the London Insurance Committee, for their consideration, certain proposals resulting from the negotiations undertaken, at the request of the London Insurance Committee, by the Local Government Board with the Metropolitan borough councils, together with an explanation of the principles on which those proposals were based. The reply to the second paragraph in the question has been given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board in response to another question on the Paper to-day.
    Mr. BOOTH: In view of the fact that the President of the Local Government Board said he did not represent this matter, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will furnish any information which is asked for by this important body, the London Insurance Committee, as to how the £9,300 is made up?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think I must refer my hon. Friend, for the explanation of that sum, to the President of the Local Government Board.
    Mr. BOOTH: I will make a further effort on the Adjournment of the House. Perhaps they will settle it between them by then.

    LONDON INSURANCE COMMITTEE (CONFERENCE).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he is aware of the decision of the London Insurance Committee to seek a conference with the Commissioners to discuss the situation in London and to raise the question of a reconsideration by the Government of the committee's duties under the National Insurance Acts and the regulations in the light of two and a-half years' experience; and whether the Government is prepared to hold such a conference?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Commissioners have not received any request for such a conference. They are at all times willing to confer with the committee upon any questions arising out of the discharge of the committee's duties.

    INCREASED LEVY (LONDON).
    Mr. BOOTHasked if the Insurance Commissioners are aware that the London Insurance Committee passed resolutions unanimously on 22nd July last stating that the committee noted with regret the suggestion of the Insurance Commissioners that before consenting to the continuance of expenditure at the present rate upon administrative work the committee should, upon their full responsibility, take the necessary steps towards increasing the levy upon approved societies having members in the London area; that the committee were unable to agree to the suggestion and would, if necesary, offer the strongest opposition to the proposal; whether they are aware that the approved societies entirely agree with the action of the London committee; and if the suggestion will now be withdrawn?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The resolutions referred to have not been communicated to the Commissioners, who did not, as the hon. Member suggests, recommend the course in question, but drew the committee's attention to the only source from which
    1976
    additional funds can be obtained by the committee if it decides that its present income for purposes of administration is insufficient. The last part of the question does not therefore arise.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister two questions in regard to public business. The first question is whether he proposes to move the Resolution standing in his name for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night? The second is whether the Government propose to proceed with the Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill to-day?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I point out that the Committee stage of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill was only completed at six o'clock on Friday evening, when the House adjourned, and it was not possible to put any Amendments down on the Paper after the House adjourned. As this is the largest industry in the country, ought we not to have some time to consider a question of such great importance?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We do not intend to take the Report stage of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill until to-morrow. In the circumstances, I am not moving the Motion for the suspension of the rule standing in my name. It may be convenient to state that the Orders we propose to take to-day are the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill, the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, and the Elections and Registration Bill. We also propose to take the Naval Discipline (No. 2) Bill, the Police Magistrates (Superannuation) Bill, the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Bill, and the Scottish Universities (Emergency Powers) Bill. We will not go beyond that.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to inform the House of the date on which he proposes to ask it to reassemble after the Recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The date on which I ask the House to reassemble is the one I indicated. I see no reason whatever to change that.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to make it a little longer?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it proposed to move the Adjournment either to-morrow or Wednesday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Either tomorrow or Wednesday—probably Wednesday.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Is there any chance of its being moved to-morrow?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think probably not.

  WELSH CHURCH (POSTPONEMENT) BILL [Lards].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I beg to move, "That the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill be discharged, and that the Bill be withdrawn."
  I shall only require a very few minutes of the time of the House in order to remind it how this matter stands, and to place before it the reasons which make the Government recommend that this course should be taken. The Welsh Church Act, as the House remembers, became law after being three times passed through this House of Commons. Under the Parliament Act, in the autumn of last year, it received the Royal Assent on the 18th September, 1914, and by the terms of the Welsh Church Act the date of Disestablishment could not be less than six months after the passing of the Act, and could not be more than twelve months after the passing of the Act. The House will, therefore, see that we are now in that six months' period defined by the Welsh Church Act in which, under the terms of that measure, the date of Disestablishment might have been fixed. But at the same time as the Welsh Church Act another Act, the Suspensory Act, also received the Royal Assent, and by that Suspensory Act the date which was the latest date under the Welsh Church Act was made by Statute the earliest date at which the date of Disestablishment could be fixed. By the Suspensory Act, therefore, the date was postponed as the minimum to twelve months from the 18th September, 1914, and there was a further provision that if, at the end of this twelve months, the present War has not ended, then the date of Disestablishment might be postponed until such later date, not being later than the end of the present War, as may be fixed by Order in Council.
  At the time, when that measure was passed, what was contemplated no doubt was that if the War continued so far as to require it, an Order in Council might be

  1989
  made which would postpone the date of Disestablishment until the end of the War. But in the meantime, in the month of March last, in place of that proposal, another suggestion was made and was presented to Parliament in another place by the Government. That suggestion goes by the name of the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill, and the terms of that proposal are well known to the House. I do not propose to go into them minutely now, because the object, and the whole object of the proposal we are now making, is an object with which everybody, wherever he sits in this House, will sympathise—namely, to avoid domestic controversy in time of war. Some weeks ago the Prime Minister was asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) what steps were to be taken with respect to the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill, and the Prime Minister then said that inquiries were, being made in different quarters immediately affected by the Bill. I was asked to make those inquiries, and I have taken care to secure from both the Welsh Liberal Members, who are so much interested in this subject on the one hand, and from those who speak with authority on behalf of the opponents of Welsh Disestablishment, on the other, a definite answer to the inquiries which I addressed to them. As the result it has become clear that the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill will not receive support in all quarters of the House, and inasmuch as controversy is altogether against the public interest at this time, the Government contemplate as the alternative the making of an Order in Council, under the Suspensory Act, postponing the date of Disestablishment until the end of the War, however distant that date may be.
  4.0 P.M.
  I put myself in communication with my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Robert Cecil), whose authority to speak on behalf of those who share his views on this question is recognised, and he has been in communication with the leaders of the Church in Wales, both those in Parliament, and those outside Parliament, and he tells me that he is authorised on their behalf to say that in these circumstances they do not desire to press the Government to pass the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill. In these circumstances, the proposal which the Government makes to the House is one, I am glad to say, which is not opposed in either of the
  1990
  quarters specially interested, and an Order in Council will be made under the Suspensory Act, while the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill will not be proceeded with. I hope that I have stated accurately, and I feel confident stated, without giving any room for passion or heat, the course recommended in this matter. I would very respectfully urge the House that we should adopt this course by common consent. The one and only object which any of us now has in view in this matter is so to deal with it, on the one hand, as to inflict no unfair hardship on any section of opinion, and on the other, so to deal with it that we may not raise domestic controversies in the midst of a great war and so that we concentrate in this crisis of our fate on our single task, For that reason I beg to move that the Order be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
  Sir HERBERT ROBERTS: It is hardly necessary for me to express satisfaction for those I have the honour to represent at the announcement just made by the Home Secretary of the intention of the Government with regard to this Bill. I fully realise the gravity of the present situation, and I think it incumbent upon us all to say nothing at a time like this which might strike a controversial note. I think, apart from any other consideration or of any merit or demerit of these proposals, that the withdrawal of such a Bill, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, at this time will give general relief, outside those who are particularly interested in the proposal. I do not think it is necessary for me to-day to go into the grounds on which opposition of the Welsh Members to this Bill rests. There is only one point I should like to make clear. Speaking to-day as a Nonconformist, as a Welsh Nonconformist, and one who, perhaps, may claim to know the views of my fellow countrymen as Nonconformists I do wish to make it perfectly clear that their opposition to this Bill is not based upon financial considerations. Behind their opposition there lies and there has been grave concern as to the effect of this Bill upon the position of the measure which, as the House well knows, has held first place in their minds for many generations. I have only one further remaining observation to make. I do not know whether it will be possible for those in this House and outside who take a different view from ours on this question in these

  1991
  days to see any sign of better things on the horizon of the future. But may I express my personal hope that through the discipline of these difficult days there may come in time a new spirit which will remove the bitterness and the discord of this ancient quarrel from religious life in Wales.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I rise to say, in the first place, that I wish to offer no opposition as far as I am personally concerned to the Motion that has been made by my right hon. Friend. [An HON. MEMBER: "You can not!"] That is the conclusion to which I have come after consulting not only my own immediate Friends in this House, but after consulting the leaders of the Church in Wales. I feel, and indeed it is made quite clear by the interruption that occurred just now, that in order to avoid any misconstruction or misrepresentation it is absolutely necessary for me to explain to the House fully the reasons which induced me and others to come to that conclusion. I venture to remind the House of the outstanding facts in the history of this question. There was, as the House will remember, introduced into the House of Lords by the Duke of Devonshire a Bill which provided, I will not say for the exact provisions which were included in the Government Bill later, for they were very materially different, but which aimed at removing the same difficulty which was felt at that time, namely, the difficulty of discussing this question inside or outside the House in the presence of the War in which we are engaged. After some long consultation between the leaders of both sides and between the leading Churchmen and the Government, the then Government produced the Bill which we are now considering. The House will remember that on 15th March a Debate arose on the Adjournment of the House, in which this question was discussed. I am going to read to the House a document which contained the understanding which was arrived at at that time I quote as follows from the OFFICIAL REPOKT:—
  "The Government believe that the apprehensions entertained by Churchmen as to the amount of work necessitated by the reorganisation of the Church in Wales on a voluntary basis, which will have to be completed before the date of Disestablishment, Mill, on examination, be found not to be well founded. But it is impossible to ignore the fact that such anxieties do exist, and it is with the earnest desire to secure a general acquiescence during the continuance of the War, not in the Act itself, but in the fact that the Act
  1992
  has been placed on the Statute book, that the Government are prepared to propose for the acceptance of Parliament the accompanying Bill. There are, however, anxieties on the other side which, very possibly, have no better foundation, but have a very real existence, and which equally cannot be ignored. It is feared that the postponement of the date of Disestablishment might be taken advantage of by a new Government in a new Parliament for the purpose of repealing or altering the Act. The present proposals, therefore, are put forward subject to the condition of an agreement being arrived at between the responsible leaders of the two parties, that before the date of Disestablishment as fixed by the new Bill, no proposals to repeal or amend the Act will be made or countenanced, except with the consent of both parties."—[OFFICIAL KEPOHT, 15th March, 1915, col. 1786, Vol. LXX]
  That was the agreement which was then arrived at, and I do not think it has ever been disputed, and it certainly has never been disputed by any of my right hon. Friends that that was a perfectly binding agreement, and they quite recognise their obligation to carry it out if Churchmen press them to do so. I wish to be as careful as I can to avoid any provocative statement, and I would much perfer, and from my own point of view it would be much easier, to sit silent and allow the thing to go through without any discussion, but I think the House will recognise, in view of the changed circumstances which have taken place, that it is right I should explain how it is I have arrived at my conclusion. I say that that was a complete Parliamentary bargain. Nevertheless, some hon. Members, and they had a perfect right to take that view, developed very strong opposition to the proposal. That opposition was not confined to Welsh Members only. It is only right to say that the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) and others took the same view, and you have merely to look at the Order Paper to see that many Gentlemen besides the Members from Wales were opposed to this Bill. It is only right that I should say as frankly and fully as I can that the Prime Minister, with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions, and, later, my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, did their best to persuade the opponents of this measure to abandon their opposition and to allow what they regarded as a just and reasonable proposal to be passed into law. The hon. Members to whom that advice was tendered were not able to accept their view, and over an adjournment of a considerable lengthy period I have no doubt they were approached, and we know they were through the public Press, but that opposition still continued. The situation was therefore this, that if we, to whom the undertaking had

  1993
  been given, were to press the present Government to go forward with the Bill in spite of that opposition, we should have to face undoubtedly an angry debate and discussion, which would exhibit considerable and deeply felt differences of opinion, so deeply felt that they were not able to be concealed even during the time of this present War. I must say that I looked upon that prospect with great disfavour, amounting almost to dismay.
  I am sure I can say for myself I did not realise until I occupied the office which I now have the honour to hold, and I am not sure that everybody in this House recognises, how closely discussion in this House, and even discussion in the Press, is watched not only by our enemies, but by neutral Nations. That has been brought home to me very strongly in the last few weeks. I certainly am not for a moment going to say anything which would lead anyone to believe that I for one take a despondent view of our position. On the contrary, I am as convinced as I ever was that final victory in this War must be on our side. I am not one of those who believe, as I gather certain sections of the Press believe, that pessimism is a patriotic duty. But I do feel that internal dissension at this time is a thing every patriotic man ought to avoid if he possibly can, and, though that probably was true on the 15th March, I think it is certainly not less true at the present time. I put it no higher than that. There is another consideration. I thought very strongly on 15th March that a considerable postponement beyond the end of the War was an act of justice. I do not wish to use that phrase in any offensive way to Welsh Churchmen. I thought it was unfair and unjust to ask them in the middle of a great war to hurry through the necessary preparations for the great change which they might have to face. I think so still, but there is this to be said, that I think we may say that the appearances of a long war are more evident now than they' were then, and, obviously, the longer the War lasts, the less force there is in that consideration. Something was said in this Debate by the hon. Member behind (Sir H. Roberts) about the financial Clauses in this Bill. I can assure the hon. Member that Churchmen never attached any importance to the financial proposals of the Bill. That was not our demand. It was not even mentioned in debate by any Churchman, nor was it any part of any demand that we ever put forward. From the financial point of view we certainly
  1994
  should not have been justified in asking the House to enter upon a party struggle with reference to this Bill.
  In view of these considerations, in view of the great undesirableness of a party discussion in this House being brought home to us, even more strongly than we felt it in the earlier stages, in view of, I will not say the unimportance, but compared with the great issues involved in. Disestablishment and Disendowment, the relative unimportance of this Bill, at the request of the Home Secretary I took an opportunity of consulting on this subject as many friends as I could, including some of the leaders of the Church in Wales not on this side. They, taking what I venture to say was a patriotic view of their duty, decided that, if the Government thought it right that this Bill should be withdrawn, they would submit to that decision. I want to make two things quite clear. In the first place, I want to say in the clearest way that I can possibly command that in my judgment, and in the judgment of those whom I had the opportunity of consulting, no question of a breach of faith by the Government arises. I hope that nothing I have said will suggest that any such thing is in our minds. Certainly it is not in mine. This is not the time even to make a criticism on the attitude of the Welsh Members. Whatever I thought about that, I should not bring the Government into any condemnation that I might be tempted to pass, because, as far as I know, they were perfectly ready, if we had pressed it, to fulfil the undertaking into which they had entered
  There is one other thing I want to say. I am authorised by the leaders of our party, both in this House and in the House of Lords, to say that, in acquiring in the course proposed, it must be clearly understood that their views on the question of the Welsh Church have undergone no change, and that the pledges that they have given in connection with it are still binding on them. I hope that that will be perfectly understood in the country as well as in this House. I think I may point out this—that, if it becomes necessary to proceed with this great controversy, our position will not in my judgment be weaker for the action we are taking now, but stronger. I remember very well that on the 15th March my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions made an eloquent speech in which he urged his Friends to pass the Bill. He said

  1995
  with great force—I remember feeling the force of it as I sat opposite—that if they passed that Bill they would take away a great part of the strength of the case of those who desired the repeal of the main measure. I hope my right hon. Friend, if he ever takes the trouble to read what I am saying, will not think me impertinent if I add that I thought he went rather further than I should be inclined to go in that speech. But I do say that in my judgment the course which those who desire Disestablishment and Disendowment, and the course which those are opposing it have taken at this time on this Bill will not operate in favour of those who desire that great change. It must be remembered—and it is right to point these things out, so that there shall be no doubt about them—that the engagement into which we entered as the price of this Bill, namely, that we would not within a certain period seek to alter or repeal the main measure, has absolutely disappeared. I remember that my right hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith), thought very little of that undertaking. He will not regret its disappearance. It has gone altogether. So that if we do have to go on with this controversy after the War we shall be in not a weaker but a stronger position than we should have been in if this Bill had been passed.
  But I earnestly hope even now for an agreement—though I am afraid not in the same sense as my hon. Friend behind me (Sir J. H. Roberts); I echo strongly the desire that even now an agreement on this great question may be arrived at. I am not going into the weary controversy again, but what are the great principles involved on each side? Those who desire this change are actuated, they tell us—I am quite ready to believe it—by a desire for religious equality, and a profound and growing belief in the national feeling of Wales. On the other hand, we who are opposed to Disestablishment and Disendowment are actuated—I ask them to believe it as fully as I believe their account of their own feeling—by a genuine fear of the secularisation of the State, and a passionate belief in the unfairness and impolicy of Disendowment. Are these two views really incompatible? Is it really impossible to combine these two positions? I do not know, but sometimes, in my more sanguine moments, I think that some agreement admitting the force of both contentions might be arrived at. But there
  1996
  must be in all our hearts a profound disgust to think that, after all that we are now going through, all the misery, pain, and grief involved in the present War, we the representatives of two Christian bodies, should return again to this controversy. Surely some method of peace might be arrived at. Surely, if that is not a purely Utopian view, now is the time, now, when for the moment we have forgotten the bitterness of our party controversies, is the occasion, for the two 6ides to come together. I personally hope that nothing I have said this afternoon will do anything to hinder that blessed consummation.
  Mr. CAVE: I think a few words ought to be said from, this side of the House, partly because it is a very serious matter, and also because neither the speech of the Home Secretary nor that of the hon. Baronet opposite has done anything like justice to the action of the leaders of the Welsh Church at this particular crisis. This postponement Bill was, I always thought, and many of my Friends thought, of real value, not only to the Church, but to all those concerned in this discussion. It gave to the Church in Wales a breathing time of six months after the end of the War, and relieved them from the very painful task of considering during the War how they could prepare for the blow which was to fall upon them on the signing of the treaty of peace. On the other hand, these very six months would have been exactly the time when the discussion to which my Noble Friend referred with so much eloquence and feeling might have taken place. We had the promise of the Prime Minister that so far as he was concerned he would do his best to carry the Bill through Parliament, and it was on the faith of that promise that the Bill brought in in another place by my Noble Friend the Duke of Devonshire was dropped. So we were certain that, if we pressed it, this Bill must become law.
  Then this position arose. Hon. Members from Wales gave a determined opposition to the Bill, and expressed their intention, if it were pressed, of making an attack not upon us—that would not have mattered in the least—but on the Government of the country. The Government thought—I take their word for it—that a discussion of that kind at the present time would be injurious to the public interest. They went to the Welsh Members and asked them to give up their intention of disputing the Bill and to accept the view of His Majesty's

  1997
  Government—not the present Government, but the Liberal Government—that this Bill was a fair compromise. They told them, I have no doubt, as they have told us, that a public discussion to-day would do public injury. The Welsh Members refused. They did not meet the Government in the spirit which was expressed by the hon. Baronet to-day. They refused altogether to withdraw their intention to have that acrimonious public discussion. They preferred to carry the controversy into war-time. I am not going to discuss that; I simply state the fact. The Government came to the leaders of the Welsh Church and put the same point to them. They told them that controversy to-day would do injury to the public interest, and they asked them to release the Government from the promise which had been given. I think the course taken by the leaders of the Welsh Church does them great honour. They had a very hard choice to make. They had the promise of the Government that the Bill would be passed into law, and they had to make the choice between pressing for the fulfilment of that promise and releasing the Government from it to avoid injury to the public interest.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government had given an undertaking not to introduce any Bill except for the prosecution of the War?
  Mr. CAVE: No, I was not aware of that.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: In the House of Lords.
  Mr. CAVE: I do not agree. This Bill, at all events, has been introduced by the Government, and I am sure that, in doing so, they have broken none of their pledges. The point I want to make is that the leaders of the Welsh Church have taken a deeply patriotic view. It is not right to say that they agree that this is the proper course to take; but they hear and they accept the assurance of the Government that to press for the fulfilment of the promise would be against the public interest. For that reason they submit. For myself, and I think for many of my friends, I can say that, after the consent of those who are entitled to speak for the Welsh Church, we should not think it right to oppose the withdrawal of the Bill. But it is only because they agree that we give way. I think it is only fair that the Government should say, what I am sure they feel in
  1998
  their hearts, that the leaders of the Welsh Church in taking this course are doing a patriotic thing. They are making a real sacrifice. They are giving up the solid advantages which they had in their hands, and they do deserve at a future time, either at or before the end of the War, consideration both from the Government and from the country. I do not think it is right to pass this matter over as a matter of course. I want the House to believe that the sacrifice made to-day by the Welsh Church and its friends is a patriotic one, and one which ought to receive consideration both now and at some future time.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Perhaps the matter would have best been left where it was left by the observations of my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil), whose zeal for the interests of the Church in Wales, and whose consistent and able advocacy we all recognise and appreciate. But I have risen for the purpose of, if I may, asking my hon. Friends to restrain their natural flow of language, and to allow the Motion which has been made to be adopted without further controversy. I must say, with the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Cave), that I fully recognise, without reserve or qualification, the admirable spirit exhibited by those who represent the interests of the Welsh Church in this matter, who were entitled to insist upon the prosecution of this Bill, whilst we were bound to give it all the support in our power to enable it to pass into law. Yet at the same time I must point out, as was pointed out by my Noble Friend, that the withdrawal of the Bill does release them from the voluntary undertaking not to take any Parliamentary action in the direction of repeal. It is only fair that that should be recognised. [HON. MEMBERS: "After six months!"] The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that, and I think that it is right that it should be mentioned, because it is not a complete kind of transaction unless both sides are fairly considered. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that that is so. I will not go into the calculation less or more. It is never desirable to do so when we have arrived at a compromise in which all parties—to their honour and credit—acquiesce. It would be most unfortunate that we should rip up what has been decided upon to see who has gained most, or who has lost most, in this transaction. I want simply to say on behalf of the

  1999
  Government, and I believe the House at large, and the country, that we believe that the proposal now made, and accepted, in the best spirit, both by hon. Members who have fought so long and so hard for Disestablishment and by the representatives of the Church, was dictated, not by any sacrifice or surrender of principle, but solely by a common desire to subordinate domestic controversy in the face of great emergencies with which the country is faced, and in the facing of which we are all absolutely united. That is a most admirable illustration of the spirit which now animates the country. I trust that no jarring note will be uttered to-day. I trust the House will acquiesce in the course taken with unanimity, and I am certain that when we come to look back we will all be glad that that course has been taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed!"]
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I will obey the spirit of the appeal of the Prime Minister, and I can assure the House that I will not say a word more than necessary. All I rise to do is simply to protest against the attack which has been made upon the Welsh Members. I am not going to defend the Welsh Members, but it would be a pity if this Debate should end without a word, and that we should by our silence give a wrong impression. The charge is that we have acted in an unpatriotic way. That is what I really want to protest against. There was a party truce. We did not break it. Somebody else broke it. Who broke it? I think the patriotism is with those who did not break it. We simply resisted an attack. If resisting an attack is lack of patriotism, then we may be termed unpatriotic. I think, however, the House will see, if it looks fairly at the situation—without going into the merits of the main matter—that we acted in the only way we could act. It was not we who introduced controversial legislation. We only endeavoured to resist the controversial legislation which was forced upon us. Under these circumstances I think it cannot be right that it should be supposed in this House, or outside, that the Welsh Members acted in any other than a patriotic spirit.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am certainly not going to say anything controversial. [Laughter.] I am not! I accept entirely the appeal of the Prime Minister. I had intended to speak on this
  2000
  matter, but I have decided not to do so. As, however, a speech was made on the one side, it is only fair that something should be said on the other side. Into the past action of the Welsh Members I do not desire to go. That is dropped out altogether. I merely say this—speaking as one who has for many years fought on this question—that, though I think we have been badly treated—that is no opinion—I am quite prepared to submit to what has been proposed by the other side. At the same time, I want to make it perfectly clear that we, all of us, retain absolute freedom hereafter, not only to think, but to say what we like—[An HON. MEMBER: "And fight!"]—and to make any proposal we may choose affecting this Bill. Subject to that, certainly I would be the last person to desire to raise a controversy at this grave crisis, and I will say no more.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I will only spend a couple of minutes of the time of the House, but I would carry the memory of the House back to what Lord Crewe, speaking in the House of Lords, said on 2nd February:—
  "We do not propose to introduce any contentious business, but will confine ourselves entirely to such business as concerns, in one way or another, the prosecution of the War."
  That undertaking is the basis of our opposition.
  Mr. LYNCH: When I came here to-day I had not the slightest intention of rising in regard to this matter, but there have been several provocative speeches made, therefore let me say clearly that my object is this: Welsh Disestablishment was debated in this House with a minuteness seldom accorded to any Bill brought into the House. It was passed, and the verdict of this House ought to have been conclusive. I wish to make the considered verdict of this House paramount; that the decisions of this House shall not otherwise be moved by a mobilising of influences from other quarters, or of back-parlour intrigues, or by any other influences which cannot face the light of day in a free discussion before this House, and tried by the judgment of this House. On that ground alone I put down an Amendment, and if the Bill had not been withdrawn I should have debated it on that wider and general ground.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. KING: By arrangement with the representative of the Board of Education, and, I believe, also with his fullest approval and support, I take this opportune of bringing before the House a question which in various ways has been brought before the House and the country frequently during the past few years, and again during this time of war. I may state the issue which I wish to present to the House by calling to mind the visible fact which every Member of this House has before him and which he can see every time he steps out upon the Terrace. On the other side of Westminster Bridge there is rising a great building costing between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. When the War broke out that building had been in abeyance: not a stone had been laid, and no expenditure had been put out on it for many months. As soon as the War started the work was taken up and has proceeded from day to day. At this time the London County Council are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds upon it—I suppose I may fairly say £2,000,000—on a large, luxurious building for their own members and officials. At the same time they have been to the Treasury and have claimed the right to stop all the provisions which have been promised for years on behalf of school accommodation for the children of London. Their own luxurious expenditure goes on, and the expenditure which was declared by the Board of Education to be absolutely essential for the child life of this Metropolis has stopped altogether. I protest against this. I protest against unabated expenditure on luxury for the rich and an entire neglect and prohibition of expenditure on education for the poor. This is a very large and a very serious question.
  The facts which I shall endeavour to state briefly are as follows: For the past ten or twelve years there has been about two and a quarter millions spent upon the erection of schools, and land on which to erect schools, and the enlargement of schools. That two millions a year has been our steady average expenditure. In spite of this fact there has been, all this time, a steady decline, relatively to the population, in the accommodation for the children, and also in the number of the children actually accommodated in the
  2002
  schools. In fact, we may state it thus: and I am speaking now only of the elementary schools, though the same would be true if you take into consideration the fact that there are more school places in the secondary schools, though they do not make up for the deficiency in the elementary schools—but the fact remains that at the present time there is a deficiency of accommodation for school children compared with what there was in 1901. Between the Census of 1901 and 1911 there was an increase of 5½per cent, in the school population—that is of children of school age—and as a fact in the increase of children who might attend school there was a greater increase. In connection with the birth rate there was an increased rate in the ages of children available to go to school, because as the years have gone on the rate of infantile mortality has so abated, and has been successfully decreased, that the number of children who arrive at school age is greater in proportion of the birth rate than it was twelve years ago. In spite of this fact we have actually a reduction of children attending school in England in several of the years under review.
  I might quote at considerable length the statistics which are given on pages 18 and 19 of the last statistical volume of the Board of Education, but I abstain from doing so. I simply call them to mind so that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education may realise I am using figures which the Board of Education themselves supply. The fact is that in spite of a steady increase of child population every year of 60,000, and in spite of a decreased rate of infant mortality, we have fewer children relatively at school than twelve years ago. This is an extraordinary state of things, especially in view of the increasing importance of our skilled industries. Why is it that Germany is so successful in the War? Apart from her organisation, apart from her elaborate preparations, there is one fact, at any rate, that none can deny—the admirable system of education which provides a large supply of skilled workers in all their industries. That supply is deficient in our country, and it will be increasingly deficient as years go on, unless our education is improved; and if, during the period of this War, instead of improving our education, we let it go further and further into the background, when peace comes and we have to regain our position in the markets of the world, not only will

  2003
  commerce and the position of our country as a whole suffer, but as regards the position of the working classes themselves, whose one asset might have been that the youthful population had been sufficiently well educated for the struggle of life we are doing a bad turn, unless we keep up education at the present time. I make this fact prominent, and I can quote another figure from the Board of Education's Return.
  In the upper standards of schools there has been an enormous reduction in the numbers attending. There has been a large development in higher standards and extra subjects, and yet, in spite of that, in ten years there has been an actual decrease of scholars above fourteen of no less than 70 per cent. The result is that we are sending children out of school far earlier than we did, and in those important technical works which are essential for our commerce, if we are to compete after the War with highly educated countries like America, Switzerland, and Germany, we are not only falling rapidly behind, but, so far as I see, it is the negligent permission of the Board of Education that we should continue to fall still further behind. I want to ask the Board of Education what they intend to do. Are they actually going to allow all those provisions which were promised for the children of England to give them a good start in life to be thrown aside? They do not stop at expenditure here. A magnificent Tea Room has been built for ourselves since the War began.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Which nobody uses.
  Mr. KING: Which they will not even use. A quite unnecessary expenditure, in my opinion, has been carried out in Westminster Hall. A large expenditure across the bridge for the hall of the London County Council has never been proposed to be stopped, but yet absolutely essential requirements of the child-life of London are thrown aside at once. I protest against this policy, and I protest against the short-sighted policy of the Board of Education, the Treasury, and the Government, and for my part, so long as I have a seat in this House, I shall continue to protest against education being the first thing that is to suffer, while luxury is allowed to continue. I am going to point out to the Board of Education what I think they might do. The problem really is very largely one of
  2004
  providing school buildings. There is no deficiency in teachers, or none comparatively speaking, and certainly, after the War, when the teachers who have enlisted return, there will be an adequate supply of teachers; but whether there be, as my hon. Friend opposite would suggest, not the supply of school teachers that is necessary, there is, at any rate, a very great and recognised deficiency in the supply of school buildings.
  In many parts of the country there is an absolute lack of school buildings, which has been largely increased by the fact that half a million children are probably now dispossessed of their school buildings by the War Office. Over 1,000 schools have been commandeered by the War Office. If those schools average in their attendance 250 each, that is a quarter of a million dispossessed, and the way they treat this problem is to put those dispossessed children for half-time into the schools which are not commandeered by the War Office. Thus the children in those schools which are not commandeered also suffer by only being given half time, the result being that there are probably no less than half a million children at the present time who are dispossessed, at any rate, of part of their education by the action of the War Office. Now, if we had plenty of school buildings, instead of the great deficiency at the present moment, the whole of this great problem might have been adequately, or, at any rate, easily treated in a way that is not possible at present; but, if we are going to continue allowing the population to increase, allowing the schools to get out of repair, allowing schools that are unhealthy to become more unhealthy—if we are to do nothing whatever to enlarge, improve and make healthy the school buildings of our country, the problem is going from bad to worse. Let me give an illustration which will make the House realise the really serious problem with which I am trying to grapple. The London County Council has just reduced its votes in every possible direction in connection with economy. I do not complain of that, and I would commend them still more if they would stop the buildings on the other side of Westminster Bridge. They have actually cut down their estimates for cleaning school buildings by £66,000.
  Mr. SPEAKER: We have no concern with the London County Council in this Bill.
  Mr. KING: I would only point out that a tendency—no doubt a right one—is evidently developing in all local authorities towards economy, and I do not want them to stop there; but, if we are in every direction to economise in the public elementary schools, we not only deprive our children of school places in which to be taught, but we also deprive them of the one healthy, clean place where they can pass many hours of the day. I will, however, now suggest to the Board of Education certain lines upon which, I think, they might proceed. I hope they will not, in the first place, say to all local authorities that come to them and ask for permission to enlarge a building, improve a building, or put up a building where none now exists but is urgently wanted, that no such work is to be carried out. If they do so, in my opinion they will only be making things more difficult later on. Let them suggest first of all that, if possible, temporary buildings should be acquired, rather than put up new buildings. Let them acquire either huts or iron buildings, or buildings such as they do not always recognise, and let them recognise temporary buildings with a greater freedom and for a greater length of time than has been their practice formerly. Let them also allow loans or gifts of buildings to be accepted in a way that has not been possible before. If a man gives a building, or lends convenient premises for the purposes of a hospital or for billeting soldiers, we say he does a patriotic act. In my opinion it is just as patriotic to lend or to give a building for a school, and, even though the building may not be of the very class that is required by the rules and regulations and building by-laws of the Board, let them, at any rate, do everything they can to facilitate the holding of education classes in temporary and private buildings.
  5.0 P.M.
  Then let me suggest that the hiring of buildings might be carried on under much greater freedom than before. Buildings that have been hired for temporary schools have been under all sorts of conditions as to sanitary arrangements, playground, access, and so on, which have been particularly inquired into. I want to ask that those rules should be relaxed to the greatest possible extent, and that any building at all suitable that requires to be hired will not be prevented from being made accessible for education because of such technical rules as have been applied, quite rightly, in previous times. Further, I want especially to urge that the build-
  2006
  ing rules themselves should be relaxed in connection with what I may call the standard of building. When the Board of Education authorises a building to be put up at the present time, it practically says that the building shall be built with such solidity and on such a style that its life shall be fifty years. I think it is unnecessary at this time to demand anything of a building more than it should be good presumably for twenty or twenty-five years. The result would be a very great economy. I want most seriously to ask the Board of Education if they cannot revise their building rules and conditions, and that, if they will not permanently revise them, they will at any rate issue emergency rules and regulations which, during the period of the War, would permit schools to be used and schools to be put up on. conditions far less onerous and costly than has previously been the case. Whenever a demand for school buildings is pressed upon them, or whenever the inspectors report that school places are deficient, I want the Board of Education to take into consideration the conditions of the building trade in that particular locality. I am informed that in certain parts of the country it is extremely likely that those in the building trade will be unemployed during this winter, and that amongst the various trades which will more or less pass from a state of feverish activity to a state of more or less intermittent employment the building trade would be one of the first to suffer. I suggest that the Board of Education might specially instruct their inspectors to look out for districts where there is a deficiency of school accommodation and an actuality of unemployment in the building trade. If they do this they will be relieving unemployment and at the same time looking after the interests of education. I might call the attention of the House to the repeated warnings that have been issued, I believe, in every public speech of Lord Haldane since he left his exalted seat on the Woolsack, in which he has urged the absolute duty of economy in every department of public and private expenditure and the absolute duty of continuing education as a public service even in war time, and so preparing by public education for the building up of our prosperity and national life when peace is secured. In the spirit in which those warnings have been given I wish to add my own warning and protest.

  2007
  There is one fact which does not appear to be sufficiently realised by Members of this House, and it is that since the year 1902, the acute year of educational controversy, only one problem in education has really been grappled with and solved, and that is the problem of the braining colleges. That difficulty was left in 1902 as hard as any other problem in education, but it was solved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, to my mind, is one of the most capable administrators on the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman accomplished this by giving a small Grant to local authorities. By these small Grants we encouraged every authority either to build or take a share in its own training college. The result is, that even if you have not school teachers enough you certainly have sufficient accommodation in the training colleges, and that problem was solved by the simple expedient of a really very small building Grant. I want the Board of Education to consider whether a similar policy of a building Grant from national funds to supply more school places might not be considered. I know that to propose any new Grant at the present time is a venturesome policy to take, but I am perfectly convinced that it would be a justifiable expenditure, and the proposal of a small building Grant has, in times past, solved educational questions as hard as this. I am convinced that there is no problem in our educational system at the present time which is more worthy of spending money upon and more necessary to grapple with than this articular question. The suggestions I have made I hope will be considered patiently, as I have patiently gone over the facts upon which they are based. I hope they will be considered not in the spirit of party and not in a cheese-paring sense, but with a wide outlook over the educational interests of the country and the preparations which we are bound to make for building up again our national system after the War.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My hon. Friend has complained that the provision of school accommodation has not kept pace with the number of children enumerated in the Census of 1901 and the Census of 1911, and he supposes that that is due to the inadequate provision of school buildings. I hope to be able to convince my hon. Friend that the case is by no means so bad as he has
  2008
  made out. The hon. Member has accused the Board of Education with considerable warmth of having conduced by its negligence to the state of affairs which he has described. I regret that expression, because we all know how deeply the hon. Member is interested in the education of the young children of this country. The hon. Member stated that the school population of the country between 1901 and 1911 increased by about 5½ per cent., whereas the actual number on the register only increased by about 3 per cent., but may I draw his attention to the fact that the figures of average attendance in public elementary schools in England and Wales for 1901 and 1911 have increased by no less than 460,000 in the course of those ten years. That is an increase of about 9 per cent. The hon. Member also told us that the average school population had increased in the same period by 5 per cent., but I am able to show that the actual attendance of children in the schools has increased by 460,000 in ten years, that is to say 9 per cent. That does not look as if the Board of Education and the local education authorities have not been doing their duty. I admit that the increase in the number on the registers-only amounts to 3 per cent., but I wish to point out that that is due to the decrease in the number of children under five years of age who have been excluded from school, not for lack of room, but upon other grounds. If you exclude the children under five years of age from your computation you will find, comparing the two years to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, an increase in the number on the registers amounting to no less than. 8 per cent. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will feel that so far as school, attendance at any rate is concerned there is not much left to be desired.
  Reference was made to the older children, and it was stated that scholars over fourteen years of age had decreased to the extent of 70 per cent. I am glad to assure the House that that is not the case, for, as a matter of fact, the decrease has only been 23 per cent., and that is mainly due to the larger number of older children who have entered the secondary schools. My hon. Friend referred to infantile mortality, but I should like to remind him that the number of children born in England and Wales has steadily decreased during the past twelve years. In 1903 there were 948,000 births, but in

  2009
  1914 that number had fallen to 879,000. My hon. Friend stated that there had been some improvement in the death-rate. That is quite true, but the improvement to which he refers by no means counteracts the steady decline in the birthrate. Reference has been made to the tables which the Registrar-General has prepared upon what is called effective fertility in the reports published for 1912 and 1913, in which it is stated that we have now to count on a smaller number of children arriving at the age of five years. If we find that the number of children reaching the age of five years is reduced year by year—the age at which they are required to attend school—that, I can assure my hon. Friend, is due not to the extraordinary causes which he has suggested, and it is certainly not due to any lack of provision of places for children or to any deficiency in the regulations requiring them to attend school, but it is the natural result of fewer children having been born five years before that period, and the diminution of births having been so marked as to render it impossible for medical skill to counteract it. The question is a somewhat complicated one, but I shall be very glad to go into this matter with my hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the number of schools which have been commandeered, and he stated that this process had been carried out to such an extent that there were no less than 500.000 children out of school at the present time.
  Mr. KING: I said dispossessed of half their school time, and not entirely out of school.
  Mr. LEWIS: My hon. Friend asked a question on the 20th April, and in reply the late President of the Board of Education informed him that at that time there were 243 schools containing 131,000 children which had been commandeered for Army purposes, and provision had been made for all those children except about 6,000. Since then the number of schools occupied for military purposes has been considerably decreased. My hon. Friend may rest assured that the figure of half a million which he has given, if he will excuse me for putting it in that way, is wildly inaccurate, because it is not anything like that at the present time. My hon. Friend referred to the general lack of provision of school buildings, but I cannot believe that there is really any difficulty of accommodation at the present time except in a few places. I think it
  2010
  will be found on inquiry that there is ample accommodation in all parts of the country for the children who desire to attend school, with the exception of a comparatively small number of places, and that those children are accommodated infinitely better than they were accommodated in the past. It is possible that there may be a few places where there are from time to time difficulties in catching up the growth of population or in replacing buildings as they become out of date, but that does not seriously affect the main condition that, generally speaking, throughout the country the accommodation for children is ample and adequate.
  Mr. KING: Will my right hon. Friend excuse me for asking whether he says that the accommodation is quite adequate in London, which is a big place?
  Mr. LEWIS: I said "in certain places," and there may be districts in London in which at the present time the accommodation is not altogether everything that could be desired; but, speaking broadly, I would venture to say that throughout the country the accommodation is adequate. If there are serious arrears of accommodation in some places, those no doubt will in course of time be dealt with by special measures. My hon. Friend made some suggestions as to the way in which the present condition of affairs might be improved. He said that it was desirable to encourage loans and gifts of buildings for this purpose. I only hope in the course of the War and afterwards that we shall find many public-spirited individuals and institutions who will be ready to come forward and take a patriotic share in the work of providing education for the children. My hon. Friend suggested that temporary buildings might be used for this purpose, and he referred to movable buildings. Some movable buildings are, I believe, in use at the present time. I am afraid that some of the older types of movable buildings are not very desirable, but I believe there are some of the modern types that can be used with considerable advantage. Buildings of that character, however, ought certainly only to be used under special circumstances. My hon. Friend also referred to the desirability of erecting cheaper buildings that would last about twenty or twenty-five years. There is much to be said for that suggestion. At any rate, it is not one

  2011
  that should be dismissed off-hand. It certainly does possess one advantage. A school whch is built only to last twenty or twenty-five years, while it might provide everything that is required in respect of light, ventilation, and the general amenities of a good school building of a modern type, would be very much easier to replace by a better building at the end of that time than a solid building intended to last fifty years. That, however, is a question upon which I, of course, can make no authoritative announcement at the present time, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the question shall be carefully considered.
  I am not so sure about the suggestion that the building rules should be temporarily relaxed. I almost think it would be more desirable to postpone building altogether than to assent to any great relaxation of the rules which now regulate the building of schools. There is, after all, a great deal of difference between taking a temporary building, which you have to get rid of, and deliberately putting up an inferior building which will have to last for many years. I would ask my hon. Friend, as one who is very deeply interested in education and in providing for the children sufficient light and air and floor space, sufficient cubic space in which to breathe, to remember that the standards which have been attained have only been attained gradually inch by inch and after years of struggle. I venture to say that none of those minima to which I have referred can be said to be extravagant, and to drop them in a panic would be a deplorable policy to adopt. As long as we maintain our standards the progress which we have made will not be lost, and on the whole I am inclined to think that it would be desirable to postpone building rather than to abate the standards upon which the health of the children of the nation so closely depends. My hon. Friend referred to one or two other questions, such as building Grants. That, of course, is obviously a matter into which I cannot possibly enter. It is a question which will have to be decided hereafter, if and when it shall appear to be necessary, by the Treasury. All I can say is that in that respect, as in all others, the suggestion which my hon. Friend has made will be carefully considered. I can assure him that, however severely he has criticised the Board of Education upon
  2012
  this occasion, we all recognise the spirit and the motive which prompt him in the speech which he has just delivered.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I want to ask a question about military matters. I am informed, and I believe my information is correct, that a very large number of recruits who are unfit, either by reason of bodily infirmities or by being under age, are being passed into the Army, and I am told that the method of payment made to civilian doctors is that for every recruit they pass they receive 2s. 6d. The result is—and human nature being what it is, I am not surprised at it—that a large number of recruits are passed quickly, as by so doing the doctor gets so many more half-crowns. The consequence is that a large number of men or boys who are physically unfit are accepted as recruits. It is evident that this is a very serious thing, and that the result is extremely bad, both from the point of view of the Army and from the point of view of the taxpayer. I believe, in a good many cases, when the military doctor comes to examine the recruits they are rejected, but in the stress of the times through which we are going it probably happens that many recruits are accepted who ought not to be accepted. They then fall ill and become a burden upon the nation. Might I suggest a remedy to the right hon. Gentleman? Either a fine of, say, 5s. should be inflicted for every recruit who has been accepted by a civilian doctor, and who is afterwards within a certain time rejected by the military doctor, which would ensure a more detailed and careful examination, or, if that is not done, then, instead of paying a fixed fee per head for recruits taken, a certain sum should be paid each day for a number of persons examined. There would then be no inducement to take in a large number of people who were not fit. An instance has been brought to my notice—of course I must not mention names—where a commanding officer had to inspect a small number of recruits. He found one who was evidently quite a boy, and who admitted that he was only fifteen years of age. He found another who was very little older, if any older at all, and he said he was nineteen. Being asked whether that was his real age or his official age, he admitted that it was his official age, and that his real age was sixteen last birthday. These things ought not to occur. It is a bad system on the part of the War Office to fix a man's remuneration in such a manner.

  2013
  There is one other question which I should like to ask, and I think that I should be in order in asking it, because the matter was decided in the Law Courts only a few days ago. A gentleman called Squire appears to have set up a claim with the Sunbeam Motor Company for a sum of £15,000 for commission for buying motor cars for the War Office. This gentleman appears to be an undischarged bankrupt. He was taken into the service of the War Office apparently without anybody knowing anything about him, and given a salary varying from £1 to £3 a day. This all came out in Court, and it is not, therefore, either rumour or gossip. Finally, the action was settled by the Sunbeam Company paying this gentleman, who was an undischarged bankrupt, £15,000 for having bought motor cars for the War Office during the last eleven months. In these days we are spending £3,000,000 a day, and I am not surprised at it if that is the way the War Office goes to work. There appears to have been another firm called Keele and Company, who were the agents here for the Sunbeam Motor Car Company, and Mr. Squire and they between them appear to have made £40,000. It would have been perfectly simple for the War Office to have communicated with the Sunbeam Company and to have asked them what they would charge, and how much discount they would allow, if the cars were sold direct to the War Office, taking a large number. It did seem to me on reading the case in the newspapers an extraordinary example of how not to do it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to refer to one or two points with reference to War Office administration, and the observations of the hon. Baronet opposite with reference to the purchase of motor cars brings to my recollection a matter which I did not really intend to raise, but which I think it is quite well worth bringing under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. The case in regard to the purchase of motor cars has given rise to some suspicion in other quarters of the country. I have had letters forwarded to me from a motor lorry manufacturing company in Scotland asking why the War Office confine their orders to two motor manufacturers in Scotland, and why no test has been allowed of the lorries manufactured by this particular firm. In one of the letters allusion is made to the very interesting case in the Law Courts, and they obviously suspect there must be some oblique motive why they are not receiving equal con-
  2014
  sideration with other firms manufacturing the same article. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes the name of the firm I will supply it to him privately, as I do not wish to give the firm a gratuitous advertisement.
  But the question I really intended to raise was one to which reference was made on the Second Reading of this Bill. It has, indeed, some relation to the question put by the hon. Baronet, who has referred to the kind of medical examination which has been given in the case of many of the recruits of the new Army. This is of great importance, because of the attitude which the War Office has taken up in regard to soldiers who have been invalided and consequently discharged. I do not wish to enter into the facts of the particular case which was under discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill. There was on that occasion a controversy between my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and the Under-Secretary for War as to whether this particular soldier was actually affected with the disease at the time he enlisted. But that does not seem to me to be the most important point in the case. We have the facts that this soldier was passed on medical examination as fit for service with the Colours. Subsequently he showed signs of physical weakness, it became obvious that he had heart disease; after several months he had to be discharged, and within ten days of his discharge he died. The first point I wish to make is this: Are the War Office going to take up the position that the medical examination is no guide as to the physical condition of the recruit? Are they going to accept the certificate of their medical officer when a man joins the Army that that man is suffering from no organic disease that will affect his value as a soldier? If the medical examination is to be worth anything, it should be equivalent to that.
  But even granted that there are cases where a very stringent medical examination may not disclose the fact that the intending recruit is affected by any organic disease, there are undoubtedly many cases where a man suffering from an organic disease might be able to continue his ordinary civil occupation for many years—for ten or twelve years—without any injurious effect. We all know many cases of men suffering from heart disease who have been able to do their ordinary work without ill effect to themselves for that period, and have been able to support

  2015
  themselves and their families. If such men have got into the Army it is possible they may within a week after undergoing the severe training which all recruits have to undergo have become affected by that training, with the result that in a few months not only are they incapable of going about their ordinary work but they may be brought to death's door. That is what happened in this particular ease.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): No!
  Mr. PRINGLE: I was anxious to keep off any conflict as to that, but even if my statement is not supported in this particular case, other cases no doubt have happened to which my statement would apply. A man suffering from heart disease has, for example, to submit to severe physical exercise, and he may within a day or week have such a heart strain as to render him incapable of further arduous work in the future. As my right hon. Friend has denied that that was the case in the case of Private Sutherland, I will not press it in that particular case. But I have taken the trouble to consult gentlemen well versed in heart disease—specialists upon the subject—and they agree that such a result may frequently happen—and, indeed, has happened. In these circumstances I think it is the duty of the War Office not to take refuge behind the Army Order which says they are not liable if a man dies from disease contracted before he enters the Army. They should admit liability in any case where, even although the disease did exist before the man entered the Army, the conditions of his training have accelerated his death. In other words, in cases where a man might have been fitted to go on with his ordinary calling for a long period of years, yet, after being certified by the Army doctor, it is found that the physical training in the Army incapacited him or caused his death, in those circumstances the War Office should modify its rule, and should be willing to pay a pension just as if the disease from which the man died had been a disease which he had contracted in the course of his Army service.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I am glad the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) raised the question of the passing into the Army of men not physically fit. I look at it from a very different point of view to that in which he dealt with it. I am glad to have the opportunity of bringing before the right hon.
  2016
  Gentleman the question of what might happen to a man or youth, or it may be a mere boy, who is in this way passed into the Army and sent to the front. He may have courage, but at the same time be physically unfit to stand the strain of modern warfare. I have had cases brought to my notice, but I do not wish to give them in support of anything I am saying, because I do not desire to deal with anything sensational. But it has been rather on my conscience that I have done nothing in the matter. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give us some guarantee that in cases of breach of discipline it is taken into account that these lads—well, I will put it bluntly—will he give us some guarantee that the extreme penalty that attaches to cowardice is not carried out in the case of men really suffering from nervous strain, and unable to stand the conditions of modern warfare, as, obviously, a mere boy or physically unfit man might be? I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give some reassurance with regard to that matter.
  I have one other—a small point to raise. There is a good deal of complaint, not among the men involved, but in relation to the Australians who are in hospital here, as regards several small matters that, however, rather touch them personally. There is the suggestion, for instance, that the dietary is extremely rigid, and difficult to vary from the hard and fast lines laid clown.
  Mr. TENNANT: At what hospital?
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Harefield, I believe is the name. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can do anything in this matter. These men are far away from their own homes. They are very lonely, and while, of course, the regulation allows visits of relatives, it scarcely touches their case, as in most instances they have no relatives near enough to visit them. If there could in any way be a small relaxation of rules the enforcement of which causes a great deal of heartburning, I think it would be very much appreciated.
  Colonel YATE: I should like to say one word in support of what has been stated by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London as regards the question of the enlistment of men who are physically unfit. Anyone who is in daily contact with Royal Army Medical Corps men who are going about examining these men

  2017
  know the enormous number of rejections that have to be made and what a serious state of things prevails through so many men having been admitted into the Service who are physically unfit to stand the strain. What arrangements have been made I do not know, but I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that the senior officers in the Army Medical service have come to a decision regarding the examinations for the Service, and that some measures will be taken to prevent the passing of men so absolutely unfit, and to avoid a repetition in this way of the enormous wasteage, though medically unfits which has been going on for a long time, and is still proceeding.
  Mr. TENNANT: I hope to be able to reassure the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that the fee which he looked upon as one of the reasons which accounted for the large number of men passed by the recruiting doctors is not dependent on the number of men passed, or on the number of recruits examined, and that it does not really matter financially to the doctor examining the recruit whether he passes a man or not.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not understand that.
  Mr. TENNANT: I will read a letter War Office in which was issued by the February.
  Sir F. BANBURY: But has that always been the rule?
  Mr. TENNANT: I cannot quite say. The letter is dated the 17th February, and, After intimating that the authorities have had under consideration the question of the remuneration of civilian medical practitioners, it goes on to state that there will be a limit of £2 per day. The doctor might examine any number of men, but he would not get more than £2 per day. Therefore there is no incentive, so far as the fee is concerned, for him to pass men. I would also invite the House to bear in mind the fact that there have been a very large number of men coming forward, and obviously there may have been cases in which insufficient medical examination has taken place. I think some allowance should be made for that. Unfortunately these things come home to roost, and we find as a result that undoubtedly men did get passed into the Army who should not have been passed, and when they became sick, their health may have become more
  2018
  quickly undermined by the severe physical strain which military training may produce upon them. I only interrupted the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) for one moment in regard to an individual case, because in that case very great care was taken not to put a physical strain on the person involved, but to give him light work.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I thought it was granted that he had been in the service a month before he was given this light work, and my point is that the injury may have been done during that period.
  Mr. TENNANT: That is not the impression left on my mind, but I should like to say this. If a man gets regular meals, and is being attended regularly by the doctor, receiving good food and good treatment, his health is not likely to prejudice quite as much as it might be otherwise, even if he were at home. I think everything was done in the case of Private Sutherland that could be done. The War Office does not go back on its word. I do not want to use strong language, but it is not correct to say we have in any way departed from the promise we made, and we have no intention of doing it. I want my hon. Friends to realise that we hold ourselves absolutely to the letter of our promise, and nothing will induce us to depart from it.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: And what about the spirit?
  Mr. TENNANT: When you talk about spirit sometimes you wish to dilute the letter with the spirit, which is rather contrary to one's experience in other domains of life. I am sure my hon. Friend (Mr. J. M. Henderson) agrees with me. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) asked me whether we would not institute a fine for all men who were accepted by a civilian doctor and rejected by a military doctor. That is rather a punitive method to adopt; moreover, I do not think it would be a very easy thing to do, because a man might be accepted by the civilian doctor and employed for a considerable time, and it might be six months or a year before he was rejected by a military doctor. By that time the civilian doctor might not be available. However, I am not dismissing it absolutely, and I will give it my consideration in conjunction with my medical advisers.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I only suggested that there might be some method, and

  2019
  this occurred to me at the moment as being a method which might tend to make doctors a little more careful.
  Mr. TENNANT: I understand. The hon. Baronet went on to speak of a certain motor company and a man called Squire. I am sorry he did not give me notice about that matter, because I have not got the facts at my fingers' ends. Perhaps he will be good enough to address a question to the Financial Secretary, under whose Department that matter probably comes.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am not sure that I shall have that opportunity, because we are about to adjourn for six weeks, which, m my view, is quite proper. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will repeat what I have said to the Financial Secretary.
  Mr. TENNANT: I will certainly make that my duty. While I am on that subject, perhaps I may say, in answer to the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle), who raised the question of giving War Office orders to two firms in Scotland with regard to motor transport and lorries, that it may possibly have been owing to the fact that we required definite standards. All our machines and parts are standardised, and when you have two firms manufacturing those standardised parts, it is more than probable that these would be the two firms who can make the standardised parts best and make a sufficiency of them. If that is so, as I believe it is, that would be a sufficient answer to my hon. Friend. Again, I say I was not prepared to answer that question, and I only throw that out as a possible answer. I find I have omitted one point with which I intended to deal in regard to medical examination. My hon. Friend asks one whether medical examination is to be an absolute guarantee that when a man enters the Service he is a fit person to become a soldier. Medical examination is a guide to that, but we cannot absolutely lay it down that it must of itself be a guarantee. I do not think it can be that. The reason for that is that there are obscure diseases in the human body which it is almost impossible for anybody to diagnose at the first examination. I believe that is a well-known medical fact. Therefore it may perfectly well happen that one who is suffering from an obscure disease enters the Army, and it is only after he has been in it for
  2020
  some time that it is revealed that he is suffering from this disease, although he has suffered from it for years. My hon. Friend has this on his side as well, that where it can be proved that death has been accelerated by military training, then I do think that that fact must be taken into consideration, and would" be properly taken into consideration in the financial arrangements for the pensions.
  The hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) spoke about the severe strain upon our young men who are undertaking this terrible warfare both in France and at the Dardanelles. I should not like such an occasion as this to pass without paying a tribute to the marvellous strength, both of will and physical courage, and the really glorious qualities which we have seen displayed by our troops at the front. While that strain must have been something almost more than one can realise, it has been a most remarkable fact that so few of our soldiers have broken down under it. Of course, there must come times when you reach the breaking point, and that has been reached on occasions. I would say that the Field-Marshal Commander-in-Chief is very much alive to this situaton. He hopes and believes that he has it well in hand. He gives, wherever he can, leave of absence to soldiers who it is feared are breaking down or about to break down. These are almost physiological questions, because it is very difficult to know where the physical ends and where the moral begins. I am sure hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House would wish to see the fine discipline of the Army maintained. The relaxation of discipline is not a thing to be contemplated during the progress of a great war. It is a remarkable fact, as I said before, that so few of the men have broken down on the moral side—the number is very few. If I say that and also remind my hon. Friend of the passage of a Bill through this House a few months ago giving the Commander-in-Chief power to alter and reduce sentences and to allow a delinquent to serve his period of imprisonment, not in prison or in detention, but to be taken out of anything in the nature of a camp and engaged in the firing line, I think the House will realise that we have gone a very long way to put the power in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief to minimise the effects of bad action, or what might appear to be almost cowardly action

  2021
  in some cases, and to try and bring back the soldier to a proper sense of his responsibilities and duties.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE(indistinctly heard): Is the option given to the soldier to say whether he will serve in prison or in the trenches?
  Mr. TENNANT: That option lies with the Commander-in-Chief, who, of course, would delegate those powers to the Army Commander, or whoever might be responsible. I think the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) asked me another question.
  Sir F. BANBURYmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. TENNANT: In these circumstances, I think I have answered all the questions addressed to me. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch) wanted to raise the question of the number of hospital clearing stations in France and the number of nurses in them. I have given him the numbers and he knows them. As I shall not be allowed to speak again, I want to give him the numbers which I have in my mind. The number of stations is twenty-six, and nine is the number of nurses in each.
  Mr. ROCH: Seven.
  Mr. TENNANT: It may be seven. I want him to realise this: that the other day we had a request for more nurses for the Dardanelles. One day they asked for two hundred, but in order that there should be no sort of shortage or ground for complaint, or possibility of ground for complaint, we sent out four hundred instead of two hundred. We are in exactly the same position with regard to France. We have a number of nurses who are ready, willing, and anxious to go. We can put our fingers on them at a very few hours' notice, so that if there is any demand for them we can sent them out at once. I want the House to realise that we have fine surgeons and a splendid staff of men nursing and looking after the wounded men in France. My hon. Friend seems to think that we wanted more doctors, but as they have not been asked for I would ask the hon. Member to believe that they are not wanted.
  Mr. BOOTH: I have two points I wish to put to the Government—one concerning a matter I raised at Question Time, in
  2022
  regard to the London Insurance Committee, and the other is with reference to the position of the Joint Parliamentary-Secretary to the Treasury. Dealing with the insurance point first, I would appeal to the Local Government Board to give us some information about the London Insurance Committee. The chairman of the English Commission, Sir Robert Morant, went down to the Sanatoriam Sub-committee and asked them to find £9,300 annually for a scheme for the dispensary treatment of tuberculosis cases. The subcommittee, although not satisfied upon the grounds, did give assent to this proposal, but the London Insurance Committee itself, at its meeting last Thursday, threw the sub-committee's recommendation over and decided to ask for more details as to how the sum was made up. The chairman of the English Commission was either unable or unwilling to say how the figure was made up. He simply said it was demanded by the Local Government Board. Those who voted against that arrangement being operative now are as anxious as anyone else to reduce the sickness benefit payments under the Act by the prompt treatment of tuberculosis. There is no conflict, I am sure, with regard to intention, but it is a serious thing, when economy is being urged by the Government upon the authorities and when it was admitted to be an urgent matter by the chairman of the Joint Committee, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts), it is a serious matter when these pleas for economy are so prominent to ask a public body to vote £9,300 without giving any estimate. I hope the Government will be able to get the information from the Insurance Commission. I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) was present in the House at Question Time when the head of the Insurance Commission asked him to divert any more questions to the Local Government Board. It may be that in this case they can give the information. I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman, who represents the Local Government Board, that if on going over the scheme, which I assume was arranged by his predecessor—he has special knowledge of London—if he will examine that scheme himself, and if it commends itself to his judgment, I promise him, so far as I am concerned, that I will co-operate with him from inside the committee and try to get the scheme established. I therefore appeal to the right

  2023
  hon. Gentleman if it is only in the matter of showing how the sum is made up.
  6.0 P.M.
  The second point is with reference to the position in the Government of the Noble Lord (Lord E. Talbot). I do not raise this in any spirit of criticism of the Noble Lord. I welcome him as a Member of the Government, as I feel sure all Members of the House do. The fact that I urged the formation of a united Government and the fact that I did not see how it could possibly work without the Noble Lord coming in as a colleague of my hon. Friend (Mr. Gulland) will be evidence that it is not in any spirit of hostility that I raise it, but I wish to ask whether the Noble Lord, who is, I believe, called Joint Parliamentary Secretary, is paid a salary, and, if so, out of what fund it is met. Again, even upon the financial point, I am not raising it because I am out of sympathy with it. I am prepared to give as loyal support to the Noble Lord as I do to my own Chief Whip. We on this side ought to be even more anxious to show our loyal support to Members of the Government who have crossed the floor of the House than even to those who belong to our own party. At any rate, I feel that way, and I hope there will be no distinction made, but there has been no announcement made in public, it has never been referred to in the House so far as I know, I cannot find any reference to it on any of the Estimates, and I have asked some Members of the Government and they have evaded the point. I have consulted the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), and asked him if he knows anything about it, and he does not know whether the Noble Lord is paid a salary, or if he is receiving a salary, how it is met. I only mention that as a justification for bringing it up because, if the House is frankly told, there will be an end of the matter, but while it is left in doubt it might ultimately lead to a little confusion, and perhaps unpleasantness.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): There is no mystery about the point raised by my hon. Friend. I thank him for the tone and spirit in which he has raised it, as it discharges me from any duty of defending the action the Government has taken. My Noble Friend acts as Joint Patronage Secretary. He receives the same salary as my hon. Friend (Mr. Gulland) and the salary is paid
  2024
  out of the Vote of Credit, the terms of which clearly cover the payment of a salary of the kind.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Why did it not cover the Lord Privy Seal?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have not considered that point. The matter would not come before me personally, but I conceive that inasmuch as one salary might be more controversial than the other, it would be thought desirable to bring the more controversial salary direct to the notice of the House. I conceive that that would be the reason, but I will inquire into the legal and financial aspect of the case. I am advised that there is no question that it is perfectly proper to pay the salary of the Joint Patronage Secretary out of the Vote of Credit. There will be no difficulty at all in putting it down as a Treasury Vote if there is any strong expression of opinion on the point, but I am advised that it is quite proper to pay it either out of the Vote of Credit or the Treasury Vote, whichever course we choose to adopt. There is no desire whatever to prevent discussion on the point, and I am perfectly willing to place it on the next submission of Estimates, on the Treasury Vote.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I heartily agree with my hon. Friend in what he has said with regard to the personal aspect of this matter. I gather that there is no Member of the House who is not prompted by kindly feelings towards the Noble Lord, but I must express my surprise at the statement just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government was in full possession of the facts. This extra £2,000 has to be paid, of course, because we have a Coalition Government. They were aware of that fact. They brought forward Supplementary Estimates dealing with every matter brought forward; we had to pass something extra because the Lord Privy Seal was appointed, and they actually sit down and say, "We put the Lord Privy Seal in, but we will keep out the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury." I do not think that is treating the House of Commons fairly. It is true that in the manner in which the Vote of Credit was drawn they can do almost anything, but what Member of the House ever thought when we were passing a Vote of Credit for the War that it included the salary of a Member of the Government? They never told us so. There is no phraseology at all in the Motion which was made

  2025
  which would give us the slightest idea that it covered anything of the kind, and this idea of keeping a matter of this kind dark until now, when we only hear of it accidentally because we cannot find the item upon the Estimates, seems to me to be a ground of complaint as to the manner in which the House of Commons has been dealt with. I inquired about it long ago, and was told it was going to be put on the Supplementary Estimates. It did not appear there; and now we find, along with machine guns and high explosives and every conceivable matter that we want for the progress of the War, that £2,000 is included for one of the Whips of the Government. I do not think it is right. I express my regret that it was carried out in this way, and I hope even now they will take the proper course and will bring forward a special Vote in connection with it. If not, look at the position we are in. They may carry through any number of salaries in their proposals with regard to the War and never say a word about it, and we shall not know until long after that, while we thought we were voting money to carry on the War, we were also voting it for paying Members on that Front Bench. The Chancellor of the Exchequer used to have in old days a regard for proper procedure in these matters, and I am sure he will admit that we have some cause for protest in this matter; and I hope, without further ado, he will get up and tell us we shall have a Supplementary Estimate for the salary which has now been disclosed.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I think I can answer the first question raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Booth). I think he takes up quite a reasonable attitude on the decision of the Local Government Board that a sum of £9,300 a year should be paid over to the Metropolitan borough councils to supply the dispensaries for tuberculosis treatment under the National Insurance Act. I, as representing one of the parties affected, do not dispute altogether that the sum of £9,300 is a perfectly fair sum, but I think in these days, when we all talk of economy, I ought to have some assurance that the sum is arrived at in a really businesslike way, that an Estimate has been made and that it will be properly presented. That Estimate has been arrived at in no haphazard way. Expert evidence has been taken, experts have been called in by the Local Government Board, and a review of the whole system of tuberculosis
  2026
  insurance by the Metropolitan borough councils has been made, and the most elaborate calculations have been made in arriving at the sum. I am sorry the hon. Member should not have been able to get the information he desires to have. I do not see why he should not have it, and I can assure him that if he likes to pay me a visit at the Local Government Board I shall be only too pleased to place him in possession of some of the materials on which this calculation was made. I have reason to believe that the sub-committee did not at all exceed its powers and that its action will be, if it is not already, endorsed by the committee which appointed it. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter further, I shall be pleased to place him in possession of information which will assure him that it is an economical and a just arrangement, looking to all the details of the case.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am now able to inform my hon. Friend that an Estimate, with details in the ordinary form, will be presented in due course next year. It would not have been correct to present a fresh Estimate this year inasmuch as there is already a surplus on the Treasury Votes. It could be paid out of that Vote or out of the Vote of Credit, at the discretion of the Treasury. It has, in fact, so far been paid out of the excess Treasury Vote, and I am informed now that the estimate is that there will be a sufficient surplus on the Treasury Vote to pay the whole of the salary out of that Vote, consequently no part of it has come on the Vote of Credit. The presentation to the House of details of an Estimate is for the information of the House. It would not in itself bind the Treasury. There will be next year in due course, when the Estimates are presented, a detailed statement showing the salary of every person paid by the Treasury.
  Mr. BOOTH: What bearing has this on the vacation of seats? I think the matter depends on the date.
  Mr. McKENNAmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. BOOTH: Then I must ask the Home Secretary to deal with the point. My right hon. Friend now says it is not an office of profit under the Crown, but clearly his colleague holds an office of profit under the Crown.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making another speech. He has exhausted his right to speak.
  Major HUNT: I wish to bring forward the question of cotton as contraband of war. We have power under international law to make cotton contraband. Lord Crewe stated in the House of Lords that we could make cotton contraband. Cotton under modern conditions is a necessary ingredient in explosives for the propulsion both of bullets and of shells, and therefore of all things surely it ought to be made contraband! The Washington authorities object to our Order in Council about cotton. They say it is against international law and they are-very considerably irritated by it, but it seems to me that we should make cotton contraband and adopt and enforce all the rules of enemy destination and continuous voyage, as we used to do in the old days. I submit that there is no reason whatever why we should not do it, and that it is absolutely necessary to prevent cotton from going into Germany. The Prime Minister stated the other day that there is a very serious leakage of cotton into Germany. The only way we can prevent that is by making cotton contraband. I believe it is argued that the present plan is a good plan for keeping cotton out, and that it is effectual. If that is so, surely people interested in cotton, like the American, would not object to have cotton made contraband. They cannot really object, because it will be perfectly fair under international law. Perhaps it might be as well to do all we can not to irritate other nations. I should think that it would be possible to allow Holland, Denmark, and also Norway and Sweden, the usual amount of cotton that they had in peace time on the understanding that they did not export it to Germany. I can se*e no reason why we should not buy up all the cotton that is usually taken in an ordinary year by Germany, Austria, and Turkey. Under those conditions it seems to me it is quite impossible for America to object to a strict blockade in the case of cotton. Is it likely that America is going to object to our making cotton contraband when she has taken no action up till now in respect to Germany having sunk her vessels and drowned her people? Is it likely, therefore, that America is going to make any serious objection? It is a curious thing that while Germany breaks every law, human and divine, and intends
  2028
  to go on doing it, we are not allowed to make cotton contraband for fear of offending the feelings of America and some of the smaller neutral countries. It is a very serious question. The late Government began by allowing cotton to go to Germany to a very great extent, and I am very much disappointed that this Government has not stopped it at once, as they certainly could do. By not making cotton contraband the Government are allowing Germany to be supplied with materials which enable them to kill our soldiers and the soldiers of our Allies. I see that the right hon. Gentleman does not think that, but that is how it occurs to me.
  The Government make enormous efforts to get men to join the Army, and they use all sorts of posters for the purpose. They say, "Come and defend your country; you are badly wanted. Your country is in the. greatest danger." And at the same time they say to the most inhuman nation that probably any nation has ever had to face in modern times, "We will allow you, although we could prevent it, to be provided with the ammunition to kill our soldiers, whom we are begging to defend us and our country." That is the sort of lame lawyer's excuse the present Government give. The reason they give for not making cotton contraband disgusts me very much indeed. I did hope that the present Government would take a firm line and do this thing which is really necessary for the prosecution of the War. I believe they would be supported by the great bulk of the people of the country if they took strong lines to bring in compulsory military training for all eligible men who are not wanted on Government work, and certainly to make cotton contraband of war, and anything else that is of any assistance to Germany. I am afraid that if the Government go on fighting with their gloves on the people will lose confidence in them, and this Coalition Government will go, and rightly go, where the last Government went, because they did not stand up and do their best for the people of their own country.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: There is something about this subject of cotton which causes very serious misconception. I listened with positive amazement to my hon. Friend when he said that we are saying to Germany, "We will allow you to be provided with ammunition with which to kill our soldiers." He really believes what

  2029
  some of the more ignorant and more venomous public prints are not ashamed to say, that we are really permitting and encouraging Germany to get ammunition—
  Mr. HUNT: Allowing, not encouraging.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: It makes very little difference, but I will adopt the distinction to which my hon. Friend attaches importance, namely, that we are really allowing Germany to get ammunition to kill our soldiers, because we will not declare cotton contraband. I do not wish to express the slightest dissent, it would be impertinent to do so, from what the Prime Minister said the other day, or from what I myself said a few days before that, in this House, namely, that the position in regard to this and many other matters of enemy trade is not satisfactory. It is very difficult indeed to make a thing of that kind satisfactory. But one thing is perfectly certain, and that is, that the Government regard it as an absolutely necessary and essential part of their policy to prevent cotton, capable of being turned into propulsive use, reaching Germany. The question of how that best can be done with due regard to the interests of neutrals is the one and only question which divides us from our critics. That is what the hon. Member would call a lawyer's reason. I observe that when anybody is unable to answer an argument he generally regards it as a lawyer's argument. The hon. Member suggests that we are fighting with our gloves on. I regard such an observation as incredibly offensive to use of the Government of this country which is engaged in a great war. It is an observation which, if I may be permitted to say so, I do not think any hon. Member with a sense of responsibility ought to permit himself to make.
  Mr. HUNT: It is to the best of my belief the general opinion of the country.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: If it is, it is entirely due to those who have misled the country as the hon. Member is trying to do. It is utterly untrue. We are making every effort we possibly can to fight the enemy.
  Mr. HUNT: You are not.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: We are not restrained by any folly such as the hon. Member attributes to us in carrying on this War, and so long as I am a Member of the Government we shall continue in that policy. In regard to this question
  2030
  of cotton, I will really try to make it quite clear to the House—I am sorry that I have not succeeded—that every ounce of cotton destined to the enemy is, or ought to be, stopped under the arrangements we have in force; but so far as stopping cotton going into an enemy country is concerned, it would make no difference whatever whether we declared it contraband or not. The one and only difference that would be made would be this, that if we declared it contraband then, under the rules of international law, we should be entitled to confiscate the cargo and perhaps the ship that was conveying the cotton. But we should not be entitled to stop it under conditions under which we are not entitled to stop it now. The conditions are precisely the same.
  You cannot stop contraband unless you are satisfied, and unless you have reason to suppose, that the article which is contraband is of enemy destination. You cannot stop contraband going to a neutral country unless you have reason to suppose that it is going through that neutral country to an enemy country. Neutral countries are perfectly entitled to deal in contraband, and do so every day, and there is no reason in the world why they should not. Take the most extreme case, that of a cargo of arms which is being sent from the other side of the Atlantic to some neutral country, and which are going to be used in that neutral country for neutral purposes. We should not be entitled to stop it. Nobody doubts that. If, on the other hand, we had reason to suppose that the real destination was Germany, then we should be entitled to stop it as contraband. The same thing is exactly true under the Order in Council now in force. If we have reason to suppose that anything which comes under that Order in Council, as cotton undoubtedly does, is destined for Germany, we are entitled to take measures to stop it reaching Germany. That would be exactly the same whether cotton was contraband or not. I am sorry to repeat myself, but it is necessary to make the point clear, and I am afraid it is still not clear to a number of persons outside, and even to persons in this House.
  There is a great deal that is worth considering an connection with this question, and the Government is considering it, as the Prime Minister told us. There is a, great deal to be said for and against declaring cotton contraband, but not on

  2031
  that ground. Undoubtedly, one advantage would be that it would make the position clearer for such critics as the hon. Member, and it would make it clearer also, possibly, to some of the neutral countries. All these considerations and many others have to be weighed carefully, and they are weighed and studied, and the method which is most effective for stopping cotton, and which is the least likely to do injustice to neutrals, is adopted. It makes no difference to my mind whether Germany has behaved badly or not. We are not entitled, and I do not wish us, to behave unjustly and improperly to neutrals because Germany has misbehaved. I am ashamed of such an argument being used. We have got to behave justly and rightly to neutral nations, whatever Germany does, and I hope we shall continue to do so. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member that it is our business to stop cotton reaching Germany, and whatever steps are necessary consistent with justice, those steps I am satisfied the Government will take.
  There is only one other observation. I stated at the beginning of my remarks that this question raises many misconceptions. I noticed in one of the newspapers the other day an attack, not only upon the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but a violent attack on one of the officials of the Foreign Office, as being responsible for supplying cotton to kill British soldiers. I wish to say on behalf of that official, Sir Eyre Crowe, that no more unjust or unfair attack was ever made on a public official. His service to the country has been of the greatest possible value, and it is utterly untrue to say that he is in any sense, directly or indirectly, responsible for the decision of the Government, resulting in the present policy of the Government. Since the attack has been made in public, I desire to make this personal reply in public, and to make the position perfectly clear. I desire also to assure the hon. Member and the House that the Government are really fully alive to the seriousness of this question, that they are determined to stop cotton that can be made into explosives reaching enemy countries, and that they will take any step which will be necessary for that purpose. I do not believe that the making of cotton contraband would in itself make any material difference in the amount of cotton that is being carried through to Germany at the present time.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: Before I raise the points which I wish to mention I would like to assure the Noble Lord that he has made absolutely clear that the position of the Government in this matter of cotton is quite solidly founded, and that the House has confidence in their conduct of this matter which is one of the most delicate international affairs that can be conceived. It would be well if more attention were paid to the speeches of the Noble-Lord, and if they were carefully read there would be less loose talk about this subject.
  There is one point which I wish to raise with the Financial Secretary of the War Office. The local relief committee at Bury, in administering the funds of the Sailors' and Soldiers' Families Association, frequently become aware of great hardships arising from a practice, when some alteration or correction has to be made in a book of postal drafts by which allowances are paid, of sending up the book without making provision for any payments to be made until its return, and this return, I suppose owing to difficulties in the office, is not unfrequently delayed for some weeks. That leaves the dependants of the soldier, or the soldier himself in the case of a pension, dependent on voluntary capital, and it seems a case in which some temporary arrangement ought to be made. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to see that that inconvenience is avoided.
  The hon. Member for Lanarkshire raised a point as to the case of a man, apparently healthy and working in a factory, being called up as a reservist and then dying of some disease that developed. The Under-Secretary said that there were obscure diseases, and that the doctor was not always able to find them out. The hardships that the men undergo frequently bring out the obscure disease, and we are entitled to ask that the doctor's examination shall not merely protect the State but that it shall also protect the men, and that once a man has passed the doctor he shall be under the care of the State, and that such things shall not occur as have frequently happened. There was the case of a husband who was called up on the 5th of August, and was drafted to Scarborough and afterwards to London. While there he was admitted to the Queen Alexandra Hospital, disease developed, and eventually he died. In another somewhat similar case, of a man who enlisted fairly early, after a few months his wife gets two telegrams, one notifying his

  2033
  death and the next saying that her husband's body was being forwarded for her to bury. I think that it is a very great hardship that, when the husband is taken away in that way, the expense of the funeral should be left to the wife. The hon. Gentleman says that the War Office is not going back on its word, and the promises which it has made, but he did foreshadow a somewhat more sympathetic consideration of these cases, and said that they should be taken into account. In all these cases there is no pension, and even the grant from the Royal Patriotic Fund is refused because the deceased did not die from wounds or something which was incurred in the service of the country. I think that in many of these cases there is a very great hardship, and I hope that they will be taken into consideration.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My hon. Friend has already been looking into the question which has been brought to my notice with reference to the hardships entailed on the recipients of allowance when the books of drafts are recalled for adjustment. I quite admit that there is a grievance. It is most undesirable that there should be any break in the steady payment of the allowances which are being granted, and we are now engaged in seeing whether there cannot be some means of meeting the difficulty.
  With reference to the other points on which my hon. Friend touched, however sympathetic we may be—and I assure him that I speak for everybody in the War Office when I say that we have a great deal of sympathy in reference to the question to which he has alluded—the House must remember that we are bound in these matters by the rules which have been framed after careful consideration. It is easy enough for this House to say that the State ought to pay a pension to the widow of every man who has died as a soldier irrespective of whether or not the disease of which he died is contracted owing to his military service, but when the House reflects on that I think that it will see that it is treading on very dangerous ground. After all, the nation compensates a widow for the loss of her husband, where the loss is occasioned directly by his military service, and honestly I do not think that the House would be wise to press the War Office to go further than the limits which have been prescribed. I can assure the House that we approach the consideration
  2034
  of these cases in a very sympathetic spirit. We do not in any way attempt to avoid the payment of pensions where pensions may properly be paid under the regulations which the House has supported up to the present time. I do not think that I could carry the matter further than that. I can only say that we shall continue to look into-all those cases in the most sympathetic way.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I would like to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any steps are being taken to secure, as far as decency will allow, that a fair share of munitions contracts or other contracts will be extended to Ireland? I do not for one moment suppose that we could in any way compete with the works which are going on in this country, but at a time when so many recruits are leaving Ireland for the War I think it only reasonable that, either through the Department of Agriculture or some of the other Departments of that kind, a plea should be put in that a fair share of the work which is being done, and of the expenditure which that work necessarily involves, should be given to-Ireland.
  I have followed the controversy to which the Noble Lord alluded ever since it started, and humble as my approval of his policy and action may be, I wish to extend it to him. I wish to say, furthermore, that I was in America for some months while this War was going on, and that anybody who needlessly raises these questions of an international kind, which are being most efficiently attended to by His Majesty's Foreign Office, is not doing the State a service.
  I desire to make one further observation with regard to another Irish matter. We had to-day an admission from the Government that the steward of a great Atlantic liner pleaded guilty to flashing lights from a porthole, and that he got off with a sentence of two months' imprisonment. It seems to me that the wholly inadequate punishment of this man is in marked contrast with the drastic punishment of perpetual banishment which has been meted out in certain cases in Ireland. I do not for one single moment wish to express the smallest sympathy with anyone who endeavours to embarrass the Government in Ireland during the conduct of this War, and therefore I make my position perfectly and absolutely clear. But you let off with this light sentence a man whose pretence was that he

  2035
  was trying to flash at the Holyhead side, when he was at the wrong side. This action on the part of the steward of a ship not only might have entailed the loss of the ship but the loss of scores of other ships in the Channel, and yet we have this wholly inadequate punishment meted out. Then there was also the other day the case of a Dutchman who was for the second time convicted of signalling, and he got off with two or three months' imprisonment. These men, in my opinion, ought to have been shot. There are submarines in the Channel, and to say that you value your safety and the safety of your ships in that way seems to me to be an extraordinary position of affairs.
  But what is the effect in Ireland? Here is a number of men with old memories and old grievances, and they make foolish speeches and foolish statements. They are absolutely harmless. The people in Ireland know the value of these speeches, and yet these men are punished by being banished out of the country. There are now four men under sentence of banishment. Where can they go to? They must go to America to earn their living, and to be fresh centres of mischief in that country. Are they not much safer at home? I respectfully think that they are, because the people of Ireland are saturated with this kind of thing, and the immense mass of the Irish people are in thorough sympathy with this country in the prosecution of this War, in which we all recognise there is no stain of blood upon our hands, and no responsibility for the commencement of this conflict. Therefore I appeal for something like reasonable latitude towards these foolish people. You cannot get rid of Irish ballads or Irish songs which recall all these ancient days, which are part of the literature of this country. Therefore is it not rather ridiculous that men who have been an extremely short time in Ireland, however well meaning they are, should take the action which has been taken. I am not blaming the Chief Secretary for what has happened. I do not think that he has any responsibility for the matter, but I do think that just as in India or in other places you have a sort of critical or intelligence Department attached to the War Office, so in Ireland, while it is quite right to give a man the exact length and breadth of the law, there is also such a thing as policy to be considered, and the policy of banishing men out of the country, and letting
  2036
  them go to America to stir up fresh strife there is not in my opinion a very wise policy.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): In reference to the first point mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that Ireland should secure a share in the necessary work of the preparation of munitions, I can assure him that even at the present moment representations are being made with reference to obtaining what he desires, and I hope with very satisfactory results.
  In reference to the other point it is a very awkward problem to know what to do with persons who are considered to be dangerous to the State at the present time. There is a great deal of force in which the hon. and learned Gentleman says as to where they would go, and as to the possibility that they would do more harm elsewhere than they would be able to do in Ireland, but I can assure him that nobody has proposed to banish anybody from Ireland, nor is anybody being banished from Ireland simply on account of foolish speeches. The action of the military authorities in Ireland is for what the persons referred to have done and are doing, and is not merely for unlicensed and foolish language. I agree with the hon. Member that the people of Ireland take these things very much at their true value. I know of no people less likely to be excited by absurd speeches than the Irish themselves, but in the case of these particular persons it is not their speeches, it is their action and the methods which they are pursuing which have brought them under the Defence of the Realm Act.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  ELECTIONS AXD REGISTRATION BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  ELECTIONS AXD REGISTRATION BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Postponement of Local Flections.)
    (1) The next statutory elections of county and borough councillors, district councillors, guardians, and parish councillors, shall be postponed for a year, and the term of office of the existing councillors and guardians shall accordingly be extended by one year.
    This Section shall apply only where the next statutory election would take place before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and sixteen.
    (2) Any casual vacancy, requiring to be filled by election, and occurring among the members of any county council, any borough council, any district council, any board of guardians, or any parish council shall, until a new register comes into force, instead of being filled by an election, be filled by means of the choice by the council or board of a person to fill the vacancy, and a councillor or guardian so chosen shall hold office in the same manner in all respects as if he had been elected to fill the vacancy.
    (3) The provisions of this Section may be applied, if necessary, to the election, appointment or co-optation of the chairman, vice-chairman, or members of any kind of local or other body or committee thereof, by order of the Local Government Board as respects local bodies, and by order of the appropriate Government Department as respects any other bodies, and may be so applied with the necessary modifications and either generally as regards all bodies of any particular kind, or specially as regards any particular body or bodies.
    (4) Any provisions of any Act or Order or regulations relating to any such councillors or guardians, or to any such chairman, vice-chairman, or member of a local or other body, shall be construed as if they were modified in such a manner as to give effect to the provisions of this Section, and the Local Government Board as respects councillors, guardians, or local bodies, and the appropriate Government Department as respects any other bodies, if any question arises, may by Order specify the actual modification which is to be made in pursuance of this Section.
    (5) If any question arises as to the appropriate Government Department by which an Order should be made under this Section, that question shall be determined by the Treasury, and their decision on the matter shall be conclusive for all purposes.
    (6) For the purposes of this Section the expression "councillor" includes "alderman," the expression "borough" includes "Metropolitan borough," the expression "statutory election" means an election to fill the place of councillors and guardians retiring on the expiration of their term of office, and the expression "existing councillors and guardians" means councillors
    2038
    and guardians who are in office at the time when the next retirement of councillors or guardians after the passing of this Act would, but for this Act, have taken place.
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Robert Pearce).
    Mr. R. PEARCE: I think there will be no occasion for me to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he intends to include the City of London in its provisions, and as that was the sole object I had in putting down my Amendment, I do not propose to move it.
    Mr. PRJNGLE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "existing" ["existing councillors and guardians"], and to insert instead thereof the word "retiring."
    The question arises whether the councillor or guardian who retires in 1915, or 1916, or 1917, or 1918 has his term of office extended. By the Clause as it stands every councillor or guardian may have his period of office extended by this Act. This seems to me an unnecessary disturbance, as the result of what we are doing under this Bill. The Bill as it stands is merely to put off the elections of local authorities, but in effect it is doing far more than that, for it is extending by one year the period of office of every existing councillor or guardian. The Bill does not merely extend the year of office of the councillor who is due to retire on the 1st July, 1915. I think it is obviously fair that the operation of the Act should only affect the tenure of office of men who are due to come up for election during this year; otherwise you are extending automatically the term of office of a number of men who would be due to be elected in subsequent years. It is true that the objection may be taken that the machinery that should apply to the proposal which I move would be somewhat different, that, in other words, if events took their normal course, there would be two councillors or guardians as the case might be to refire, and a question would arise as to which of those councillors should be elected for three years and which for two years. Similar questions have arisen in regard to municipal elections, and the usual rule has been, and it could be applied in this case, that the man at the top of the poll has the three years' period and the second of the successful candidates two years.

    2039
    But this could be provided for by an order of the Local Government Board, and there is a provision in the Bill for orders to be issued by the Local Government Board for other purposes. The machinery need cause no difficulty, and it need not be incorporated in the Bill. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, because it limits the effect of the postponement only to those who are due to retire at this period.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. W. Long): I am afraid I am not accept this Amendment, for it does more to upset the plan of the Bill than possibly the hon. Member realises. All we have done is to treat the date under consideration by the Bill as a dies non, and we push everything forward a year. That is really the only plan by which we can avoid great confusion hereafter as a result of the operation of the Bill. Otherwise you would have the terms fixed for one-third to retire annually, and you would have these numbers accumulating in future ad infinitum, and a problem created for a solution of which there is no machinery. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have given my careful consideration to this matter before we came to the conclusion that the only thing to do was to regard the present period as one during which there should be a complete truce, and that everything should be pushed forward to the time when we will be able to resume the ordinary course under the ordinary regulations.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Will not this Clause apply to public auditors of municipal bodies, who are elected by ballot, and who, if it does not apply, must of necessity have an election?
    Mr. LONG: I think we have made it apply to those auditors, but, at any rate, their particular case is to be dealt with.
    Mr. DENNISS: I called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to that point on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is an omission from the Bill, and will have to be rectified. I would like to point out to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that it is not at all necessary, because the Clause really applies to existing councillors, except those retiring, and therefore the word "retiring" is unnecessary.
    Mr. HOGGE: I should like it to be made clear by the President of the Local Government Board whether this Bill
    2040
    applies to all existing councillors, and extends their term of office one year—that is to say, that men who were returned last November will yet have three years to-run, and so on. If my right hon. Friend means that by the Bill, and does not want to depart from it, of course one would not press the Amendment, but are we quite clear that it is the case, and that it does extend to everybody on these local bodies one extra year's term of office, while they have two years to run and three years to run?
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I think the point raised by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) does not come within the confines of this Bill, which applies simply to borough councils, district councils, county councils, parish councils, and guardians. The auditor is not a councillor.
    The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Amendment.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I have an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the same point as that of the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle). I only put it down in order to get the Government to make it quite clear what the Clause does mean. To the ordinary person it is not evident whether it: means all existing councillors or only those who would, otherwise, retire at the next election. My hon. Friend opposite seems to have understood it in the way we understand it. If that is not the right way, I suggest that the Government should draft a Clause so that its meaning may be beyond doubt, and, as they mean all existing councillors, I suggest that they should use the words "all existing councillors."
    Mr. PRINGLE: I still think that my proposal is one that should be accepted, but in view of the statement made by my right hon. Friend I do not desire to press it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "year" ["be extended by one year"], to insert the words "In the year 1916 the day of election of a chairman of a county council shall be the day of the first ordinary quarterly meeting of that council after the eighth day of March in that year, and nothing in any Act of Parliament shall require the council to hold a meeting for the election of the chairman or of aldermen apart from or county business."

    2041
    I move this Amendment on behalf of the County Councils Association in order to prevent the county council being obliged to have a special meeting for the election of the chairman next March.
    Mr. LONG: I do not know that any Amendment of this kind is necessary, but if there is any doubt as to the power we have to take the course suggested, I accept the Amendment.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I really do not think this Amendment is needed, because some of the county councils have their meetings for the purpose of electing their chairmen and aldermen in the month of May. It is a statutory obligation that the mayor of a town should be elected on the 9th November; is it proposed to alter that in any way? I do not see that the internal arrangements of a council can in any way be affected under this Bill, which really deals with the election of the council, and therefore it seems to me that an Amendment like this simply gives to the council directions which they already possess. [An HON. MEMBEH; "No!"] I am a county alderman myself, and I have had some experience of these matters. I have been an alderman since 1889, and I certainly think there is no need to give any directions to the county council as to the election of their chairman.
    7.0 P.M.
    I really do not know what the Amendment means. I understand it is to give directions to the council in reference to the election of chairmen and aldermen. I say that the councils have already those powers within their own standing orders and under the Act of 1888, and I contend that there is no need for this Amendment.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I suggest that the proper place for the Amendment is at Subsection (3) of this Clause, which deals expressly with the election, appointment, or co-optation of chairmen.
    Sir R. ADKINS: With reference to what my hon. Friend (Mr. J. Samuel) has said, I may say that the object of this Amendment is not to direct the councils but to provide as to the statutory meeting. I hope it will be inserted at whatever place the right hon. Gentleman thinks most suitable.
    Mr. PRINGLE: In view of the provisions of Sub-section (3), is this Amendment really required? The Local Government Board under that Sub-section have
    2042
    very wide powers by which, if necessary, they can by order apply the provisions of the Section. Under the circumstances, surely the discretion of the Local Government Board is sufficient to cover any contingency such as that contemplated?
    Mr. LONG: As I have said, we want to deal with the question of the holding of the statutory meeting of county councils in England and Wales, and this is an endeavour to make it perfectly clear. I think it is right that the Amendment should come in on Sub-section (3), and I hope my hon. Friend will be prepared to move it there.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "Section" and to insert instead thereof the word "provision."
    The object of this Amendment is to deal with the case of those authorities whose statutory elections take place after the first day of July next.
    Mr. HEALY: Could not this be renewed next year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    This Section applies to casual vacancies, and the proposal is that those casual vacancies shall be filled by a process of co-optation by the members of the councils instead of, as is now the case, by election by the ratepayers. That is a very important change in the law, and, unless there are very strong reasons for it, I submit that it would be very unwise to start such a system. At the present moment all the councillors hold their seats by the election of the people, and under this proposal vacancies may be filled and members so elected may hold their seats for one or two or three years—members who have no responsibility to the people and owe their election entirely to their fellow members. I think that is a sufficiently important change in the law for us as a House to hesitate before we introduce it.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that in all cases in Scotland all casual vacancies are filled in this way by co-option.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I generally thought that all good things came from Scotland, I but I know now of an exception.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: It is an excellent rule.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I am not sure that it is a rule that will suit us in England, and, at any rate, it is a very considerable change. This filling of casual vacancies will not apply simply to those members who are elected for this year, but to any vacancy. Thus the rule may apply to vacancies caused by the death of men who would have to retire next November or the following November, or in three years time. Therefore it is giving to the existing council, sitting this year, and which very likely under ordinary circumstances would have been entirely changed, the right to place in positions of authority men who will sit there for three years. I submit that that is a change which is really quite unnecessary. At the present moment very few elections occur, because the general feeling of the public is against them. My belief is that in nineteen cases out of twenty the various parties would say: "We do not want and think it is better not to have an election," and the parties would come together and instead of a formal election there would merely be the process of nomination. That, at any rate, would be done by representatives of the people, and not by the council. I believe that there are very few cases where this provision will be required, and I submit that it is precisely in those cases it ought not to operate. Where you really have a question of dispute, and where one party is trying to foist into office a member of their own party, that ought to be left to take its ordinary course, and I believe that less harm would be done by an occasional by-elections during the War than by instituting this procedure doing away with by-elections.
    I think the House will see that there may be important issues raised. One very important question arises which may be decided by the vote of one individual, and that is, the election of aldermen. Take a council consisting of forty-eight members, of which thirty-six are elected councillors and twelve are aldermen. Imagine a case in which the minority of that council have been able in past years to elect the whole of their aldermen. This is a case existing at the present moment. Take a case in which, not calling them one political party or the other, but calling them Party A and Party B, and suppose there had been seventeen councillors elected for Party A and nineteen for Party B. Nevertheless, the whole of the twelve aldermen have
    2044
    been of the political colour of Party A, and the constitution of that council at the present would be twenty-nine of Party A and nineteen of Party B. Take the case in which the aldermen would, in the ordinary course, have gone out of office next November, and in which their time would be postponed until November of next year, and in the meantime there are two vacancies amongst Party B and Party A take advantage of the opportunity given by this Bill to bring in two members of their own party. The result of that would be that when the next election came round Party A will still be able to elect the whole of the twelve aldermen, whereas under ordinary circumstances, if this Bill had not passed, Party B would have been able to elect one-half of the aldermen. The result would be in a ease like that, that instead of Party B getting into a majority of two Party A would remain in a majority of thirty-one to seventeen. That is no fanciful case. I know that at this moment there are certain borough councils in which the party in the minority has been anticipating, with a fair amount of certainty, that the next election will enable them to get into power and to change the colour of the aldermanic bench. If we pass this Bill it will delay that operation taking place for three years, or perhaps-six years. It is very difficult to change the aldermanic bench once it is elected. I believe that this proposal will give rise to a very great amount of dissatisfaction.
    There are many other instances which will occur to hon. Members. There is no doubt that where the parties are fairly equally divided it is a very great advantage to get a man chosen in view of the coming election. There will be a great temptation to parties on such councils to exercise their right in rather an unfair manner. I do not think it is wise for this Committee to put those councils in that position. They ought not to have the option of doing so. I do not believe the proposal of this Sub-section is necessary. I believe that the by-elections that would take place would be very few, and that it would be wise it we could avoid even the possibility of abuses taking place. We do-not want more abuses to creep in to the municipal system; we want to leave it as far as we can as it stands at the present moment—that is, to maintain the direct responsibility of the members of the councils to the ratepayers who elect them, and not to,

    2045
    however small a degree, to start a system by which you may have men serving on these bodies who will never be responsible to the electorate at all.
    Mr. RADFORD: I wish to support the Amendment, which has been moved by my right hon. Friend with his usual lucidity. The danger of increasing the co-opted element on our local authorities is a serious one, and we ought not to take any steps by this measure to increase it. The Clause appears to me to be wholly unnecessary. We ought not to give an opportunity to borough and county councils to increase the co-opted element. It is well known to persons familiar with the constitution of local authorities that the weak spot in them is the aldermanic bench. I say this notwithstanding the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) has confessed to the House that he is a county alderman.
    Mr. HEALY(indistinctly heard): There are three city councils in Ireland where one of the political parties is in a permanent minority. In the city of Derry, where the Nationalists have a large majority, and have a Home Ruler representative in this House, the corporation has so contrived that they are in a permanent minority. In Belfast also the Nationalists are in a permanent minority on the city council; while in Dublin the Conservatives are in a permanent minority on the council. Would it not be fair to provide that in such cases the existing complexion should be maintained? It could be done in the case of Ireland by giving an appeal to the Local Government Board. I would suggest that between now and the Report stage an Amendment should be drafted providing that the incoming councillor should be of the same complexion as the man whose place he is to fill.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I have been requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton to raise this very point as to the method by which the election is to take place in these cases. In many towns the elections are fought, not on strict party lines, but on business or non-party lines. In other places we have three parties contesting seats on the council—Conservative, Liberal, and Labour. There is no direction in the Bill that, in the event of a vacancy arising, the incoming councillor should be selected from the party to which the councillor who has retired or died belonged. Unless some such direction is
    2046
    given, a great deal of friction may be caused. At present we have very few by-elections, and I rather agree with the-Mover of the Amendment that the Subsection would be better omitted, leaving' the matter to the discretion of the local ratepayers. In some cases it is essential that the opinion of the ratepayers should be ascertained on a given subject; but, generally speaking, since the War, there have been no elections to our municipal councils. It may be all right to prevent the general election on the 1st November, but, as far as casual vacancies are concerned, the proposal may give rise to a very difficult problem. Therefore I suggest that, while the Bill should apply to the election on the 1st November, it would be better in the case of casual vacancies to leave a discretion in the hands of the ratepayers, who, in the majority of cases, would doubtless decide to have no election.
    Mr. LONG: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed. My right hon. Friend in moving it said that what the Bill proposes is a great change. It is a great and terrible change to be at War, and it is because we are at War we are making these wholly unusual proposals. All those hon. Gentlemen who have advocated the dropping of this Clause have failed to recognise that, whether you have a register or not any election which takes place must take place on a register so mutilated and so unrepresentative of the electors as to make the return a perfect farce. What do we do? We adopt the practice which already obtains in Scotland.
    Mr. HEALY: And in Ireland for county councils.
    Mr. LONG: Times without number I have heard Englishmen lamenting that their local government system was not more like the system obtaining in Scotland. It works there without any difficulty. It seems to me to be carrying the principle of popular election to an absurd point if you are to say that in no circumstances, even when for obvious reasons you want to have no elections, are you to introduce the principle of co-option. My right hon. Friend referred to all sorts of possible arrangements which might be made by party organisations in order to produce certain results hereafter. I take a different view. I believe the feeling in favour of laying all these questions aside to be even stronger, if possible, amongst

    2047
    the recognised parties in-the country than in this House. If I am told that in that case there is no need for this Bill, my answer is that we know already from experience that an election may be forced against the will of both parties, and the very scandal that you want to avoid may be brought about through no fault of the leading parties, but through the independent and unjustifiable action of an individual or a small group of individuals. The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) suggested that we ought to have words in the Bill governing the selection of the co-opted councillor. It is extremely difficult to find words to do that. I had already considered the question. I hope and believe that the principle adopted in regard to Parliamentary elections, so far without a breach, will be adopted throughout the country. I believe that the universal sense of justice will lead people to say that, if there is to be co-option as a temporary measure during War time, it is obvious that vacancies must be filled by men of the same party, if the outgoing councillors are party men, or, if they were independent, by men selected on those lines. I do not think you can safely go further. I should be glad to consider the point if I thought we could deal with the question satisfactorily; but to promise to introduce words would be to undertake what cannot be satisfactorily accomplished. I hope the Committee will adhere to the proposal in the Bill. I am confident that by-elections ought to be avoided. If they took place they would take place on a register which would not be in any sense representative of the people.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has met the case put forward by the Mover of the Amendment. My right hon. Friend put some strong arguments why this Sub-section should be deleted, but I think that I could put forward an even stronger case. In the Division that I represent we fight the municipal elections on strict party lines. There is a big cleavage between the Socialists on the one side and the reactionaries on the other. I quite recognise that it is quite necessary to pass a Bill of this kind, because in my own Division, and doubtless in many others, a tremendous number of men, the major part of whom "belonged to the party that I represent, have joined the Colours, and most of them would be disfranchised. I happen to be
    2048
    an alderman myself in the Borough of West Ham; but I am not supporting the Amendment because it affects me as an individual. In county boroughs under the Municipal Corporations Act one-third of the aldermen have to retire every third year. In the Borough of West Ham we have twelve aldermen; six belong to one side and six to the other. If this Bill were carried in its present form, at the coming November election, as aldermen cannot vote in the election of aldermen, our opponents, being in a majority of two, could elect six other aldermen from their own party and also fill up the vacancies by another six, which would give them twelve more than they have at the present time. That certainly would be a great hardship. I think that between now and the Report stage some alteration will have to be made to meet such a case, not only in West Ham but in other county boroughs where similar conditions prevail. It is all very well for some hon. Members to say that there are no party divisions in regard to municipal elections. I submit that there are very few municipal elections which are not fought on party lines in some form or other; therefore it seems to me that under the Bill the parties at present in a majority would be placed in a much stronger position. It does not matter whether the majority is Liberal or Tory; the same thing would apply. They could elect six aldermen of their own party. They could also fill up vacancies from their own party, and the result would be, as I say, to place their party in a stronger position. I would suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that between now and the Report stage he should try -to find some words to meet the suggestions put forward; not only of the special case that I have mentioned, but the other cases in the county boroughs in different parts of the country.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I want to suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that he might consider the wisdom of dropping out any provision for the casual vacancies referred to in this Clause until, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, those vacancies totalled to a number large enough to disturb the free action of the council. Suppose you have a council of forty-eight members and one member dies; is it absolutely essential that you should replace him either by election or co-optation? Could not that vacancy be ignored during the time of the War? Suppose you have two, three, or

    2049
    four vacancies. We all know that that would mean nothing more disastrous to the free and proper working of a council than the absence at holiday-time of a certain number of members. I think there is a needless amount of fuss being made about this, and I would ask the President of the Local Government Board if he could see his way so to alter this Clause that the rule would only come into action when the membership, by some special and most unlikely event, was reduced below a certain good working number. I should be prepared to trust the fair-mindedness of the Local Government Board to set some machinery in motion for co-optation when a specified number of vacancies is exceeded.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: By this principle of co-optation in London occasion has been taken to create an artificial permanent majority by those who are able to administer it. The possibilities of an election arising is almost certain to ensure the selection of a person belonging to the same party to fill the vacancy. With the knowledge of what has occurred during past years in London I feel quite sure that the same abuse will occur again. The omission of this Sub-section would, I believe, make matters very much better than its persistency in the Bill. I hope that if the Sub-section is not dropped now that before the Bill comes up on the Report, the right hon. Gentleman will consider some means whereby he can ensure what he recognises as desirable—that is, that a member of the same party shall be substituted for any person retiring, or any vacancy arising through death.
    Mr. HEALY: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the insertion, after the word "choice" ["the choice by the council or board"], of the words, "with the approval of the Local Government Board"? That, I think, would meet the whole case, whether that approval were obtained beforehand or afterwards. That would always mitigate the suggestion of what is called "uproarious partisanship." I think that that approval would be quite sufficient to prevent any gross breach of the truce. The words would do no harm, anyhow.
    Mr. KING: I would like to appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to consider these suggestions. Let me point out to him that we have had six or seven Members speaking upon this last Amendment, and
    2050
    not one of them is in favour of the Clause as it stands. All sorts of objections and difficulties arise out of it, and I hope, whether the admirable suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Cork is or is not accepted, serious consideration will be given between now and the Report stage to the matter with a view to making this Section more generally workable and agreeable to those who have to work it.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: If the Government do accept the words "with the approval of the Local Government Board," I should like to suggest there should also be some words inserted to guide the Local Government Board and the councils, otherwise it will not appear on the face of the Act how the choice is to be made, or on what ground the Local Government Board is to approve or disapprove of that choice. I would suggest that after the word "person" ["a person to fill the vacancy"], some such words as follow should be added: "representing as nearly as possible the same principle and interests." There would thus be something to guide the councils and the Local Government Board.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: Nobody supports the Clause as it stands. But if I am asked whether the Clause should contain the Sub-section or the Sub-section should come out altogether, I am bound to say that I should prefer the Clause as it is. We are prepared to swallow the camel of the whole council going on, naturally, in war, and if we are prepared to do that I am prepared to trust to the council to deal fairly by any casual vacancy that occurs. We have the suggestion made to us that a council may use casual vacancies most unfairly to alter the composition and change the whole character of the council to that of one of the parties. I should like to know what would be the position during war time of any local party in any council that did that? They would simply be breaking the party truce, and I should not like to be a member of that council during the time of war after having done that. I really think we are unduly apprehensive of what may follow. If these difficulties exist at all, the suggestion which the hon. and learned Member for Cork has made is to the point. But is not there this difference—I think I am right in saying that a casual vacancy need not be filled for six months?
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Who said so?
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I know it is so in some parts. That being so, it might be arranged that a casual vacancy should not be filled by co-optation until after a certain number of months have elapsed. In that way abuse would be prevented to some extent, but I do not think the danger is a very serious one.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "and occurring" ["and occurring among the members of any county council"].— [Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "until a new register comes into force," and to insert instead thereof the words "the first day of November, nineteen hundred and sixteen."
    The Clause as it stands provides that casual vacancies shall be filled up by councils until a new register comes into force, whereas the first Sub-section only continues the period until 1st July, 1916. We have no indication of the period of time which will elapse before the new register comes into force. In (Clause 2 we have a similar reference. At the beginning of Clause 2 it says:—
    "(1) The Parliamentary and Local Government Register of Electors in force at the time of the passing of this Act shall remain in force until Parliament provides for special registers being made or otherwise directs…"
    Or apparently until the new register comes into force; it depends upon whether Parliament provides for that special register being made. Up to the present time we have had no indication whatever from the Government what they intend to do in regard to special registers. We do not know whether they intend to have a Parliamentary election. We do not know whether they intend to postpone the election for the present Parliament, or whether, when these elections come due, they intend to have this special register as indicated in the Act. Apart altogether from the intentions of the Government, we do not know whether Parliament will accept the views that the Government put forward. We do not know whether this House will accept the provisions of the registers which will be put before it by the Government, and we have, on Friday and to-day, seen an exhibition of independence in another place which indicates that even although this House accepts the views of the Govern-
    2052
    ment in respect of this special register we have no security that this special register will be passed by another place. In these circumstances, the existing register might be continued as a permanent register in view of disagreement between this and the other House. Consequently, I hold that in this Clause we should at least have a date fixed which would not be longer than the term for which the postponement of the local elections applies. The date in Sub-section (l) is 1st July, 1916. But if that date were inserted there would be a period between July and November when casual vacancies might happen, and they would have to be filled up by election. Consequently, I suggest that the Government should insert the words I propose, which would be a period during which there would be no local elections. In other words, casual vacancies would be filled up without election until the next local elections were due—unless Parliament makes further provision.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have observed before that the hon. Member for Lanark shire is haunted by the fear that an election might take place—
    Mr. PRINGLE: No, no; I am anxious for an election.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I observe still that the hon. Member is haunted by the fear that an election may take place on a very old register. He seems to think that something may occur to prevent an ad hoc register ever being brought into force. I am afraid that is a fear I cannot possibly dissipate if the hon. Member insists upon it. For my part, I believe the intention of the Government, which is adumbrated in this Bill, is absolutely certain to be carried out, and that the next election will be carried out on an ad hoc register after the War. The register will be made up for the purpose of obtaining a proper representation of all the interests concerned. The whole principle of this Clause is to prevent casual election taking place on what is a most unrepresentative register, and if the Amendment should be carried it would limit, to a certain extent, the operation of this Clause, which, I think, in principle commends itself to this House, and would very likely mean a certain number of casual vacancies being filled up on a very stale register, and a register which obviously grows more stale every month. Therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment for the reasons I have stated.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to give a more convincing reason. After all, Subsection (1) continues only until 1st July, 1916. Consequently, after that date, and before the November elections, it will be necessary for Parliament to make some further provision for local elections if the War still continues, and the effect of my Amendment would be only to continue the provision with regard to casual vacancies up to the same period, and if Parliament requires to make new provision for ordinary elections, it will be only right to make provision for casual elections at the same time. In other words, the Amendment makes provision with regard to casual election correspond with the other. On these grounds I see no reason that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward refusing my Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words, "provided that no person so chosen shall hold office beyond the next succeeding election of councillor or guardian."
    I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to oppose my original proposal, and also to criticise me somewhat for bringing it forward. As the vacancies would have to be filled up, I would point out that this danger should be avoided: that so far as regards persons who will under the ordinary course retire after two or three years, they ought certainly not, in my opinion, to be co-optated in this way, and if the right hon. Gentleman would agree that these non-elected persons should only hold office until the next general election of the council, I believe that objection to his Clause could be got over, and some of the evils I foreshadowed would not occur, because the election of aldermen will only take place after the next election, and, therefore, there would be no one to elect an alderman who had not gone through the process of election. I do submit to the right hon. Gentleman that this proposal will avoid a good many difficulties I foresee, and it will bring about a condition of affairs in which, after the next election, now postponed, everything will assume its normal course, and every member of the new council will be directly elected, whereas otherwise you will have men sitting for two years and two and a half years who have been co-
    2054
    optated in this particular manner. I think it could easily be avoided by the introduction of the words I propose.
    Mr. HEALY: These words would not do at all, and words should be applicable to the three Kingdoms.
    Mr. LONG: While I admit that a case has been made which might possibly arise, I do not think that I can take the words suggested in the Amendment, because, as pointed out, they would not apply to the United Kingdom; but, if it is desired to terminate the period of service for those who are co-optated under special circumstances, I am quite willing to consider whether some words cannot be added for the purpose. I cannot take the words as they are, because, as I understand, they cause some complication.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I think I may say, and I think I am right in saying it, that the Amendment is really the rule as applied to Scotland. I think where we elect to a casual vacancy the person always goes out and stands for election again, so that it is not a novel proposal.
    Mr. DICKINSON: That is an additional proof of the advantage of my Amendment. On the promise of the right hon. Gentleman that he will consider how to carry the object out on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (3).
    I simply want to get an explanation about this Sub-section, because it appears to me to be a very complicated one. I have endeavoured to understand it, and I think some remarks from the President of the Local Government Board will give some enlightenment. Does it mean that when a member is a co-opted member of a committee or of the council or other body, that the council need not have an election? The fact is they do not have elections; they are simply appointed. They are simply moved into their positions by a resolution of the council that they be co-opted on to any particular committee where they have the power to co-opt. The other point is with regard to chairmen: does it mean that if a chairman is a co-opted member of the committee or body there is no need for any election so far as he is concerned? I move the omission of this Sub-section for the purpose of ascertaining what it means,

    2055
    because I think it ought to be some guidance to councils if they read these Debates at all.
    Mr. LONG: These words are, I admit, a little mysterious at first sight, but they are intended to apply to certain special cases. If the Committee will look at the phraseology, they will see that the words apply to
    "the election, appointment or co-optation of the chairman, vice-chairman or members of any kind of local or other body."
    The kind of local bodies to which it is to apply is, for instance, a harbour board or the General Medical Council. In some of these cases they are very anxious that the provision of the Bill should be made to apply to them.
    Mr. HEALY: There is another mystery which the right hon. Gentleman might clear up, namely, the use of the word "co-optation." We are familiar with the word "co-option," and why should we not use it here?
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: After the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, I am really glad I moved to omit this Sub-section, because I am afraid that without the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman many councils would be mystified as to the meaning of this Sub-section. We are really dealing here with county councils, borough councils, district councils, and guardians, and anyone reading this Sub-clause would be under the impression that it would apply to something in connection with those bodies. Now we are given to understand that it really means something affecting some outside bodies such as the General Medical Council, harbour boards, or public bodies of that kind. If it only means that, it will not affect the public very much, and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the words "vice-chairman" ["co-optation of the chairman, vice-chairman, or members"], to insert the -words "elective auditors."
    It has been pointed out that, after all, the elections for elective auditors are sometimes very keen elections, and it has been thought better to include them in the Bill
    Mr. DENNISS: It is a suggestion I made to the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading and, having thought it over, I have come to the conclusion, having regard to the words "any kind of local or other body," it would not be safe to leave it at "elective auditors," but that it should be "elective auditors or officers." There are a large number of Acts of Parliament called Improvement Acts, and there are some officers who may be elected. I do not know that there are, but to make quite sure you have to go through a very large number of Acts of Parliament, and I have an idea that there are some. At all events, may I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the word "officers" wrould be a word of caution which could do no harm? I would suggest the right hon. Gentleman should add that to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir RICHARD WINFREY: I beg to move, on behalf of the hon. Member for the Middleton Division of Lancashire (Sir R. Adkins), after Sub-section (3), to insert
    "(4) In the year 1916, the day of election of a chairman of a county council in England or Wales shall be the day of the first ordinary quarterly meeting of the council after the 8th day of March in that year, and nothing in any Act of Parliament shall require the council to hold a meeting for the election of the chairman or of aldermen apart from other county business."
    It is only a question as to where it should be set out.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: This is the same Amendment which we had a short time ago, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept it. Last March, when the county councils elected their chairmen, they were elected for twelve months.
    Mr. LONG: This proposal does not interfere with the re-election of a chairman or the election of a fresh chairman.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Some councils elect their chairman every year in May, but if a council elected their chairman last March there is no obligation on their part to call a statutory meeting to elect another chairman, and I want to know whether that chairman will have the right to go on until the council meet at some future time after the date for the purpose of-electing a chairman. This means that the chairman will be elected for one year and

    2057
    three months, and in that way you are overriding the decision of the council that the chairman should be elected for twelve months. If the aldermen come out on that date they ought to be elected within the twelve months. I think you are setting aside an Act of Parliament that gives a direction to the council that it must elect a chairman once every year. The same thing applies to the borough councils. They appoint their mayors on the 9th November. I do not see why there should be any interference with the discretion of the council.
    Mr. HEALY: This is the sixth Amendment moved without notice on the Paper, and this Amendment is six times longer than any of its predecessors. I think it is only fair that we should see these Amendments on the Paper, and I do not think a long Amendment like this should be moved without proper notice. I do not know what the effect of these words is. I suppose it has been considered by the Government, but it is not treating the House with fairness to deal with a whole series of Amendments in this way.
    Mr. LONG: No one deprecates manuscript Amendments more than a Minister in charge of a Bill, and I agree with what the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork has said. My hon. Friend showed this Amendment to me and I believe it is simple, but he was good enough to say to me that if I saw any difficulty he would withdraw it and allow me to deal with it at a subsequent stage if I thought it was desirable. I do not want a long debate upon this point. This is an Amendment which has been moved on behalf of the chairman (Sir Henry Hob-house) of the County Councils Association of England and Wales, who was a very well-known Member of this House for many years. But rather than we should waste time upon it, I would withdraw it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
    Mr. HEALY: I do not object to the Amendment, and I only expressed my opinion.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Postponement of Registration.)
    (1) The Parliamentary and local government register of electors in force at the time of the passing of this Act shall remain in force until Parliament provides for special registers being made or otherwise
    2058
    directs; and the provisions of the Acts relating to the Registration of Electors, so far as regards the preparation of the new registers in the present year, shall not as from the end of the thirty-first day of July be carried into effect; and any appointments of revising barristers already made, and contracts already entered into for the purpose of the preparation of the registers in the present year are, so far as respects that purpose, hereby annulled:
    Provided that nothing in this Act shall prevent any payment being made to the overseers or any other officer or person in respect of work done under the Acts relating to the Registration of Electors before the first day of August for the purpose of the preparation of the registers in the present year.
    (2) If any question arises as to any such, payment or the apportionment thereof or as to the effect of this Section on any contract, that question shall be referred to the Local Government Board, and their decision thereon shall be conclusive for all purposes.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "electors" ["register of electors in force at the time"], to insert the words "or any register based on the same."
    Mr. BIRRELL: This matter has been brought before my notice by the Belfast Royal Commission, who are under statutory obligation every year to prepare a list of their own. That list is made up of the local government register in the city of Belfast, and also a supplementary register which is a copy of the local government register for town lands, and any person who produces a receipt for the water rate in that area is able to be put upon that list. It is, therefore, an amalgamated list consisting partly of local government voters and partly of certain persons living on certain town lands producing certain receipts. I believe there is a corresponding obligation in different parts of the United Kingdom where they have to prepare a revision list. It is thought desirable that they should be at liberty to get rid of that obligation this year. The Parliamentary draughtsman is confident that this is already provided for under the Bill, but I think there would be an obligation under the Bill to have a modification sanctioned by the Local Government Board. I think myself, and the Attorney-General for England agrees, that the words which have been suggested in this Amendment may

    2059
    very properly be added, and therefore I offer no objection, because these words make the point perfectly clear.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting my case so clearly.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. LONG: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "directs," to insert the words "but in no case after the 31st day of December, 1916."
    The object of this Amendment is to impose a fixed date by which the future operations referred to in the Bill shall be effective, whereas the matter was left open by the previous phraseology. Assuming a happier condition of things, all this proposes is that an ad hoc register must be made by the 31st December, 1916.
    Mr. HEALY: I think this proposal is a mistake, and the Bill is better as it is. This Bill should be so drawn that if necessary it can be continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. You will want a fresh Bill next year if the War is not over.
    Mr. PRATT: There is one fact which the right hon. Gentleman seems to have left out of consideration. According to the Bill there will be the local government elections in 1916. The Bill really puts off the present year's election. If it passes, the town council elections will be held in Great Britain in 1916, and the work of registration and preparing a register of the electors has to be done not for the present year, but the same register will have to go on in subsequent years. You will have the authorities gathering the materials for the new register from 1916, and you will have the local government elections for that year upon a register that would then be two years old, although under the Bill the authorities have been going on gathering the materials for a new register. I think that is hardly satisfactory, and if the right hon. Gentleman would make the date a little earlier that would meet my point.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I also agree, if you have a date at all, that it must be the date of July next year. It would be impossible to carry on the register to December. I agree with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy), however, that it would be better not to define the date at all. It would be better to assume that Parliament
    2060
    will deal with the matter. If the War is not over, Parliament will have to deal with it.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the Amendment proposed by the Government come 'into conflict with the Municipal Corporations Act, because the municipal register comes into operation on 1st November every year?
    Mr. LONG: This suspends the operation of the Act in certain respects, but it does not affect that part of it. If the War is still in operation twelve months from the 1st November there, will have to be an amending Bill.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: If there is no amending Bill, is it understood that there will be a new register next year?
    Mr. LONG: I am afraid that I must have succeeded very badly in explaining the position. I have said repeatedly that if the War is over the object of the Government will be to at once take steps for an ad hoc register to be prepared upon which all elections will take place.
    Mr. KING: I quite agree that it would be better to have no Amendment at all, and I therefore hope the Government Amendment will not be pressed.
    Mr. HEALY: The Bill as it stands is a better Bill than as it is proposed to be amended. We supported the Bill, and cordially supported it, and the Amendment is moved for no purpose except to meet the view of one single Member, a highly respectable Member, but still one who I do not think carries the House with him. I think it would be much better to leave the Bill as it is.
    Mr. LONG: Obviously, I do not want to press an Amendment which I have myself introduced in order to meet a criticism which has been pressed on the Government, not from one quarter but from several quarters, as to there being no limitation upon the time. If it is contrary to the wish of the House that the Amendment should be inserted, I do not press it. I naturally prefer the Bill in its original form, but I should not be prepared to withdraw the Amendment at this moment, because the hon. Gentlemen who are responsible for it and the original Amendment have left the House. I told them that I would move it in their absence, and, as they have gone, I cannot depart from the arrangement I have made with them.
    Mr. KING: Then I hope the question will be considered again on the Report stage.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "thirty-first day of July," and to insert instead thereof the words "third of August."
    I trust that the Local Government Board will be able to accept this Amendment. It is a practical point. There is nothing in the 31st July as such, but on 1st August the overseers, under Statute, produced their lists. On 31st July all the work of the overseers will be done except the publication of the objections to the new lodger and occupier claims, and it would be a very great convenience, I am told, if this list which has been prepared and paid for could be published. The 31st July is a Saturday, and I have put in 3rd August, which is a Tuesday, and which I submit is a more convenient date.
    Mr. LONG: I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. This register is really of no value whatever, except in so far as the work of the overseers will afford some material which will be useful in the preparation next year. That material is available, and further publication is unnecessary. It would be a great pity to spend more money on this particular purpose, and I would really ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether it is worth his while to press the Amendment. It would certainly involve further expense, which I do not think would result in any material advantage.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I do not press the Amendment, but the Local Government Board is not advised properly upon one point. All the expenditure has been incurred. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It really has been incurred in England. I am not speaking on my own authority, but on the authority of those who know. This list has been printed and published, and yon can get it for some of the boroughs. I just want to defend myself and my Amendment, and to show that it would not incur any further expense, but I do not press it if the President of the Local Government Board resists it, though I think that it is a mistake.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to re-enforce what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey has said. I am informed
    2062
    that all the expenses have really been incurred. The registers are in type, and the printing will have to be paid for. It is only a question of striking them off, and the amount of extra expense is negligible.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I have two letters in my hand from overseers stating that their lists are printed, and I know that in my own town the lists are printed. They will have to be paid for by the council. The work is done, and, apart from the elections, the lists are very useful to tradespeople for tracing removals and finding out addresses. They are certainly very useful to a very large number of tradespeople who secure them on the payment of a certain sum of money. Although the lists will not come into operation for election purposes, I think that as the council will have to pay for the printing, because this Bill is too late to stop it, there will be no useful purpose served in preventing them from being circulated.
    Mr. LONG: I really have done my best to inform myself on this subject, and I can assure the Committee that while there are a considerable number of cases where the lists are printed, there are a great many cases where they are not printed. I really cannot accede to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel) that we should not save further expenditure because these lists are useful for a purpose for which they were never intended.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: Almost the whole of these lists must be printed by now, and I cannot see how they can be useful unless the work is completed. Therefore, I cannot understand why they should not be published. I was under the impression, if it went on to the 31st July, they would still be published, and I could not see the necessity for any Amendment, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey must have looked into the question and come to a different conclusion, or he would not have insisted on the publication. Surely, if you are breaking a contract—as you are going to, and we shall discuss that on a later Amendment—you will have to compensate the printer for having done all the work, ninety-nine hundredths of it having been completed.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I would suggest there is an objection to publishing the old lodgers' lists, because, if they are published, they must of necessity be very incomplete and misleading lists. These lists

    2063
    are prepared so that they may be used at elections, and not to provide tradespeople with the means of tracing customers. I have known them being used in order to trace removals, but I have never known a tradesman use them for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member for Stockton. I think it would be quite unsafe to publish the lists, certainly so far as the old lodgers' lists are concerned, because many people are at the front and their names cannot be put upon the lists.
    Mr. HEALY: We did this extraordinary thing last year, and it is now the law, that any person may sign a lodger's declaration instead of the lodger himself, and all this humbug is to be printed. When the matter came up last year we did not say anything about it because of the stringency of the War, but the fact remains that any person may sign a lodger's declaration for a man who is in the trenches, or who, indeed, may be dead.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I point out that it will not be a complete register, because the complete register cannot be made up till the 20th August, and until then there is opportunity for making fresh claims'? There are probably hundreds and thousands of names in all parts of the country which ought to be, but are not, on the registers.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words,
    "and any appointments of revising barristers already made, and contracts already entered into for the purpose of the preparation of the registers in the present year are, so far as respects that purpose, hereby annulled."
    The effect of the words I am seeking to leave out is this: Certain appointments have been made and certain other contracts have been entered into in respect of the registration, and these words provide that the appointment of barristers and the contracts shall be absolutely annulled, and the people concerned will have no remedy at all. I venture to submit that that is an unsound principle. Since I have been in the House of Commons no such proposal has ever been put forward successfully. I remember an attempt being made on one occasion, but the protest
    2064
    against it was so strong that it had to be abandoned. Eeverybody, I think, will see that the principle I am advocating is a right principle to act upon. If the Government makes a promise or a contract it must carry it out, even if it be to its own prejudice. In this particular case there are two things to be borne in mind—the appointment of revising barristers and the making of other contracts. The appointment of revising barristers stands on an exceptionally clear footing. There was some doubt at the beginning of the year whether or not Revision Courts would beheld this year, but the Prime Minister on two occasions stated in this House that he had come to the conclusion that these Courts should be held. Accordingly the judges with whom the power of appointment rested proceeded to appoint revising barristers, and most of the appointments had been made by the middle of this month. There is, therefore, a definite and binding contract with the Government that these gentlemen should be employed as revising barristers this year. They have in many cases made their arrangements accordingly. They have probably taken houses in the particular districts in which they are to hold Courts, and they have incurred other expenses in consequence of their appointment. I venture, therefore, to say that, as far as these gentlemen are concerned, it is undesirable to adopt a form of legislation which would allow a definite and binding contract to be dealt with in the way proposed in this Bill.
    The other class of contract consists largely those entered into with printers. Their contract is that they shall do certain things in September. But this Bill only gives them compensation for work which has been actually done up to the 31st July. Under the Sub-clause the Government are to pay them for work actually done to that date, but anybody who knows anything of business is well aware that that would by no means represent the amount of loss on the contract if it is broken. The printer enters into a contract to print certain lists and then to print revised lists in September, and it will not compensate him if he is simply to get the money for the work he has done in July. The discussion which has just taken place shows that in some cases the work is not really done until August, and therefore in those cases the printer would not be entitled to compensation, although he may have made special arrangements for the work

    2065
    and perhaps have purchased extra machinery or engaged additional men. In that case it is somewhat hard he should have no remedy at all. I submit that the proper course for the Government to take is this: If they make a contract and then alter it, if they have changed their minds—and in this case they have done so, because the Prime Minister earlier in the 'Session stated that he had come to a certain conclusion, and the Government, very likely rightly, have now come to another conclusion—they ought to stand by their contract to this extent, that if they break it, they should pay the ordinary compensation to the people with whom they made the contract. In the case of the printer he is likely to have been put to loss. He may have had to make other contracts in preparation for the work, but now the Government have come down with a Bill which provides that his contract shall be simply annulled
    I submit, with great respect, that that is a bad form of legislation. When I advanced some of these arguments the other night the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland made a very eloquent speech against them. He said, very emphatically, I ought not to have raised the point on the Second Reading as it was a Committee matter, but he also went so far as to indicate that these people ought to be compensated. He is not in charge of the Bill, but I have some hope that he will be prepared to extend courteous consideration to this Amendment. I am asking here for ordinary justice. The Government have made a contract with the revising barristers, because the appointments are made by His Majesty's judges. The contract is a statutory contract under the Act of 1888. The terms of the contract, as to remuneration and so forth and the sums the Government have to pay, are set out with great clearness in Section 9 of the Act of 1888. It is, therefore, a statutory contract with the Government. The Government may change their minds, but if they do, they ought not to exercise their great power of bringing in an Act of Parliament to annul a contract, but to stand by the ordinary consequences which would happen to any one of us if we, for good reasons, gave up a contract we entered into, and they should pay compensation under the ordinary common law. I would press the Amendment very strongly on the Government, because the principle is a bad one. I
    2066
    know I shall not get much sympathy from hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, but once you introduce a Bill breaking contracts you introduce a dangerous principle which may be used very often afterwards.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: On the Second Reading of this Bill this matter was discussed mostly by Members of the Bar. I hope that as a Member of the Bar, who is of sufficient standing to be appointed a revising barrister, I may be allowed without professional bias to say a few words on this question, looking at it simply and solely from, the standpoint of a Member of the House of Commons. I have been a little in doubt as to what the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Rawlinson) proposes, because while he spoke of a larger measure of damage, if I may use a technical phrase, the Amendment he has put down on the Paper—I am not speaking of the present Amendment, but of the consequential one—that the revising barrister should have the usual payment.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: May I say that I am not going to move the other Amendment. I put it down alternatively.
    Mr. WHITE: I took the latter Amendment as being consequential.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: That is not so.
    Mr. WHITE: I am very glad the hon. and learned Gentleman does not propose that, and that he merely asks for some measure of damage to cover, for instance, those cases where, on the strength of the appointment, a house has been taken or other arrangements made.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: The hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand me. I am now moving to leave out the words which annul a contract, therefore the contract stands if the Amendment is carried. As to the measure of damage, that is a matter for the ordinary common law, with which the hon. Member is familiar.
    Mr. WHITE: I do not think the two things can be separated in that way. We have to consider the question as a whole. On this Amendment we have to consider the question of the course which should be pursued with reference to those revising barristers who have been appointed already. We cannot split the question into watertight compartments in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. I think the measure of damage

    2067
    might to some extent cover those matters to which he and I have referred. There seems to be very considerable difficulty in taking individual cases and attempting to find out what expenditure or obligations each particular barrister has incurred. The best thing would be to have some general plan, taking some general proportion and making the same compensation on a general principle. Although I quite understand that the hon. and learned Member is not going to press his Amendment, I would point out that the ordinary fee of 250 guineas, which is fixed by Statute, is intended not only as a remuneration for services, but also the Statute provides expressly that—
    "The revising barrister shall be paid the sum of two hundred and fifty guineas by way of remuneration to him, and in satisfaction of his travelling and other expenses."
    It is rather important to bear that in mind, because, in view of the fact that these gentlemen are not in fact going to do the work, and that they will incur no travelling or other expenses, two hundred and fifty guineas ought not to be taken as a basis on which some proportional remuneration should be paid, but a lower sum should be taken instead. I would remind the Committee that the matter is one of considerable importance, because while 250 guineas is the fee, the number of those who receive that fee is somewhere between ninety and a hundred, and the total of these revising barristers' fees will be somewhere between £22,000 and £25,000. In view of that amount, it seems a great pity that this difficulty was not anticipated at an earlier stage, and that greater care was not taken that these gentlemen should not be appointed until it was abundantly clear that they would be called upon to perform the duties. I would suggest that from this a lesson might be taken for the next appointments, and that when the time comes to make these appointments again, fresh appointments next year ought not to be made until the position has been made absolutely clear by Parliament.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have an Amendment down in the same sense as that of my hon. and learned Friend. I have been twenty-three years in the House of Commons and I do not remember the Government ever bringing in a Bill which deliberately annulled a contract into which
    2068
    they have entered. I have endeavoured during those twenty-three years to stop, and I have succeeded in stopping, private Members who attempted to do that, but I do not remember that a Government has done it, unless it was some promise made two or three days ago with regard to the Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill. There again I must point out that the President of the Board of Trade made one of the most effective speeches I have ever heard in support of the sanctity of contracts, and he pointed out what great evils would ensue if you broke a contract. He rather altered the tenour of his remarks towards the end of his speech by saying that he would consider something, which, so far as I know, has not yet appeared on the Paper. The Coal Mines Bill is a very exceptional Bill. I have not taken any part in it. I do not like that sort of thing, but it is an exceptional Bill, and does not apply to this particular case. Here is a bargain deliberately entered into, and then the Government, who through their own fault entered into the bargain before they had made up their mind what they were going to do, having changed their mind, deliberately put words into an Act of Parliament which will break and annul a contract which they have already entered into. I have spent a good many years of my life in the City of London, and there we were taught that the first essential for a man in business was to observe the sanctity of contracts and that when he had given his word to purchase or sell any security or commodity, whether by having done so he made a loss or not, he had to carry out that bargain. I have always understood that that was the principle of the Tory party. They generally have all the right principles.
    Parliament has always held, in the Committee Booms and everywhere else, to the sanctity of contracts, and now because it is rather convenient for them not to carry out the arrangement which they have entered into they actually put into an Act of Parliament that a contract which they have already made may be annulled. I really do no know what would happen if the House, of Commons passed a Clause of that sort. It would be taken as a precedent at once that any bargain which it was not particularly convenient to carry out might be broken and it would destroy the basis of all our commercial prosperity, which is founded upon sanctity of contract. I do not want to argue as to whether or not 250 guineas is a fee which

    2069
    includes travelling expenses and other things. That is nothing to do with this Amendment or with the similar Amendment in my name. All our Amendment provides is that a contract shall not be broken. If it is possible for the Government to make an arrangement with these gentlemen that as they are not going to do the work they are prepared to do other work or take a smaller fee for it, I have nothing to do with that. If the revising barristers choose to make an arrangement that under the circumstances they are prepared to accept a less sum, or to do something else, that is another matter. Neither have I anything to do with what compensation ought to be given to them provided it is not possible to carry out the contract. What I want to do is to prevent appearing in an Act of Parliament that anyone, much less the Government, actually propose to break a contract. I feel so strongly on this that I intend to divide the House if I can get a teller, even if no one goes into the Lobby with me.
    Mr. LONG: I think I had better state at once what is the position of the Government. I listened with amazement to the speeches of my two hon. Friends (Mr. Rawlinson and Sir F. Banbury). I do not think anyone hearing those speeches would have thought it possible that this country w as engaged in the greatest War in which she has been engaged in the whole of her history. I should like to know what has become of the sanctity of contract in France or in Belgium at this moment? What is the position of thousands of people in this country whose cases are daily before me—the people who are at this moment deprived of everything that they thought was theirs, and who are exposed to absolute beggary as a direct consequence, not of the War, but of the measures taken to protect my hon. Friends and the rest of the country against the possible consequences of war? That is the sacrifice and suffering imposed upon some of the poorest people of this country. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment seems to suffer under a strange hallucination. He is always talking about the convenience of the Government. What does he mean? I should be very grateful if he would explain. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) indulged in a speech the other day in which he used some somewhat strong language about the Government, and especially about myself, and he kept talking, when he had ex-
    2070
    hausted his adjectives, about the convenience of the Government. What docs he mean by the convenience of the Government? He talks about the Government wanting to get themselves out of some inconvenience. I do not know what he means. The facts of the case are these: This House, I think I may claim now at this period of our debate on this subject, with practical unanimity, has declared that these registers and the revision work in connection with them would be useless, and what my two hon. Friends propose is not that something is to be done for the convenience of the Government but that, Parliament having declared quite definitely that the work which is usually done in the Revision Courts by the revising barristers being utterly useless, and being a waste of work on their part, and on the part of those who take part in it, none the less they are to be paid for doing work which the country does not want them to do.
    I have had some communication with the revising barristers, and I do not believe that expresses the views which the majority of them hold. I do not believe they ask that their case shall be put before the House as one which justifies their being treated in this extraordinarily special manner. With regard to the sanctity of Contract, my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), who attacked me with great asperity, tells us he never knew a case of the kind occur before. No; thank God he has not been through a great war of this kind before, and I hope he will never have a similar experience. If sanctity of contract, and the rights of property, and the right of the individual under the laws of our land to the enjoyment of property, which hitherto has been his most sacred possession, are to be held as so sacred that in no circumstances must we, even in the interests of the community as a whole and as a war measure interfere with them, my hon. Friend will preach his doctrine of economy in vain so far as the Government are concerned, because at every move we make, whether in my Department or any other, we are brought right up against the fact that if you are going to effect economies you can only do it at the expense of those who have got what they regard as quite as good contracts as any which are held by the revising barristers. Therefore you are asking us to approach an impossible task at a time, when we are called upon to take exceptional measures and to do things which we hate doing, but which we must do in order that our country

    2071
    may come safely through this tremendous emergency. If you are going to condemn us in the language which has been used opposite, you are going to make our task absolutely impossible. No one wants to do injury to the revising barristers. No one wants to do injury to the tradesmen who suffer through this War, as they are suffering every day, if not by Statute by the executive action of His Majesty's Government, but I fear me they must continue to suffer.
    We do not want them to suffer. We do not want the revising barristers to suffer. In connection with the Bill which was passed the other day for a national register, there is a great deal of work for the performance of which barristers are fitted and for which I shall be very glad to employ those who hold appointments as revising barristers. If any of them choose to apply to the office over which I preside, I have not the smallest doubt that it will be easy to secure employment for probably the greater number of those who had anticipated being employed in the Revision Courts. I do not expect to satisfy my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury), but that ought to satisfy those who are urging the case of the revising barristers. The hon. Baronet talks as if he was the only one in this House who believes in the sanctity of contract. At all events, he did not give us on this bench any credit for anything of the kind. I am just as firm a believer in these old principles as he is, but I realise that at a time like this, whether we like it or not, we are compelled to take special measures. I realise, too, that at a time like this, if we are to bring our country through her difficulties, we must call for sacrifices. These sacrifices are not called for, as the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University suggests, for the convenience of the Government. He does not seem to realise that it is not even the Government that have to pay all this money. Half of the money is found by the ratepayers. What right have we here to say that because these appointments were made in perfect good faith they must be carried out, and that we here in Parliament should say to the ratepayers that they must find this money, even though Parliament has declared, without a dissentient voice, that if this money is spent it will be spent upon an object from which no benefit will arise and will be actually wasted. It
    2072
    is preposterous to make any suggestion of that kind to the ratepayers of the country generally.
    What else remains? The only other argument that the hon. and learned Member used is to quote, as he has done repeatedly, the language used by the Prime Minister on the 21st June. Surely my hon. and learned Friend has been long enough a Member of this House to know perfectly well that the Prime Minister, in a matter of that kind, would act, not on his own know ledge, but upon the information given to him by those at the head of the Department concerned. If there is to be any charge of bad faith, and it was made very deliberately—
    Mr. DENNISS: It was not meant in that way.
    Mr. LONG: I only take the statements as they were deliberately made. There was a deliberate charge made that the Prime Minister had made that statement on behalf of the Government, and that we, having given our promise, had deliberately broken it by this Bill. I take full responsibility for it. I did give the Prime Minister that advice. My hon. and learned Friend challenged me to say whether at the time the Prime Minister made that statement we had under consideration the abandonment of the Revision Courts. We had. At that time, I honestly confess—and I think my hon. and learned Friend will accept my assurance—that I did not realise how utterly futile would be the registers when they emerged from the Revision Courts. I did not realise then that these registers, the new registers, would be full of the names of those who stayed at home, but would contain practically none of the names of those who were fighting for us either on sea or on land. I set myself the task at that time to try to devise some method by which we could legally reduce or remove altogether this difficulty, but I found it impossible of attainment. I therefore came at once to the conclusion that the only course to take was to alter my mind, and I gave that advice to the Prime Minister and to my colleagues, and they acted upon it. I am not ashamed to confess that I changed my mind. I realised that if I had not changed my mind, but had adhered to the original suggestion, the result might be one that would involve a great waste of money, and the production of a register which would not only be useless and futile, but which would contain on it a minimum of the

    2073
    names of those men who, above all others, ought to have their say in connection with elections.
    9.0 P.M.
    This is a perfectly frank statement of the reasons which led the Government to take the course they have taken. I believe we have provided for every just claim which can be made and established. So far as revising barristers are concerned I make here, as the Minister responsible for this Bill, and with the full concurrence of my colleagues, the statement that I have made. I was assisted by the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General, and the hon. Members for Aberdeen University and the Kingston Division, who have been good enough to give me their advice. I am satisfied that all that is reasonable and fair can be done for men who have been deprived of appointments, the duties of which they had a considerable right to anticipate they would perform. When I am told that this outrageous proposal to interfere with the sanctity of contracts has raised very much opposition, I can only say to the Committee that steps of this kind are only taken for exceptional reasons in exceptional times. I believe my hon. Friends opposite are rendering bad service to the cause which they have so close at heart, when they tell the Government that even though we realise that the money would be wasted, and that the work would be futile, yet in' order to preserve this great tradition, this great principle, we ought to waste the ratepayers' money and do work which is unnecessary, so that afterwards we may be able to say that we have observed the sanctity of contracts. If we can avoid injustice to the individual, I believe there is no man in the land who will not realise, upon consideration, that the Government have taken the right course and one which in the special and terrible circumstances in which we are living at the present time, is the only course we could possibly take.
    Mr. DUKE: I hope the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman has made to the Committee will not have been made in vain. I would like to supplement one of the observations which my right hon. Friend made with some facts as to the position of various classes of the community who are affected by the incidence of War administration, facts which, I am quite sure, will weigh with those who have to take into consideration what is undoubtedly the very hard case of many revising barristers. The facts which I
    2074
    contribute to the Debate are facts which come to my knowledge in another capacity, not sitting here, but sitting in a tribunal in which money payment has to be deter mined upon other lines, due to the administrative acts of the Government. I may tell the Committee what is no secret to those who have had to go to the Royal Commission, that the principle which has been of necessity applied there, under the terms which are in general application for the country at large, is that regard is not had to the commercial value of the property which is requisitioned by His Majesty's Government. Regard is only had to the damage which the individual has suffered by reason of the requisition. When the matter is considered, I think it will be seen that while we are at war it would be impossible to extend the principle of compensation upon commercial lines to all the detriment which has been suffered by subjects by reason of the necessary administrative interference with rights in regard to property and rights in regard to business It is quite true that the whole of these proceedings are novel, and the action of the Crown in extending consideration to sufferers by war damage is more novel than the infliction of that damage. These matters have to be considered—
    Sir F. BANBURY: These contracts were made in war time. They were only made about two months ago.
    Mr. DUKE: I am only trying to point out to my hon. Friends what is happening to a large class of the population who have to submit to this damage and to take the only relief that can be given to them. This matter, of course, ought to be dealt with in such a way as that it will not put the revising barrister, whose means very often are of the narrowest kind, in a worse position than his fellow subjects. Any man who has had the long experience at the Bar of my hon. and learned Friend or my right hon. Friend opposite, or the experience which I have had myself, knows how great is the sacrifice which is being asked by Parliament from the revising barristers who are here in question. But recognising that the sacrifice is a serious sacrifice, I have no hesitation in saying that I am quite sure that there is no member of the Bar who is affected by this proposal of the Government who will not be ready to make the sacrifice which his fellow subjects are making if he is satisfied that he is not being called upon to

    2075
    make a greater sacrifice, and if he is satisfied also that steps are being taken to reduce the extent of his sacrifice so far as is possible consistently with the national interests.
    What is the position? A month or six weeks ago these gentlemen were appointed to perform their usual functions in the expectation that this could be done with some advantage. His Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion—I do not examine the correctness of it because I have not the means and they had; at least, I assume that they had—that this money, if spent, would have been thrown away. The House of Commons, if it is going to deal with other questions of public money, as I am afraid it sometimes shrinks from doing, has to deal with this declaration that this particular expenditure will be money thrown away—that is to say, that the Revision Courts will be a farce and the expenditure of the money involved will be an extravagance. The farce would be indecent, and the waste of money in these circumstances I am quite satisfied is a thing to which the House of Commons would not think of consenting. In those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman says, as I understand, "We cannot appoint revising barristers. If appointments have been made they have been made in mistake. We are going to cancel them and we will ask the House of Commons to sanction that very drastic course." I do not know that I have ever consciously, until now, voted in this House to annul a contract, but if His Majesty's Government say to this House: "You must annul these contracts, and it is your public duty," I put my confidence in His Majesty's Government in this as in other matters, and I shall support them on a Division, disagreeable as it would be, because many of the persons concerned are old personal friends of mine.
    The right hon. Gentleman says, as I understand—and I hope it will be made clear—that in the case of all these revising barristers who are ready to undertake work he can hold out the prospect of work in a public Department, which will be honourable work, war work, work in the public interests, which will substantially prevent them from being damaged. I do not mean that it will be worth £250, but it is quite true that travelling expenses are included and any expenditure of time and labour; and as I understand my right hon.
    2076
    Friend is ready to promise to these barristers, who are ready to accept the work, work which will prevent their being actually pecuniary losers, so far as remuneration goes for work done, not so far as payment goes for expenses not incurred. If I correctly understand my right hon. Friend—and I gather that he assents to what I say—I can only say that if there is any citizen who has been damaged by interference with his property or business who comes to the Royal Commission and says: "I have suffered that damage but I was offered something which would recoup me the amount of my damage," the Royal Commission would not determine that payment should be made to him out of the Exchequer because of the commercial value which he might otherwise have realised. In these circumstances I have to ask myself, if my hon. Friend the Member for the City goes to a Division, what course I shall take. I shall take the course with regard to my personal friends which I shall take with regard to those whom I do not know, but who are my fellow subjects, and I shall vote against my hon. Friend and with the Government.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I am quite sure that we all desire to do what is fair by the revising barristers and also by the printers and other workmen who are closely affected by this matter; for not only are there revising barristers, but there are many hundreds of working people who are closely connected with the printing of these registers. But I must confess that I was very much surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for the City of London, because I have always regarded him as above all the chief apostle of economy in this House.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, but economy in a righteous way, and not by breaking contracts and saving money in that way.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Yet what he is urging the Government to do now is to pay money in respect of hotel expenses that will never be involved, and travelling expenses that will never be involved, and of work done that does not require to be done. I submit that that is not economy at all, but that it is going to the length of very reckless expenditure. What is proposed in regard to these revising barristers is a very fair proposal, and I should be glad indeed if the many hundreds of working men who are involved in this matter are going to receive equally good terms so far as the

    2077
    Government are concerned. I think, however, that the action of the Government is rather belated in this matter, and it would have been well for them to have put forward their proposals some time ago, before the necessity for this thing arose. But I should have been very glad if the President of the Board of Trade had been present to listen to what I think was the entirely excellent speech just made by the President of the Local Government Board, because one day we have the Government taking a stand on the sanctity of contracts with regard to coal owners, and the next day we have them setting contracts aside when dealing with another matter. Therefore I shall be very glad to-morrow, when another point arises, to read certain extracts from the entirely admirable speech of the President of the Local Government Board. In matters of this kind I think that we have not only to think of the sanctity of private interests, but we have to think of the sanctity of public interests also, and we have got to do it in very different circumstances and to involve the least possible harm to revising barristers or workmen or anyone else. The point is that sacrifices must be made, and must be "endured, and are being endured by all classes in the community. The proposals made with regard to the revising barristers are fair proposals. If the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London goes to a Division I shall be compelled to vote against him.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I admit the great force of the contention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, in pointing out the most exceptional conditions in which we find ourselves. I agree that in many respects some principles on which we have been accustomed to act as regards contracts, and many other matters, must be largely modified under the strenuous conditions which exist in this country at this time. But I am not quite satisfied with the way in which he has proposed to deal with this matter. My right hon. Friend does not dispute, as I understood him, that in this ease there was an interference with a statutory contract between the revising barrister and the State, under which he was appointed to do certain work, and he undertook to do that work and he was to get remuneration as fixed by Statute. But the right hon. Gentleman said that circumstances are exceptional, and he justified the breaking of these contracts by the exceptional circumstances, and said
    2078
    that there were many other hardships involved on individuals which they had to endure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter took the same view, and he said that many classes in the community are suffering in this way. Of course there are. Of course, most of us are only too delighted to accept our share of the self sacrifice which is involved. But this is rather an exceptional case. Instead of their making a sacrifice voluntarily, you are asking them really to lose part of their income on which their livelihood depends, income which the 'Government had contracted to pay, because this Bill was not announced at an earlier period. That is the whole situation. Had it been announced at an earlier period, no case of the sort ever could have arisen.
    These gentlemen who have been appointed revising barristers are for the most part extremely poor; in some cases their very livelihood, their whole existence, depends upon this remuneration which they get, and I do not suppose that there is any case in which it can be said that they do not depend upon it to a very considerable extent. That being so, it is a very serious matter to cancel those contracts and to say that they shall have no remuneration whatever. I am sorry the President of the Local Government Board has left the House, because I wanted to ask him whether he could not make a little more definite what is the alternative proposal. He made a statement—which, so far as it went, was at any rate something—to the effect that his Department would be prepared to give employment, when possible, to those revising barristers who desire to minimise the loss they incurred. I confess I thought that statement of a rather vague character. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us what the nature of the employment was, or whether the remuneration would be at all commensurate with the loss these men would suffer, or what is to be the remuneration they are to receive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) made the matter much more definite, and, as I gathered, he understood the pledge of the Government was that a revising barrister who had been appointed to his post, and who desired to get employment from the Government, would get it at a remuneration somewhat commensurate with the loss he would incur by his contract being cancelled.
    Mr. BIRRELL: That is what the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind as to the

    2079
    payment to a revising barrister, and that these revising barristers would have preferential treatment over other persons who work under the National Registration Act. He will make every effort to secure that as far as possible the payment to them shall be commensurate with the actual loss incurred. I am sure that that is what the right hon. Gentleman meant.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman who has made that statement on behalf of the Government, and, therefore, if the Government really find themselves unable to accept the Amendment I think it is something considerable to have got this promise, this practical promise of employment, at remuneration commensurate substantially with the loss incurred by cancelling the contracts.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I desire to direct attention to the latter portion of the Amendment which has been moved. Possibly it may be convenient that I should say what I wish to say here, instead of moving the Amendment which I have on the Paper, and if that Amendment is accepted or altered by the Government it can be done without my further addressing the House. I am rather inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Anderson) that it is the old compositors who generally look to the register as the one sure job of the year who are going to be among those who are likely to suffer most from this Bill. There are some three hundred compositors in London who have been guaranteed four weeks work on the register, of which at present they have had only two or three. It is quite possible that under the contract with their employer they may not be affected by this particular Clause; but they also, just as much as the revising barrister, expected—I do not say that they have got a contract—this other share of the job in the autumn, and they are very frequently the older members of the trade who are not regularly employed on other work. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board to explain, if he will be good enough, the exact effect of the printer's contract being annulled. The beginning of this Clause says—
    "the provisions of the Acts shall not, from the end of the 31st day of July, be carried into effect, and contracts so far as respects that purpose are annulled."
    2080
    What I wish to ask is whether is it that the whole contract is annulled or is it the intention to hold the printer to his contract for that part of the work which has been done before 31st July, which it is desired to still pay him for at the contract price? If that is so, I am afraid that a great injustice will be done to the printer. I desire that the Local Government Board should fully understand the nature of these contracts. These contracts are not entered into even for one year only—they are entered into for three years. The work of each year is frequently looked upon as one. In July there is possibly three-quarters of the work done, and from October to December about a quarter of the work is done. In the second year of the contract there is perhaps not more than two-thirds of the work in the first year, and in the third year, also, about two-thirds of the work. The President of the Local Government Board said that the contracts which were being annulled were the contracts in respect of work which had not been done; but the printer's contract which has been annulled is in respect of work which has been partly done, because the greater part of the work is done in preparing the original work. It is work which is of a continuing nature, that which is done in July, being, as I said before, three-quarters of it good for October.
    In the charging, it is not charged three-quarters and a quarter, but generally half and half, and, if you have to pay the contract price on the July work, then they would not be getting complete pay for the work they have done. What the Local Government Board should take into consideration is that if the contract is broken the printer should be paid for the work which he has done in July as a separate job. I am not asking for compensation for the fact that he has lost the October work, but I am asking for full payment for the work which he has done in July, as if it were quite separate, and which he only took at the price which is named in the contract because he was perfectly certain, judging from what had happened in other years, that the actual type and the actual setting which he did for the job in July would be used again in October. If that is well understood, I quite agree, if this Bill is to pass, that these contracts must either be annulled—I do not like the word—or suspended or varied, but let the terms which are settled be considered in view of

    2081
    the fact that portions of the work contracted for were expected to be used again and will not now be so used, so that the printer will not be an actual pecuniary-loser from the loss of that work.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I am glad that the hon. Member (Sir G. Toulmin) has raised this point. I believe a great deal of the trouble that has arisen about this Clause is in consequence of the way in which this portion of it has been drawn. The words certainly give rise to a very considerable amount of misgiving. I assume that the proviso of Sub-section (1) is intended to secure to the printer payment for the work that he has done. If you leave the words standing as they are the contracts which have been entered into for the preparation of the registers are annulled, and the proviso allows for payment to the overseers or any other officer or person in respect of work done under the Acts. I do not think those words will include the printer, and some words will have to be added in order to make good what is the intention of the Clause, namely, to show that you intend to pay for work which has in fact been done by some person, although that person has not technically had the duty imposed on him by the Acts, nor is he an overseer or an officer. The printer does the work in consequence of some officer telling him, but it is not work under the Acts but under a contract which has been annulled. The point is a small one which can be put right in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury. I come back to the question of the revising barristers and after the very frank and explicit statement made by the right hon. Gentleman no doubt a good deal of misunderstanding has been cleared away. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Sheffield said, that the public service must be paramount and all private interest must give way at present, and we should be doing a great disservice to the revising barristers if we supposed that they were not equally prepared with other members of the community to make sacrifices and to undergo such suffering as may be needed.
    The suggestion is made by the right hon. Gentleman that he will make good to them, so far as lies in his power, by other employment the losses they might suffer by reason of their appointment being annulled. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. D. White), who pointed
    2082
    out that £250 covers expenses, and therefore to that extent something ought to be cut off from that figure. In the old days the fee was £200, but on a certain amount of fresh work it was increased to £250, and that was to cover expenses. The revising barrister has not suffered the full loss because he has not been put to the expense. I want to understand whether or not the loss which will be compensated for by other work means the loss which has been incurred up to the date of the passing of the Act or the loss which has been suffered by his not getting the employment. I am quite sure the revising barristers do not wish to be paid for employment that has not arisen. The proviso relates to work which has been done before the 1st August, but if there is any sort of analogy between the work indicated in the proviso and the loss supposed to have been suffered by the revising barrister. Their losses up to the present are very trifling. I understand, however, the right hon. Gentleman uses the word "losses" in rather a wider sense.
    Mr. LONG: The revising barristers had their appointments from the judges in the ordinary way. I think myself it is a little dangerous to argue amongst laymen on the ground of a strict contract, as has been argued here, but I admit, of course, that they had their appointments by the judges in writing. The work which they were appointed to do has been held by the House of Commons to be useless, and therefore the money which was to have been given to them for doing the work which is not wanted is not to be given. On the other hand, there is work which the country wants done. Some, of it arises in my Department, and whilst I must guard myself against payment to any persons for losses sustained, what I am prepared to do on behalf of the Government is to offer to those revising barristers, if they desire to apply, employment in connection with those Acts of Parliament which we have to carry out, and I believe that in the majority, if not in all the cases, they will be no losers. But I cannot bind myself that in each case the amount will be exactly the same, nor can I bind myself that it will amount to precisely the same sum as each would have had for doing the work of the register. Generally speaking, I made that offer to the Committee, and I am prepared to abide by it, as far as we can really deal with those cases in the way I

    2083
    have indicated. I think that the compensation to printers may be reduced to a minimum by transferring to them a great deal of the extra printing work which the Government have to undertake, and which we hope, the local authorities and ourselves, to hand over to men deprived of their work.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I am quite sure the Committee are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the very explicit statement he has made and which has cleared away, I think, any possible doubts. I should be the last myself to argue for any binding engagement or as to any actual sum to be received, and I certainly should not ask for that on behalf of the revising barristers. What I fully appreciate is that, an effort will be made, as far as the right hon. Gentleman can do it without binding himself, to meet their case fairly and reasonably. As the right hon. Gentleman has so frankly stated that he sees the justice of the claim, I think it would be very unfortunate if the Committee did not accept the generous terms that he has announced. With regard to the first point to which I referred, I hope words will be introduced to prevent the proviso from failing in the object it is intended to have.
    Mr. HEALY(indistinctly heard): The words "any appointments of revising barristers already made" are extraordinarily wide. I should like in this connection to refer to the appointment of revising barristers for the County and City of Dublin. The Act appointing the revising barrister for the County of Dublin provides that the person so appointed shall hold office during good behaviour. On top of that, you enact that "any" appointments of revising barristers already made shall be annulled. Later on it is provided that Courts shall be held in Ireland by County Court judges or revising barristers for the revision of jurors' lists. That, however, does not save the old freehold office.
    Mr. BIRRELLmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. HEALY: That is no answer. If you enact that "any" appointments already made shall be annulled, that includes every appointment.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Are they not called in the Statute by some other name, or are they merely styled "revising barristers?"
    Mr. HEALY: It is true that he does other work, but the Act says that the person so appointed "shall be styled revising barrister for the County of Dublin." In the same way with regard to the City of Dublin, the Act provides—
    Mr. BIRRELL: The words "any appointments of revising barristers already made," simply have reference to the English revising barristers who have been appointed by the judges in the manner with which we are familiar. In order to prevent the annulment of the appointment of permanent revising barristers, I think we can promise to introduce words on Report if the hon. and learned Member will suggest them.
    Mr. HEALY: Any appointments already made "in England or Scotland" will do it.
    Colonel YATE: I think it should be clearly understood that the difficulty in reference to the printers will not be general throughout the country. The county council of the county which I have the honour to represent inform me that so many printers have enlisted and so-short are they of men that if the registers were compiled in the Revision Courts they could not possibly print them in the time laid down. When this Bill was introduced I sent a copy to the county council, and I have this morning received a letter in which they approve of the Bill as a useful and practicable measure, and state that in their county they, will save over £1,000 in printing and about £800 the cost of the next election. If that is the case with all the counties, we can congratulate ourselves that this measure will meet with considerable approval throughout the country.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The Chief Secretary stated, in reply to a question just now, that applications from revising barristers for work under the Registration Act would be treated on a preferential basis. At that moment the President of the Local Government Board was not in the House. I think it would be desirable to have it on record that in regard to England at all events, for which the Chief Secretary could not speak, that promise is just as binding as in the case of Ireland.
    Mr. LONG: Certainly.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "annulled,"

    2085
    to insert the words "or suspended." I should like to know whether the word "annulled" is to stand entirely.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think the word "annulled" must stand. The hon. Gentleman asked me on the last Amendment whether the three years contracts would be annulled. That is certainly not my reading of the Clause. The words are:—
    "contracts already entered into for the purpose of the preparation of the registers in the present year are, so far as respects that purpose, hereby annulled."
    I do not think that three years contracts would be annulled under that provision, except so far as they are affected by the words "for the purpose of the preparation of the registers in the present year." As to the question whether the work done would be paid for in all cases, I think that is met by the proviso that nothing in this Act shall prevent any payment being made to the overseers or any other officer or person in respect of work done under the Acts relating to the registration of electors. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Pollock) suggested that possibly his work would not be work done "under" the Act. Our advisers inform me that they are very confident that these words do secure that proper payment shall be made for all work which can properly be said to be done in connection with the preparation of the registers in the present year. I would not mind accepting such words as "in respect of work done under or in connection with the Act relating to the registration of electors, etc." These words would undoubtedly cover such cases as those which have been mentioned.
    Sir G. TOULM1N: There is one point which the right hon. Gentleman has not covered. As I explained before, the contracts made up to the 31st July are made at a particular price, in view of the works being used again in October. Out of a shillingsworth of work it is not a case of 6d. and 6d.; probably nine pennyworth would be done in July.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: That is rather a difficult conundrum. Sub-section (2) reads as follows:—
    (2) If any question arises as to any such payment or the apportionment thereof, or as to the effect of this Section on any contract, that question shall be referred to the Local Government Board, and their decision thereon shall be conclusive for all purposes.
    2086
    That does not mean the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board on the floor of the House. It means that we shall have the assistance of our legal advisers in the matter.
    Mr. HEALY: The printers put the matter in type and leave it standing. They then make their changes in the following year. Surely you are not going to allow the printers to have a claim like that suggested—that they originally set up this long list of O'Brien's and Murphy's and should be paid for it again? The setting up of a claim for this original type-setting will be a very dangerous expenditure to throw upon the Irish counties. Make a clean job of it so far as the present year is concerned. Revising barristers have to put up with the loss, and I do not think we ought to be more careful about printers than about revising barristers. They will all have to suffer. We must remember the consequential claims. I respectfully advise the Government to leave the words, as far as possible, as they now are in the Bill.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: The printer does not stand at all on the same basis as the revising barrister. The revising barristers have not done any of the work; the printer has done his work and has paid his compositors, and he has not charged for that in the first part of his contract. But I am quite content to leave the matter with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board.
    Mr. POLLOCK: If we put in the words, "in connection with," my point will be met.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir JAMES DOUGHERTY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "nothing in this Act shall prevent payment being made to the overseers or any other officer or person in respect of work done under the Acts relating to the registration of electors before the 1st day of August for the purpose of the preparation of the registers in the present year," in order to insert instead thereof the words "overseers or any other officer or person shall be entitled to receive remuneration in respect of work done before 1st of August, under the Acts relating to the registration of electors for the purposes of the preparation of the register for the present year."
    The Bill itself recognises that any work done; in connection with the register should be paid for, but in

    2087
    a somewhat feeble and halting way, if I may say so. [HON. MEMBEHS: "Speak up!"] The object of my Amendment is to strengthen this, so that no injustice may be done to any deserving class of men. We have in Ireland, as in England, a large supply of that class of altruist, who has the greatest zeal for sacrifice by imposing burdens upon the shoulders of others. If the Bill is left in its present form, in many local authorities there will be discussion as to whether there ought or ought not to be payment. It will be said, and said I think with some reason, that if this work is useless for any purpose why should it be paid for? We shall have unpleasant discussions in many of our local bodies. Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 gives the right of appeal to the Local Government Board. But I do think it is desirable, if possible, to avoid friction between the local authorities in Ireland and the Local Government Board. I am sorry that I have not the opportunity of submitting this Amendment to my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill, but I did mention it to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.
    Mr. HEALY: I think the Amendment will be better by using the word "person" only and leaving out the word "overseers." Some Amendment of this kind is necessary.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Speaking in a representative capacity and not as representing the autocratic and tyrannical sway of Dublin Castle, I am very glad that my hon. Friend has called attention by this Amendment to this matter. But I have satisfied myself, in consultation with my learned Friends, that the Amendment proposed is not necessary to secure that any of these persons, whether called overseers or any other name, should be able, if any local authority contested their right to be paid, to bring the matter, under Subsection (2), to the Local Government Board. They would have a locus standi, just as would anybody else, if payment is due, and would be able of their own motion and without the permission of the local authority to take the question to the Local Government Board and obtain their decision whether or not they should receive payment. A portion of Sub-section (1) says, "provided that nothing in this Act shall prevent any payment being made." The right hon. Gentleman desires words to be inserted that they should be paid, although we go on to say in the Bill
    2088
    that any question arising as to such payment or the apportionment of it shall be settled by the Local Government Board. I think my right hon. Friend will be satisfied with the statement that any person who considers payment is due to him under this Clause will be able, without the permission of his local board, to take the matter before the Local Government Board, before whom he must go in order to ascertain the amount and the apportionment of it. I am rather surprised to hear there are no overseers in Ireland.
    Sir R. DOUGHERTY: There are not.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I certainly very often have had the word communicated to me from Ireland, and I have heard statements as to the manner in which they have received payment. But, if there are no overseers in Ireland, there certainly are such persons in England, and the words "any other officer or person" will satisfy, I think, the case of Ireland. If, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks, in the interests of good drafting—
    Mr. HEALY: Do you accept the Amendment?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not.
    Mr. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman is asking for payment for work which, if I may say so, is inchoate.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "under" ["work done under the Acts"], insert the words "or in connection with."—[Mr. Mayes Fisher.]
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (2), to insert, "The duty of certifying for payment of expenses in relation to the preparation of the register for the present year shall be performed by the Local Government Board and."
    This is merely to secure what, I think, is an omission in the Bill.
    Mr. LONG: I shall be glad to accept these words.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Application to Scotland and Ireland.)
    (1) In the application of this Act to Scotland, "the Secretary for Scotland" shall be substituted for "the Local Government

    2089
    Board," "town council" and "town councillors" shall be substituted for "borough council" and "borough councillors," respectively, "municipal register" shall be substituted for "local government register of electors."
    Nothing in Section 1 of this Act shall operate to continue any councillor in the office of bailie beyond the date at which he would in ordinary course have retired as a councillor.
    (2) In the application of this Act to Ireland, "the Local Government Board for Ireland" shall be substituted for "the Local Government Board."
    Courts shall be held in Ireland by County Court judges or revising barristers, as the case may be, for the revision under the Juries (Ireland) Acts, 1871 to 1894, of jurors' lists in the present year, at such times and places as may be fixed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, notwithstanding that no Courts are to be held in the present year for the revision of the register of Parliamentary voters.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "or" ["County Court judges or revising barristers"], to insert the words "in the county of Dublin and the county of the city of Dublin by."
    I move this with great reluctance. There are three gentlemen who receive a considerable salary which we have refused the revising barristers of England for practically doing nothing—
    Mr. HOGGE: Have I not an Amendment which comes before this?
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I under-stood the hon. Gentleman did not intend to move any more Amendments.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. HOGGE: I did not give any such instructions. I do not want to make a speech; I merely want an explanation. The office of bailie is a Scottish office, and there is some concern in Scotland as to whether this will apply to the re-election of the Lord Provost or Provost at the end of his term of three years. If the Secretary of Scotland will say it does not so apply, I do not propose to move it.
    Question proposed, in Sub-section (1), after the word "of" ["in the office of bailie"] to insert the words "Lord Provost or Provost or."
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman also indicate why an exception is made in the case of the office of bailie?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): Perhaps I may be allowed to reply. The explanation is very simple. Clause 1 postpones the date of retirement of every councillor for one year. If my hon. Friend will be good enough to look at the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900, he will find that as regards a bailie he remains a bailie until he retires from the council, and unless express provision accordingly were made to the contrary a bailie would be continued as a bailie for an extra year, which is not thought desirable. Accordingly the case of the bailie is dealt with specially in the Scottish Clause. With regard, however, to the case of Lord Provost or Provost, he holds office under the same Statute to which I have referred for a period of three years, and the Bill accordingly does not affect his position at all.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: On this point I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman—or perhaps I ought to address the question to the President of the Local Government Board—whether in applying this Clause to Scotland no interference whatever is intended with officers having regular appointment and regular salaries performing either work for the county council—
    The CHAIRMAN: We are only dealing now with Lord Provosts and Provosts.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Then might I ask when I can put that question?
    Mr. WATT: May I ask if this Sub-section is intended to avoid the possibility of a Lord Provost or Provost remaining in the office after ceasing to be a councillor under this Act? Perhaps the Lord Advocate will indicate if it is to avoid the evil of a bailie continuing to be a bailie after he has ceased to be a councillor; of a provost continuing to be a provost after ceasing to be a councillor; and of a lord provost continuing to be a lord provost after he has ceased to be a councillor?
    Mr. BOOTH: I have always been told as a southerner that "once a bailee always a bailie," and this is the first time by specific words we are indicating that is not so. Occasionally I have had the privilege of attending certain functions in Scotland, and you have to be very careful to address these people as bailie.
    Mr. HOGGE: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "or" ["County Court judges or revising barristers"], to insert the words "in the county of Dublin or the county of the city of Dublin by."
    I admit that the words "revising barristers" are necessary, because in the county of Dublin and the county of the city of Dublin they discharge other duties. The object I have in mind is to make it clear that no new revising barristers would be appointed. I am moving this as a matter of precaution, and I think these words will make the point clear.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I quite agree that those words ought to be inserted, and I accept them.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "as the case may be." It is necessary to omit these words.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "times" ["such times and places"], to insert the words "not later than the 15th of November."
    The Bill proposes to give them until the 25th October for this work, but I propose to extend that period to the 15th November.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I wish to know if this Bill in any way interferes with the regular assessors who have to do the whole of the valuation as well as the registration work in Scotland?
    Mr. LONG: Certainly not. It only deals with the work of registration pure and simple.
    Mr. WATT: I should like to have an answer from the Lord Advocate as to the meaning of the words, "Nothing in Section 1 of this Act shall operate to continue any councillor in the office of bailie beyond the date at which he would in ordinary course have retired as a councillor." When the Amendment dealing with, the lord provost was moved the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) intervened as he has an unfortunate habit of intervening. Will the Lord Advocate kindly explain these words?
    Mr. MUNRO: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I endeavoured to explain that the reason is to prevent a bailie from having an extra year of office. As I said before, so far as the provost or lord provost is concerned, his term of office is not affected.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving for the City of London.)
    In the City of London this Act shall apply as regards elections to the Common Council, but in the case of a vacancy, casual or otherwise, occurring in the office of aldermen or ward offier that vacancy shall be filled by election on the register existing at the time of the passing of this Act.
    This Act shall not apply to elections in Common Hall.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Why is there to be an exception made in the case of the City of London. We generally get an explicit statement from the hon. Baronet, but he has not given any reason at all why this exception should be made.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The Corporation of the City of London is not included in this Bill, and this proposal deals with the election of the Lord Mayor, and provides that he shall be elected on the 9th of November. That is the only exception, except one or two minor officials. As for the rest of the City Corporation, they will be brought into line with all other corporations in the Kingdom.
    Question put, and agreed to; Clause added to the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments.
    Mr. LONG: I wonder whether the House would be good enough to allow me now to take the Report stage? There are two matters to be dealt with, but I do not see my way now to deal with the question of casual vacancies. Most of the Amendments which we have introduced in Committee have been matters of detail, and perhaps the House, in the circumstances, would permit this Bill to pass through its remaining stages.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I understand that you are taking the consideration on Report?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes, that seems to me to be the view of the House. Have you any Amendment?
    Mr. DICKINSON: Yes. I beg to move, in Clause 1, Sub-section (2), at the end to add the words,
    "Provided that a person so chosen shall hold office only until the next statutory election of councillors or guardians, and provided also that nothing in this Sub-section shall alter the law regulating the filling of a casual vacancy in Scotland or Ireland."
    I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is not prepared on the consideration on Report to deal with this question of casual vacancies with which he has undertaken to deal, but I would suggest that I should be allowed to move my Amendment—subject, of course, to alteration later on. It would be quite possible to adjust the words in another place. I have given them a little attention from the point of view of the law since the Debate took place, although the right hon. Gentleman has not had time to do so, and I have discovered that the circumstances both in Ireland and Scotland are different from those which hold good in England, and for that reason I think it is important that the law as it affects Ireland and Scotland should be left as it is. As far as I am able to judge, the words of my Amendment will carry out exactly what the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed in his speech, but, if necessary, they could be put in proper form in another place.
    Mr. LONG: I confess that I have a strong objection to taking Amendments which I have heard in their precise form for the first time, because it is very difficult to tell what will be the exact effect upon a measure by an Amendment introduced at very short notice At the same time I realise that the Government are being treated with very great consideration and generosity in taking this measure through its various stages, and I am willing to come to a compromise with my right hon. Friend. I am quite willing to accept these words upon the clear understanding that I reserve to the Government the absolute right to remove or to alter them in another place if we think it necessary, and that I am not committed to their precise form or to their acceptance.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I quite understand that, and I cannot expect anything else.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE (No. 2) BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Amendment of Section 90 of Naval Discipline Act.)
    Section ninety of the Naval Discipline Act shall extend to vessels in His Majesty's service in time of war other than hired vessels, and accordingly for the words "With respect to hired vessels in His Majesty's service in time of war" there shall be subsituted the words "With respect to vessels in His Majesty's service in time of war, whether belonging to His Majesty or not, which are not wholly manned by naval ratings, but," and the word "hired" shall be omitted whenever it occurs in that section.
    Mr. PETO: I beg to move, to leave out the words "Section ninety of."
    The Clause to which I have put down my Amendment is to insert an Amendment in Clause 90 of the Naval Discipline Act. This is the second Naval Discipline Bill which we have had during this Session. When the previous Naval Discipline Bill was before the Committee, I had down Amendments with a similar purpose, but as the Bill happened to come at the very end of a sitting, as indeed this Bill has, I withdrew those Amendments at the. request of the Government, and contented myself with a short expression of opinion that some more efficient means of ensuring discipline on the transport and hospital ships should be adopted. As this Clause 3 specifically extends the powers and discretion of the Government in respect of ships which are not strictly naval ships, but which are used in time of war—extends it from hired ships to ships which may be actually acquired by the Government, I have thought it my duty to put down in the form of an Amendment words which would ensure, if they were accepted by the Government or passed by the Committee, that the Naval Discipline Act would actually be applied to the crews of these hired or purchased ships. The Clause which this Clause amends I propose to

    2095
    read to the Committee, so that hon. Members may see exactly what it is and has been in the power of the Government at any time during the continuance of this War to effect if they so directed. Clause 9 of the Naval Discipline Act says, with respect to hired vessels in His Majesty's service in the time of war, being either armed or under the command of an officer of His Majesty's Naval service, the following provisions shall take effect if, in any case, the Admiralty think fit so to direct. And the first such provision reads "Every person borne on the books of any such hired vessel shall be subject to this Act."
    The Clause in this Bill extends that to ships which are purchased as well as hired, and, in view of the complaints that have been made, not to me or any private Member, but in the most authoritative form to the Admiralty itself, what occurs to me is, if in the twelfth month of the War it is necessary to extend these powers which the Government have always had over hired vessels employed by His Majesty in any capacity to vessels which have been purchased, why, if this is necessary, have the Admiralty in no case thought fit to direct that the crews of the vessels over which they have had entire control under the Naval Discipline Act should be in fact subject to it? The condition of affairs on board transport and hospital ships has certainly been very far from satisfactory, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman when he replies to me will tell the Committee that that is so. We recognise that there have been and are still great difficulties in the way of the Government, but, as the House has been reminded on other occasions, we have to bear in mind that we are at war, and here is an Act which I regard as a legacy from a perhaps more robust age than the present, which specificially gives the Admiralty certain powers in time of war, and which certainly suggests that those powers would naturally be used in those contingencies. What has really happened is that a large number of the officers actually in command of transport vessels, as far back as 23rd October last, sent a very emphatically worded memorial to the Director-General of Transports. I should like to read to the Committee practically the whole of that memorial. It is quite short, but it exactly expresses what was the experience, not of any Member of this House or anyone unconnected with and without
    2096
    responsibility towards these men, but of the actual officers who had the command of the transports at that time. They wrote this to the Divisional Naval Transport Officer, Southampton:—
    "We, the undersigned, being the Masters of steamship now engaged in the transport of His Majesty's troops in connection with the War, beg leave to bring the following matters before the notice of the authorities, namely:
    That we are experiencing considerable difficulty with our crews in that our powers under the Merchant Shipping Acts are not sufficient to enable us to deal promptly and efficaciously with offenders.
    Our orders from the divisional naval transport officer make it obligatory for us to sail by a specified time, and we are held responsible if this is not done.
    It frequently occurs that men have gone ashore and we are unable to get them on board again in time to sail, with the result that we are forced to go to sea with a crew short in number. This is a serious matter for us, and handicaps our carrying out of our important orders.
    The crews on the different ships are bound under different sets of articles, which causes considerable trouble, and it appears that in most cases the men are entitled to their discharge after a single voyage, thus frequently necessitating the engagement of new men, who are difficult to obtain in the limited and uncertain time at our disposal.
    The fact that the ships sail under sealed orders renders it impossible to adjust the articles to different voyages.
    We therefore humbly petition that the crews serving on the ships engaged in the Government duty of transporting troops, may be brought under the provisions of the Naval Discipline Acts, 1S66 and 1909, or some other means may be adopted by the authorities which would prevent all the trouble which now arises, and enable us to carry out our duties more expeditiously and satisfactory than at present."
    If the matter ended there it would only be necessary for me to point out that the officers actually responsible found that the provisions of the. Merchant Shipping Act, which are calculated on a peace basis and to meet the contingencies that arise in peace, had broken down in fact, and were insufficient, and that these officers had asked the Government to exercise the very-power which the Naval Discipline Act emphatically gives them. But that is not so. This was emphasised in a letter which is contained in the White Paper presented to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1st May, a letter addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty by Mr. Graeme Thomson, the Director of Transports, who the Committee will remember, the late First Lord of the Admiralty described to the House as one of the discoveries of the War. A representation from that gentleman naturally carries a good deal of weight. He has an even greater load of responsibility than that which rests upon each officer commanding one of these transports. He wrote this. It is in the White Paper presented to the House on 6th March:
    "To-day the crew of a transport deserted. The same thing happened the day before. The firemen go on

    2097
    board the transports drunk, making it impossible to get up a full head of steam, so greatly reducing the speed and endangering the lives of thousands of troops by making the vessels a target for submarines. The worst cause of the congestion at some of the docks is not a shortage of labour but the fact that the men can earn in two or three days what will keep them in drink for the rest of the week. What is wanted in addition to the proper control of the drink traffic, is a well devised scheme, promptly applied, for bringing the seamen under naval, and other workmen in Government employment under military discipline. In many cases it is now taking three tunes as long to get ships fitted and ready to sail as it did when war broke out Expedition is a thing of the past, and it is obvious that this may at any moment have a disastrous effect on the naval and military operations."
    I would only call attention to the fact that in this memorandum to the First Lord of the Admiralty there is a specific recommendation that seamen should be brought under naval discipline. That means exactly the same as is contained in the previous memorial that I read, namely, that the Naval Discipline Act should be applied. The Government have decided so far not to proceed upon those lines. They have decided to make what I can only term a bargain with the Seamen and Firemen's Union, which contains, among other things, the provision of a special war bonus. That war bonus of £2 10s. a month is in the ship's articles, and has to be read out to the seamen by the responsible officer of the ship, and when that arrangement was first made the ship's officers themselves were expressly left out of the arrangement and it had to be read out in this form. This is from the actual ship's articles:—
    "And it is hereby agreed that the special war bonus of £2 10s. per month shall be paid to the crew, with the exception of the captain, officers and engineers."
    I do not think that is calculated to increase discipline on board ship to show that what a man could achieve by bargain with the Government was something altogether beyond the reach of what was in the power of the officers themselves. Later on, owing to representations made to the Admiralty, this or some similar advantage was extended to the officers, but it was not given in the first place. I think the Government might have taken a wholly different course. I feel sure that if anywhere near the beginning of the War, which was the time when the first memorial was sent to the Director of Transports, they had co-operated with the leaders of the men's union and the ship-owners, and pointed out that the very pick of the seamen and the pick of the firemen in the country were none too good—no one could be—to undertake the immensely responsible work of navigating these ships carrying thousands of our
    2098
    troops and other ships bringing back wounded and invalided from the front, and that they proposed that this honourable service should be regarded as a part of our whole warlike operations, and the men would be entitled to the same war medal that they would if they were serving in the Navy, and their dependants in case of disaster or casualty would have the same pension as if they were part of the Navy itself, their officers would be men of naval rating, or if there were not enough naval officers; to go round they would have officers who had a special rank in the Royal Naval Reserve, which would fulfil the provisions of the Act, we should have had a great response and a great deal of what has actually occurred would have been quite impossible. I do not want to trouble the Committee with details of those occurrences, but when the Admiralty point out, as I think they may, with pride that they have managed to convey our troops without a single casualty they have been fortunate, because they have undoubtedly placed an immense and, I think, an uncalled-for responsibility upon the officers by not giving them sufficient executive authority over the crews. I do not make' that statement without being able to substantiate it in detail. It would not be desirable to go into too much detail. The right hon. Gentleman knows the cases I have in mind. They are not cases of months ago. I have in my possession an actual case, and I will read a portion of it. It is dated 23rd July. It would not be desirable to give the name of the ship, which, I may say, was a very big one. In the report made to the Director of Naval Transports the following statement was made:—
    "The actual number of substitutes we had to engage to replace those who deserted on this vessel were 2 A.B.'s, 11 firemen, 7 trimmers, and 3 stewards."
    I could give the Committee, if desirable, any number of other cases. We know of hospital ships delayed in their journey back, and we know of cases where firemen came on board at a foreign port in drink, falling about among the wounded and having to be taken charge of, instead of carrying on the proper duties for which they were engaged. I need not go into further details of that sort, but it is common knowledge that the want of discipline has been sadly felt throughout and that it is going on now. As I know that that is the case and that the Admiralty have had the power, and have the power at any time, to take steps to deal with these

    2099
    matters, I felt that I should not be doing my duty if I did not raise the question in the form of an Amendment to this Bill.
    In regard to the Amendment I do not ask the Admiralty to accept it, because I recognise that it is mandatory, and it may be fairly said that if the Committee even considered passing an Amendment of this kind they would be taking upon themselves a responsibility which rests with, and must remain with, the Executive alone. I put the Amendment in that form because I believe it would carry out what ought to have been done and because I feel that I am bound to raise the question. The answers that have been given on this question, which has been raised again and again by me and other hon. Members, lave been a little lacking in candour. The officers feel very severely—
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: On a point of Order. Is not this a Second Reading speech?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it can be described as a Second Reading speech, but I am bound to say that I have been alarmed at the magnitude of the subject developed by the hon. Member. It is making me very doubtful whether it is pertinent to an Amendment to this Clause. It goes so much further than the Clause and seems to introduce a wholly new question.
    Mr. PETO: I endeavoured to show, at the opening of my remarks, that the Clause which this Bill amends gives the Admiralty power, when they so direct, to apply the Naval Discipline Act to certain crews. There is a Clause in the Bill which extends that power. All I do in my Amendment is to say, in effect, they shall exercise that power; they ought to exercise that power. If that is not pertinent to the Clause in the Bill, I cannot conceive what is pertinent. I may have gone in some of my remarks beyond the scope of that, but I have only endeavoured to show reasons why the Admiralty should put into force powers which they actually possess. In doing that I hope I have not been outside the rules of Order. This question has not only been brought prominently but authoritatively to the notice of the Admiralty in the manner I have already mentioned, but it has been brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman representing the Admiralty, on repeated occasions; on the first occasion, on 8th February, by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Cathcart Wason), and
    2100
    again on 9th March, the 6th May, the 13th May, and the 14th July. We have again and again asked that the officers commanding these ships should in effect be naval officers with naval ratings, and should be allowed to wear the uniform of the Royal Naval Reserve, and should be entitled to exercise and should be given some means of exercising proper control.
    Again and again we have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that no such alteration as that would effect the purpose which we had in view, because the crews would not be under the Naval Discipline Act, and it was absolutely clear that, in order to put the Naval Discipline Act in force, the vessels in question should either be armed or commanded by officers of naval ratings. It was that second provision which we have been again and again asking for, and which the officers themselves have been asking for. Therefore it would have been only fair if the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out on these occasions, when this matter was raised, that this whole matter was entirely within the discretion of the Admiralty, that at any moment they could have put this Act into force if they chose; but that they had decided, in their discretion, to leave things as they were, and proceed with the method of bargaining instead of pointing out to seamen what special duties they had at the present time, and that they proposed to make them an integral part of our naval and military forces. There is no question that the transport of our troops overseas is absolutely part of our military operations. I cannot see any reason for allowing the crews who work these ships absolutely the same liberty in every respect as they have in peace time, considering the present emergency. The Admiralty, I understand, are depending on certain powers which they have under the Defence of the Realm Act to limit the sale of drink in certain areas. I do not want to go into that matter in detail, and I am not going to mention the areas, because it is not desirable to do so.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is mixing up two things. Under cover of an Amendment to a legislative proposal he is introducing a great number of administrative matters about which he has asked questions in the House. He must keep to one thing or the other. If he is on matters of administration I must rule him out of Order. If he is on the legislative proposal he must confine himself to that alone.
    Mr. PETO: I quite recognise your ruling of course, and I bow to it, but I only desire to point out what is the alternative to the legislative proposal which is the subject of my Amendment. But I think that I am entitled to say if the Government do not carry out the proposal contained in my Amendment they must depend on some other method of carrying out this object. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that the steps that have been taken by the Admiralty will be an efficient substitute for the powers which they actually have had during the whole of this War, under Acts passed as far back as 1866. I shall move the Amendment formally, but I have no intention of pressing it, because I have no desire whatever—in fact, my desire is the exact opposite—to embarrass the Government in any possible way, and I feel it my duty to point out where I think they have taken too weak a course, where if they had really trusted the people and pointed out what the emergency was, and what it was their duty to perform they would have met with a response which I think would have astonished them, so that this Debate, and the questions which really amount to a scandal, would have been absolutely impossible.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The purpose of the Clause is a very simple one. Section 90, as my hon. Friend knows, makes provision for the case of hired ships not being wholly manned by men of the Naval Service. Since the beginning of the War we have bought some of these hired vessels, and we must take out the word "hired," otherwise the applicability of Section 90 in that case might be a matter of some doubt. That is all that is done. Upon that my hon. Friend raises the serious consideration that we are to invite the crews of transports if you like, to come under naval discipline. The Clause, as reconstructed by the hon. Member's Amendments, would read:—
    "The Naval Discipline Act shall extend and be applied to all vessels in His Majesty's Service in time of war, and all such vessels shall be under the command of an officer in His Majesty's Service."
    That would, if adopted, leave Section 90, the original Section, unamended, and the word "hired," which we design to remove, would stand and be unremoved.
    Mr. PETO: My Amendment would provide for all ships in His Majesty's Service.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: This series of Amendments in the name of the hon. Gentleman would leave Section 90 to stand unamended, and the word "hired" would be still there. That is one of the unforeseen results of the hon. Gentleman's Amendments. The next point is that this series of Amendments would put all the ships engaged in our service under the Naval Discipline Act, and Section 90 would still remain, leaving it to the Admiralty to say whether they should be under naval discipline or not. Another point is that all the vessels in our Service would have to be under the command of an "officer of His Majesty's Naval Service." That would mean that a dockyard tug or dredger would have to be under the command of an officer in His Majesty's Naval Service, if these Amendments were adopted. The admiral's barge would become an admiral's barge in a new sense. As far as the ships of the Fleet are concerned, armed auxiliary cruisers, trawlers employed in mine sweeping, and other vessels, these are under naval discipline already. As regards crews they are either active service ratings or men of the Royal Naval Reserve, or the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, or they have signed T124, which brings them under the Naval Discipline Act. In regard to hired transports, hospital ships, and colliers, none of these are under naval discipline; their crews have not signed T124, nor are they in the service of the Navy, they are in the service of the owner of the ships, and the crews would either have to be compulsorily put under naval discipline, or they would have to be invited to cancel their agreement, and voluntarily come under naval discipline. As regards the former, I do not suppose that anybody would seriously entertain that as an Amendment to this Bill. I must not be led into a discussion of the point. I think my hon. Friend will see that you can scarcely introduce a compulsory system by way of an innocent looking series of Amendments to a Bill of this character.
    As regards the other proposition that the men should be invited at the close of their present agreement voluntarily to come under naval discipline, that could be adopted, no doubt, if it was thought expedient. I would not be frank if I did not say that the proposition has been seriously discussed, but we have not

    2103
    adopted it. In the meantime no one knows better than the hon. Gentleman that we have given the question of the transport service very great care and consideration indeed, and everybody knows, and he would be the first to admit, that a great deal of very good work has been done by all parties concerned in transport work, and that without that we could not have made, as we have done happily, great transporting in supplies and troops since the War began. I will not deny that there have been difficulties, that there are difficulties, which have given transport officers, I agree, no little anxiety. I do not know that I need elaborate that in detail, but my hon. Friend knows that we have taken certain steps and I will mention two. We have secured an Order in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act making regulations which secure that failure to join, desertion, absence without leave, or joining a ship in a state of drunkenness, is an offence against the regulations, and the maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment. There have been cases for the past month of absence without leave and desertion, and the penalties ranged between a fine of 40s, or fourteen days' imprisonment, and three months' hard labour. They have not been without result. An Order in Council has also been secured giving the competent authority power to prohibit the introduction of liquor into docks controlled by the Admiralty, with right of search, and to make such an offence against the Regulations. There is, then, the important question of the work which is being done and projected by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), and which I need not go into. I think my hon. Friend will admit that good results may be anticipated from operations of that kind. The Munitions Act contains a Clause under which the Admiralty can declare dock areas controlled establishments if necessary. I hope the Amendments will not be pressed. The matter has received and is receiving daily attention. Great achievements stand to the credit of all those who contributed to this transport work. It has had its difficulties, I admit, but my hon. Friend may rely on the taking of effective steps, if any arise in the future, and under those circumstances I hope the Amendments will not be pressed.
    Mr. HEW1NS: I can only say, after listening to the right hon. Gentleman, that
    2104
    we ought to be extremely grateful to my hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) for putting down these Amendments. It appears that this Bill which the Government are introducing is really introducing a modification of the full scope of the Naval Discipline Act.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Amendments do; the Bill does not.
    Mr. HEWINS: I do not want to raise any controversial question. I can only say, as far as I myself and Friends are concerned, we shall have to consider very carefully what the right hon. Gentleman has just said as to the Amendments of my hon. Friend and to take matters into consideration before the Report stage.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, no!
    Mr. HEWINS: Yes, I think we shall. I very much object to the Report coming on at this time of night. We have been here weeks extremely idle and now we are asked to go through these Bills very rapidly without full consideration and not aware of the consequences they involve, and I can only express my regret that that is so.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that if I had myself appreciated the extent of these Amendments, reading the series together— they so transform the Clause—I should have ruled both the Mover and the right hon. Gentleman out of order. It is an administrative matter which ought to be dealt with on some other opportunity.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: We have been an hour discussing this one Amendment.
    Mr. PRATT: I also object to the small amount of rime w e have for discussing this very important matter. The hon. Gentleman opposite and the right hon. Gentleman have both enlarged upon a very important question—the question of the effect of drink and drunkenness on the transport service. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to shake his head. This question is creating a great deal of serious concern in all parts of the country. We heard at the beginning from the then First Lord of the Admiralty that the work of transport had been done in a very satisfactory way.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: And I said so.
    Mr. PRATT: I was about to say that it has been emphasised again to-night by the? right hon. Gentleman. This is the question I want to put. We are asked to be-

    2105
    lieve that there is a great deal of drunkenness among a certain section of those engaged in transport work. What has been done in these dockyard areas to reduce the facilities for drinking?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have just said that that is an administrative question which must not be discussed on the Bill.
    Mr. PRATT: But the question has been discussed.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is true. I am bound to say I have been misled, both by the Mover of the Amendment and by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. PRATT: I shall certainly take an opportunity of raising this question on another occasion. It is most unfair that some parties should be allowed to raise it and others not.
    The CHAIRMAN: The other occasion will be the right one.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  POLICE MAGISTRATES (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AMENDMENT BILL
  Order for consideration of Lords Amendment read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Lords Amendment be now considered."
  Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order. It is now Eleven o'clock.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): We cannot take the Order if the hon. Member objects.
  Mr. HOGGE: Yes, Sir, I object. I object on the ground that I will explain on the Motion for Adjournment.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member objects it must go over.
  It being after Eleven o'clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, consideration of the Lords Amendments deferred till to-morrow (Tuesday).

  SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order. I understood that we have just passed the Second Reading of the Scottish Universities Bill. We were distinctly told by the Prime Minister that no business was to be taken after Eleven o'clock.
  Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I think my hon. Friend is not quoting the Prime Minister correctly. The Prime Minister said he would not move the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, but he gave notice that he wished, if possible, to get down to No. 8 on the Order Paper (Scottish Universities Bill). The hon. Member is highly interested in the Scottish universities, and he should allow the Bill to go through. It is greatly desired.
  Sir R. FINLAY: I would like to join in the appeal to the hon. Gentleman. The Bill is urgently wanted on account of the number of men from the Scottish universities who are serving His Majesty.
  Sir H. CRAIK: The Bill is desired by all the Scottish universities to meet the difficulties created by the War.
  Mr. HOGGE: I still offer no objection to the Second Reading being taken to-morrow.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Bill has been read a second time. The Motion is that the House forthwith resolves itself into Committee on the Bill.
  Mr. HOGGE: I object to that.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole house for To-morrow.—[Mr. Walter Bea.]

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, ETC., BILL (HOUSE OF LORDS).
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. HOGGE: Can anyone on the Front Bench tell the House what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the Bill which was sent from this House to the House of Lords dealing with Military and Naval Pensions? I understand that in defiance of the party truce the Lords have this afternoon divided on the Bill and have postponed its consideration until after the Recess. The Prime Minister informed us this afternoon that the Recess was to last at any rate for six weeks. That means that a great many of the purposes for which this Bill was created are going to be postponed for six weeks. Those of us in this House who take a keen interest in this Bill and sat through a day and a half when that Bill was considered in great detail, will agree with me that there are a number of purposes which that Bill was designed to fulfil, and for which there should be no delay. For example, there is the question of separation allowances, which are not payable out of public funds. There are a great number of mothers, and sisters, and other female dependants who cannot get any allowance at all because of the rules of the Select Committee, and all these allowances are determined on a prewar basis. I have given one case over and over again, and I will give it again now—the case of a lad who joined the Army and whose parents agreed that they would not take any separation allowance. When that lad had been six months at war the father died, and his mother is left. The boy is willing to allot half his pay to the mother so that she may get 12s. 6d. separation allowance, if the War Office are willing to permit it. They do not allow that to obtain.
  This Bill, as sent up to the House of Lords, at any rate created a body to which appeal could be made for the separation allowance. The phrase in the Bill, of course, refers to the disabled soldiers and sailors. All that, forsooth, is to be left over for six or seven weeks by the House of Lords. I want to ask the Patronage Secretary, who is in charge of the business of the House, what is the meaning of this? We have a Coalition Government in this House, and everybody in this House supporting that Coalition Cabinet. Yet my hon. Friend and his Cabinet are not able to control the House of Lords. The House of Lords are able to throw in the face of the Coalition Government a Bill which was sent from this House to the House of Lords with the full weight of the House
  2108
  of Commons, and it dealt with a matter which undoubtedly affects the lives of the common people of this country. I want to know from the Government whether they intend to take this lying down, whether they intend to take this action of the Lords in the quiet way they take most things, or are they making any arrangements to over-ride this vote of the House of Lords? After all, it is the duty of this Coalition Government to maintain a majority of its own Members in the House of Lords to defeat any offensive minority. They have not been able to do that. To-day they have been beaten on their own ground. Does that mean that the Coalition Government have lose the confidence of the. House of Lords? Does it mean that the Government are going to resign? At all events, let us know that the Government, so far as the House-of Commons is concerned, is going to take measures between now and the Adjournment to prevent this vote of the House of Lords further delaying the people in need of their pensions from obtaining them. They have been kept in poverty because of the delay in granting these pensions and separation allowances. Let us know what you are going to do to thwart the will of the House of Lords.
  Mr. KING: I very much support what has just fallen from the hon. Member, but I will not go over the same ground, though it is a new ground and may be reinforced. I wish to ask another question: Does the Government really propose to carry through before the Adjournment the Indictments Bill? That is not emergency legislation at all.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to join with my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh in his protest against the action of the other House in postponing this very important Bill, to which we devoted here something like two or three days to the Committee and Report stages. This Bill is really one of the most important Bills that has passed this House this Session. I heard the Debate in the other place this evening, and I was astonished to find that the reason why the Members of the other place postponed the consideration of this Bill was on the narrow ground—the selfish ground—that there was the probability that this Bill might abolish the possibility of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association distributing public money—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As I have pointed out, this is not the place to reply to speeches in the other House.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I shall not refer to any more speeches in the other House but I want to put a further question to the Government.
  Mr. HEALY: Ask them if they are going to create peers?
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: The Government ought to provide a majority in the House of Lords for the purpose of carrying this Bill through. We all knew that there was going to be this opposition in the Lords. This is a most serious and cruel action to a very large number of poor men who have been disabled in the War. I have been to the War Office myself on several occasions of late with regard to pensions for disabled soldiers, and I have been told that there is no possibility of these men obtaining the maximum of their pensions until this Committee to be set up has reported to the War Office or the Admiralty. The whole of these pensions, although there is a Department in St. James's Park set aside to deal with them, cannot be dealt with until this statutory Committee it set up, and the local committees say that they can recommend or decide upon the facts presented to them. I say it is a very cruel action on the part of the Lords to throw out this Bill, considering that factor. I know one case of a man coming back with his arm paralysed; it is a case which I have taken up myself. This man is getting a meagre pension, and I am told that it is impossible for the War Office to decide anything in this case until they have got the decision of the statutory Committee. I think that the Government must really do something to obviate this.
  I am not going into the question of the soldiers and sailors, and I will discuss that matter some other time. I should like to point out, however, that when this Pensions Committee was set up those of us who took a very great interest in this subject were asked when that Committee, composed of the leaders on both sides and representatives of Labour and the Irish party was set up, would we abide by their decision. It is a very extraordinary thing that this Bill is really based upon a Report recommended by the Pensions Committee, with the present Colonial Secretary in the chair, who was then the Leader of the Conservative party. The Bill was brought in upon the unanimous recommendation of
  2110
  that Committee. So far as the House of Commons is concerned we abide loyally by the Report of that Committee, and I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hayes Fisher), who belongs to the Conservative party—we pay him the tribute-that he took a very great interest in the Bill, and was extremely fair to us all—complimented us upon the fact that we attempted and endeavoured and did improve that Bill in passing through Committee. It was a very extraordinary sight for us to-day to see the Conservative party in the other place take such action. While we are not prepared, and cannot discuss now the underlying actions which, have governed those in another place, I am bound to say that we have evidence that there has been a very active propaganda for some time in the public Press advising the other place to emasculate or reject this Bill. I think that it is a very serious matter, and that it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, who has taker a prominent and active part in the shaping of the measure, to rise and repudiate the-action of the other place in rejecting the-Bill. When the country realise that the-other place has postponed consideration of the Bill, and when the families of these disabled men, who are coming back from the War in their hundreds, if not in their thousands, find that they have to wait-for their pensions, the action of the House of Lords in postponing this Bill and thereby deferring these just benefits to these men, will be regarded as one of the most cruel actions which that House has ever taken in its history
  Mr. PRATT: I have had brought to my notice during recent weeks several cases in my own Constituency of men who have-returned from the front totally disabled and who are receiving at the present time-much less than the sum which they will receive after the statutory Committee is-set up. One has had to tell them time after time that very shortly this Committee would be established, and that the maximum sum would be paid to them. It is very little good saying to these people that they should receive their arrears in? course of time. They are poor people, and it is a tremendous hardship to have-to go to them and tell them that they will have to wait six or eight weeks before these arrears can be paid up. I wish to-press upon the Patronage Secretary that there will be very hot anger all over the-country if there is to be this postponement for another six or eight weeks. I

  2111
  understand that we are threatened with changes—I am not allowed to refer to another place—that will leave the welfare of disabled soldiers and sailors upon the cold hands of charity. The country is not going to stand it. The restoration to health of disabled soldiers and sailors who have come back from the front after having risked their very lives in the service of their country, their training for fresh employment, and their passage into fresh employment, ought to be undertaken by the State and at the cost of the State, and I would impress upon my hon. Friend that any change that is going to leave these functions of the statutory Committee or any of these functions which we have been discussing lately upon the cold hands of charity will be very warmly resented by all sorts and conditions of people throughout the length and breadth of this land. It is as little as we can do to see that the needs of these brave men returning disabled and weak shall not be left to the cold hand of charity.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I wish to associate myself with this protest. I, too, took a great interest in the Bill dealing with the pensions and payments to our soldiers and sailors, and I will say—and I think it will be borne out by the right hon. Gentleman who himself took such a deep interest in the whole question—that rather than press any Amendment that was likely to delay any payment we withheld it, even though in our opinion it would have strengthened the Bill. Whenever we were told that we were in any way likely to endanger or delay these payments we withheld our hands. Now we are told that because of the action of another place the whole matter is going to be hung up for at least two months. I think that is wrong, and there will be real resentment and indignation, especially among the working classes, when they know that the House of Commons was prepared in a day to go through the whole of this Bill, while the other House was prepared to throw the whole matter out. Apparently it is to be thrown -out, and as far as one can gather because they are fighting in order that the element of charity may be strongly maintained in regard to pensions and payments to soldiers and sailors. I submit we have a right to a statement from the representative of the Government as to what they intend to do. The least that can be done
  2112
  is to insist that this measure be dealt with immediately in another place and that Parliament shall sit one day longer—[HON. MEMBERS: "A week longer!"] Yes, a week longer if need be—as long, in fact, as necessary in order to secure that there shall be no delay in doing justice to the dependants of those fighting at the front. That is the very least we can do. I hope we shall get the response from the Government to-night that whatever another place may do, this matter is going to be settled in the interests of the soldiers before we adjourn for the holidays.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Most of the hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate have been concerned mainly with the position in relation to the Pensions Bill. But the decision taken this afternoon in another place concerns also the position of the Government. In a very eloquent speech on the withdrawal of the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill to-day the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that since he had taken up his present office he had become more and more impressed by the effect which Debates in this House and in the other House had, not only upon the opinion in this country, but also upon opinion in neutral and enemy countries. To-day for the first time the Government has been defeated, not in the House of Commons, but in the House of Lords. That surely is a very serious position. The hon. Gentleman who has recently joined the Government and whose salary is not on the Votes smiles at the observation. But undoubtedly in the papers which are paid through German agency this will be represented as a defeat of the Government. Since the beginning of the War the Unionist Government has received no rebuff at all equal to this in character. In these circumstances surely we are entitled to some statement of the view the Government takes of the situation. Are they going to introduce a Bill to make more stringent the provisions of the Parliament Act, or are they, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork, to have a creation of new peers. Either of those contingencies would be welcomed by the majority of this House. At the same time I think the Government must be impressed with the seriousness of the position when, in spite of their accession of strength in another place, in spite of the fact that they have taken into their ranks the Leader of the majority in that other place—in spite of all these things,

  2113
  the majority of the House of Lords has deliberately rejected the advice of the Government and held up this measure for six or seven weeks.
  There is this further aspect of the matter in relation to the fate of the Bill, and that is how long is it going to be held up? The Prime Minister to-day, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), said he was not going to reconsider his decision about the length of the Adjournment; but surely, in view of the situation in relation to this Bill, there is cause for reconsideration.
  Mr. HOGGE: We will make him.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Until this Bill is passed there will be no machinery for granting supplementary allowances to disabled soldiers and supplementary pensions to their dependants. Are the two Houses to be kept adjourned for seven weeks for the convenience of Ministers and of the majority in the two Houses, while those "who are dependent on these supplementary allowances for their subsistence have to wait? Surely this is a case for the Government reconsidering its decision and getting both Houses of Parliament to bring into operation this Bill and so enable pensions and allowances to be paid to the soldiers and sailors and their dependants. I hope there will be some answer from the Government on these points.
  Mr. GULLAND: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King), there is no intention of proceeding with the Indictments Bill at this period of the Session. In regard to the very interesting discussions on the subject of the proceedings in another place, of which we did not have notice—
  Mr. HOGGE: The Lords gave us no notice.
  Mr. GULLAND: Obviously, no definite reply can be given to the questions which have been raised, and I can only promise that I shall convey to the Prime Minister a report of the views of hon. Members.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury conveys to the Prime Minister what has occurred here to-night, I hope that he will at the same time convey to him that all the Members below the Gangway are unanimously of opinion that, when another place has thrown out a Bill for
  2114
  the benefit of our soldiers and sailors, there ought to be no Adjournment of this House until this question has been dealt with. We are often told from the Front Bench that we here below the Gangway raise questions to the detriment of our soldiers at the front. Who are the people who are doing that now? Are they not the Government themselves, or their followers, or supposed followers, who have done the greatest injustice to our soldiers at the front by refusing to give them what the country unanimously, except in Parliamentary circles, is anxious to provide at the earliest possible moment? The Government descends to methods of fraud, inasmuch as they put on the Vote of Credit salaries, hiding away the salaries of Members of Parliament, without giving the House of Commons any clue. Those salaries for the first time in the history of the House of Commons are not included in the Estimates, and it was only by the merest accident that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) discovered where they were. They have not been put in any straightforward way before the House, and what can the country think of the Government? The only thing the Government appear to do is to vote salaries to themselves and their Friends, whereas at the same time they advise the working man to eat less meat. That is the advice the Government has given to the working classes, while at all points they are wasting the money of the country in extravagance. Now they ask us even to adjourn on Wednesday when another place has thrown out a Bill brought in solely in relief of our gallant soldiers. It will be a scandal of the first magnitude if the Government decides to adjourn on Wednesday after what has happened today. Parliament ought not to adjourn. We ought to sit continuously. The Government ought to reintroduce this Bill in the House of Lords, and to sit until they have a majority in the other House, and bring down their supporters in that House and pass this Bill. The adjournment of this House until this has been done will receive the utmost opposition from all my hon. Friends sitting here, and we will do our best to oppose the Government in view of the attitude they have taken up, and the fact that they have been deceiving us on the Vote of Credit.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: It is a thousand pities that the Debate on the action of

  2115
  another place should degenerate into an attack upon the Government. I do not feel that way at all. I do not see why the Government is to be blamed for what has been done in another place. It is most regrettable that everything in this House is turned by certain Members into an attack upon the Government. It makes one wonder what their object can be, and whether they really desire to bring about a constitutional crisis in this country.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: What about the soldiers and sailors? You leave them alone.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I do nothing of the sort.
  It being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  GOVERNMENT AIR-CRAFT DAMAGE INSURANCE.
  GOVERNMENT AIR-CRAFT DAMAGE INSURANCE.
TOTAL BRITISH NAVAL AND MILITARY CASUALTIES.
  PRIME MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT.
  PRIME MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT.
  SUBMARINES AND MERCHANT VESSELS.
  SUBMARINES AND MERCHANT VESSELS.
  STRAIN OF ACTIVE SERVICE CONDITIONS.
  STRAIN OF ACTIVE SERVICE CONDITIONS.
  BRITISH CLEARING HOSPITALS.
  BRITISH CLEARING HOSPITALS.
  SPECIAL RESERVE (SUPPLEMENTARY OFFICERS).
  SPECIAL RESERVE (SUPPLEMENTARY OFFICERS).
  FRAULEIN VON ROTTEN.
  FRAULEIN VON ROTTEN.
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).
  DISABLED SOLDIERS (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).
  EMPIRE BATTALION.
  EMPIRE BATTALION.
  ARMY SCHOOLMASTERS.
  ARMY SCHOOLMASTERS.
  SUMMER CAMPS (MARQUEES).
  SUMMER CAMPS (MARQUEES).
  PATENT FUSES.
  PATENT FUSES.
  WAR OFFICE CLERKS AND WRITERS.
  WAR OFFICE CLERKS AND WRITERS.
  HAY SALES.
  HAY SALES.
  DARDANELLES OPERATIONS (COLONIAL ALLOWANCE).
  DARDANELLES OPERATIONS (COLONIAL ALLOWANCE).
  LATE DRIVER WOOLLEY.
  LATE DRIVER WOOLLEY.
  STOCKTON HEATH SPADE COMPANY.
  STOCKTON HEATH SPADE COMPANY.
  BACON SALES.
  BACON SALES.
  CIVILIAN EARNINGS (MILITARY PAY).
  CIVILIAN EARNINGS (MILITARY PAY).
  GERMAN PUBLICATIONS (CIRCULATION).
  GERMAN PUBLICATIONS (CIRCULATION).
  Tillage (Ireland).
  Tillage (Ireland).

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
British Empire Committee—Report of the Military Court of Inquiry into matters connected therewith:
Coal Mining Organisation Committee (Departmental Committee)—Report of Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire into the conditions prevailing in the coal mining industry due to the war. Part II. Minutes of Evidence and Index:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Bankruptcy—Thirty-second General Annual Report by the Board of Trade:
Pilotage Act, 1913—Returns relating to Pilotage in the United Kingdom for the year 1913 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 139 of Session 1914):
Shops Act, 1912—Orders made by the following Councils and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department affecting certain classes of shops within their respective areas—

1. Leicester County Council (Coalville Urban District);

2. Cardigan County Council (Town of Tregaron):

Savings Banks and Friendly Societies—

1. (Post Office Savings Banks Fund)—Account for the year ended 31st December 1914;

2. (Savings Banks Fund)—Account for the year ended 20th November 1914;

3. (Friendly Societies Fund)—Account for the year ended 20th November 1914:

Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889—University Court Ordinance, No. 48 (Edinburgh, No. 16) (Institution of a Degree in the Theory, History and Practice of Education, and relative Regulations):
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act.) and ordered to lie on the Table.

REAL PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCING BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law of real property and conveyancing. I do not propose to proceed further with this Bill at present. It is a continuation of what I may call the editions of the Bill of last year, and many valuable suggestions and criticisms have been incorporated. It is in that fashion that we are progressing with the preparation of this somewhat voluminous measure.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 148.)

AIRCRAFT RAID INSURANCE.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Seeing the noble Duke the Civil Lord of the Admiralty in his place, I desire to ask a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether the Government will postpone the commencement of the operation of their scheme of insurance against damage by aircraft or bombardment to some date which shall constitute a reasonable notice to owners of property that the Government will not pay any compensation after that date to those who have not so insured. As your Lordships will remember, up to Monday last what was known as the scheme of compensation of Lord Parmoor's Committee was being followed, but on Monday the Government brought forward a new scheme, a scheme which requires insurance, and they stated that they had given notice publicly of that scheme by an advertisement in The Times. Apart from the question whether an advertisement in The Times can be regarded as a public notice, I venture to submit that the putting into force of the scheme on the very day on which it was published was not giving owners of property fair intimation of the necessity of taking out an insurance against this sort of damage under the Government scheme. Suppose that on Tuesday last there had been an air raid, and a number of houses had been destroyed in some town near the coast. According to this scheme, no owner who had not insured by Tuesday would receive a particle of compensation. The necessity of insurance was only created by this scheme; yet on the very day on which the scheme is created the Govern-

659
ment announce that they depart from their old practice and will not pay a farthing compensation to any owner who is not insured. Doubtless a large amount of property will be insured in order to comply with this scheme, but surely the Government should give owners of property reasonable notice.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, His Majesty's Government in deciding this question had to adopt one of two policies—either that of indemnity or that of insurance—and after giving the matter the fullest consideration they decided to adopt the policy of insurance. A strong Committee, with the constitution of which noble Lords are familiar, was appointed, and they recommended that as the policy of insurance had been adopted their scheme should be carried out. That scheme has been carried out, and I understand that the Committee attached importance to the fact that it should come into effect without delay. It is not quite accurate to say that the scheme was announced only by advertisement in The Times. It was announced by the usual process with which we are familiar—namely, by communication to the Press. I understand that the communication appeared in all the London newspapers and in a considerable number of the provincial newspapers. Steps have also been taken by the agents of the insurance companies to bring the matter to the notice of their clients and generally to the notice of the public. My noble friend raised a hypothetical question. He asked what would have been the position of the Government had a raid taken place on Tuesday. I can only shelter myself, I am afraid, behind the fact that a raid did not take place on Tuesday, and that there has been a certain amount of notice of the Government's scheme which has enabled a considerable amount of business to be transacted. The full operations of the insurance companies are now at work with a view of making the scheme known, and I hope that will be sufficient notice. I admit that there may possibly be hard cases, but the Board of Trade attached the greatest importance to bringing the scheme into effect at once. They felt that if there was delay and the two schemes—indemnity and insurance—were running pari passu there would invariably be delay, and owners of property would defer taking out insurance until the last moment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: May I ask the noble Duke what is the position of owners whose property may be damaged hereafter by aircraft bombs? Are they to receive no compensation beyond that which they obtain from insurance?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I understand that no further compensation will be given.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I submit that no notice whatever has been given to owners of property to afford them time in which to insure.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I cannot admit that no notice has been given. Notice has been issued in the Press, and the insurance companies who are taking up the matter are adopting every possible means to cause the Government's scheme to be made known; and I have no doubt the fact that the noble Earl has himself called attention to the subject to-day may act as some little advertisement.

NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS, &c. BILL.
Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to Order).
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, since the debate on Friday last His Majesty's Government have been giving close attention to this subject and to the objections which were then put forward from different quarters of the House and from somewhat different standpoints against the measure as I had the honour of introducing it, our object being, of course, so far as possible to see whether we could meet those objections, provided they were of a kind which we considered reasonably arguable. Those objections, as I have said, were taken from somewhat different points of view. My noble friend behind me, Lord Devonport, took exception to the Bill not from the point of view which other noble Lords afterwards did, but in fact holding that the measure did not go far enough in the direction which he desired. My noble friend would have swept away all the work of the voluntary societies in connection with these grants to the relations and dependants of those who are fighting in the war. He holds, as no doubt some others hold, that this is purely and simply

661
a matter of national concern, and that all the funds necessary ought to be found and voted forthwith from public sources; therefore, of course, all the arguments which were afterwards adduced in different quarters of the House as to the claims of the different benevolent societies who have been working in this direction, from his point of view, fall to the ground. He would have fortified the official direction and management of the distribution of these funds by admitting a number of business men as an advisory body, but my noble friend's objection was not of the kind which was afterwards freely taken by other noble Lords.
The subsequent objections were rather from the standpoint of those who thought that the work done by the voluntary societies had not been sufficiently recognised, and was, indeed, altogether ignored, in the form which the Bill assumed when it left the House of Commons. I will not attempt to repeat the general eulogium to which I, in common with other members of the House, gave utterance of the work done by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and by other kindred societies. That is common ground. We all admit that a vast amount of most admirable work has been done by those societies, although in some districts their work has been criticised in a manner with which the House is familiar. I do not know whether it is necessary to remind the House once more of the circumstances in which the representation of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and of the National Relief Fund was omitted from the Statutory Committee. That was due to the fact, perhaps I might once more remind the House, that the National Relief Fund did not think itself entitled to promise to continue indefinitely, or indeed at all, to pay the supplementary separation allowances, and it was held that its claim to appear on the Statutory Committee thereby lapsed. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association had acted as the almoner for the Prince of Wales's Fund in the distribution of these grants, and it was therefore held that the reason for placing members of that association on the Statutory Committee lapsed also.
But I quite agree that it may be argued—it has been argued with force—that the fact that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association distributed these funds for the Prince of Wales's Relief Fund was not the
662
only reason for associating them with the central Statutory Committee. It is also contended that the general work which that association has done in looking after the wives and families of soldiers and sailors of itself entitles them to representation on that Committee. The Government are quite willing to give due weight to that argument, and if it is desired that the original representation of two members on the Statutory Committee should be restored to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, we shall certainly take no exception to that course; but with this reservation, that this is not the only body which is honourably concerned in this matter. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association does the work which is implied by its name, but there are also a great many services which are rendered not to the wives and children of soldiers and sailors but to soldiers and sailors themselves. Those are represented in a kindred manner by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society. In our view that society has precisely the same claim to be represented on the central body that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association has, and therefore we shall be prepared and glad to place two representatives of that society also upon the central committee. The effect of that would be that the numbers of the Statutory Committee would be raised from twenty-five to twenty-nine. I do not think that is in itself an excessive number, and a reduction in the number could, in fact, only be brought about by reducing the membership of six representing the Royal Patriotic Fund. Those representatives, it may be taken as quite certain, will be of precisely the same character, the same class of person, as those who sit in the representation of the two societies I have named—that is to say, those who take a large and benevolent interest in this work. I should myself be sorry, therefore, to see the number of six representing the Royal Patriotic Fund reduced merely in order to reduce the total number of the Committee.
It was also forcibly argued on the former occasion that representation on the central Statutory Committee is all very well, but that what is also required is representation upon the local committees to be formed under the Bill. We have endeavoured to point out that this representation ought to be, and, as we believe, would be, secured when those committees were respectively appointed, but apparently that considera-

663
tion does not appear to have entirely impressed noble Lords who are specially interested in the societies. It would not, I think, be possible to provide that the societies as such should have a claim to be placed on particular local committees, if only for the reason that, as we have already explained and as is freely admitted by the representatives of the societies themselves, their operations are by no means universal. There are large parts of the country in which they have no direct representation. In those areas their particular work has to be performed—in friendly co-operation with them as a rule, I think—by the members of the Relief of Distress Committees formed directly under the Prince of Wales's Fund. It clearly would be very difficult to provide by name that this or that society should have a particular claim to have a certain membership on the various local committees, and as long as they are represented in fact I am bound to assume that that would meet the objections that have been raised to the Bill as it stands.
In order to meet this difficulty, we should be prepared, bearing in mind that the formation of the local committees depends upon the approval and agreement of the Statutory Committee—and that is a point which has been rather unfairly ignored, it being sometimes assumed that every small town council would form a local committee from among its own members of people uninterested in the work they would have to do, which seems to me hardly a reasonable proposition in view of the fact that the formation of the committees and the schemes which they have to prepare have to be approved by the Statutory Committee—we should be prepared to insert an Amendment in the Bill in some such words as these (I say nothing about the wording, but the sense, I think, will be clear and not difficult to understand), "In constituting the local committees regard should be had to the representation of societies or associations which have hitherto undertaken the duties prescribed by this Act." What I take it is important is not the representation of this or that society, however much one desires to recognise its merits and services. What is important is the presence on these bodies of the individuals who have done the work and are willing and competent to go on doing it. That surely must be the main consideration, and anything that can be done to secure that obviously ought to be done.
664
As we have said a hundred times, we have every desire to recognise the merits of the societies. The merits of the societies are the merits of the individuals, and if the individuals are continued that, I think, ought to meet every reasonable objection which can be taken to the Bill as it stands. And I should like to say that when I had the honour of receiving a deputation from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association they most explicitly safeguarded themselves from its being supposed that there was any question of the amour proper of the society. What they felt concerned about was lest the actual individuals who really understood the work and had sympathy with those to be aided might be for one reason or another ousted from the possibility of continuing to employ those labours.
Then we come to a question which demands very close consideration, because the argument which was used on this point possesses a certain plausibility, as this particular argument almost always does—it is an argument which we have all used in our turn. It is this, "Why not stay and consider a little? What is the extraordinary hurry about this matter? Let us have a little time for deliberation." That is an argument which, as I say, in nine cases out of ten wears an appearance of plausibility. There is a kind of appeal to common sense about it which attracts everybody at first sight. I am bound to repeat that there are certain very definite objections to a postponement of this measure. The importance is great of setting in motion as soon as possible some part of the machinery which is included in the Bill. For example, until these pension committees are set up no supplementary pensions for disabled men can be paid at all. As we all know, there are a number of cases in which the ordinary pension rate has to be supplemented, and machinery for looking into those cases will not exist until these committees are formed.
It may be said—and this is an argument which it is important to deal with, because it may be used in connection with every one of these cases—Why not go on as you have been doing? The answer to that is, and it applies not only to this subject but to all the others, that you cannot go on as you have been doing. The War Office and the Admiralty respectively are not capable of promptly looking into and dealing with the particular cases with

665
which this Bill is framed to deal. That is the meaning of setting up these local committees. The War Office and the Admiralty both quite frankly admit that they are not able to undertake the work of managing entirely by themselves even that part of the subject covered by the Bill which is admittedly a public matter and for which the money has to come from public funds. Then, again, there is the case of widows and children. The pension rate there varies and will continue to vary according to the needs and the previous earnings or status of the soldier in respect of whom the pension has to be paid. A great many soldiers, as we know, are to be found in the ranks who have been earning considerable salaries as clerks or in some smell capacity. In those cases it is felt that the flat pension rate is not sufficient to keep the widow and children going in at all the circumstances of life in which they have been living. Those cases have to be looked into and specially judged. Again there is no machinery for undertaking that until these local committees have been setup.
Then there are cases of people who are ruled out altogether by the regulations as they stand, and for whom special provision has to be made. Take the case of a man who has been proved, although it had not been discovered, to have a weak heart, and who dies of heart disease after having enlisted and possibly gone on service. It cannot be proved that his death is in any way due to his having joined the Army; consequently no provision whatever exists for meeting his particular case. That is the class of case into which the pensions committee will have to look. Then again there is the case of disabled men and their training and finding means of employment for them. We have heard of the merits of the Chelsea Hospital Board, but even that body cannot deal with the case of disabled men unless local committees are established for the purpose. There are a number of local circumstances connected with the family, for instance, of the disabled man which there are no means of ascertaining without the appointment of such a body as this. We know, so far as pensions are concerned, that the National Relief Fund look upon that as being a national duty and not a matter for private benevolence, and they therefore do not provide money for that purpose.
We next come to the side of the subject with which the Soldiers' and Sailors'
666
Families Association is particularly concerned—namely, the question of separation allowances. Why is it, noble Lords ask, even admitting all that I have just said about these matters of pension and dis ablement, that separation allowances cannot be treated altogether separately, handed over to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, and managed entirely by them. In relation to that, although I have no doubt, if the Bill were hung up or thrown out, that for a certain time a considerable part of the activities of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association would continue, although not all, as I shall explain in a moment, yet there are these difficulties. The Prince of Wales's Fund, as I understand, quite independently of this Bill or of any question of its representation on the Statutory Committee or of promising to see the general separation allowances fund through, decided that after July 31 it would make no advances whatever on account of separation allowances. That, of course, is bound to place a number of individuals in a disadvantageous position—those cases which cannot be decided offhand, and where, therefore, it is impossible to advance any public money. There are bound to be a number of hard cases that the War Office cannot deal with for immediate and prompt payment, where hitherto the Soldiers' and Sailors Families Association have had the money advanced to them by the National Relief Fund for the purpose. There are always a number of new cases where the claim of the applicant, although probable, is not absolutely clear in the sense that would justify an advance of public money. In those cases the societies have taken the chance and have advanced the money. There are some cases—I fancy quite a substantial number of cases—in which there is more than one claim for a separation allowance. Those cases will have to be decided by the Statutory Committee after they have been locally examined. It is quite clear that the War Office as such, if it has to undertake these cases, cannot without the requisite local machinery make the necessary inquiries, and, of course, it cannot take the chance, which a charitable society is able to do, of advancing public money without the knowledge that it has really been earned or is being paid to the right person.
There is the further argument, which I need not labour again, that there is no guarantee that a time may not come when even for the payment of the general supple-

667
mentary allowances the funds of the National Relief Fund may run dry, and unless you have this machinery, and, what is more, if you keep the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association running on pari passu with your local committees, you will find yourselves, if that time comes, in a position of the gravest possible danger. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association will be there in certain places working actively but will have no money to work with. Those individuals cannot then be added to the local committees because the local committees will be complete, and you will have to have another Act of Parliament and another set of discussions as to the merits of the different societies and their claims to be represented on the local committees, with loss of time and an interregnum of a kind which one really does not altogether like to contemplate.
I cannot help asking, would it not be infinitely better if an arrangement could be come to now which would make it practically certain that the active and energetic representatives of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Association, and of any other bodies who have been engaged in this work should have a chance of continuing their work permanently, combining with it the pension work and the disablement work, and forming part of a body which would be set up now, and which would last not only till the end of the war, but for so long—and it will be a very long time—as this relief has to be given and these payments have to be made? I do beg your Lordships to consider very seriously whether it is worth while to imperil the passage of this Bill and the setting up of these statutory committees in order to secure a more nominal representation of these particular bodies either on the central or on the local committees, although, as I say, we are glad to put two of them explicitly on the central body. I have endeavoured to show why it is exceedingly difficult to put them all on as nominated members of the local committees, although I believe their presence there can be secured. I therefore appeal strongly to your Lordships to consider whether on those lines it is not possible to arrive at an arrangement which will ensure the practical working of this new and gigantic national work, and at the same time ensure that those who are best qualified to aid in it are not left out of the chance of taking the part which they are so well qualified to fill.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I have listened with great attention to the courteous speech which the noble Marquess has made on this important subject, and I agree with one thing which he said towards the conclusion of his remarks—that it would be of enormous importance if it were possible to make an arrangement now and let this Bill go through in some satisfactory form. But I am bound to say that so far as those interests for which I respectfully speak are concerned I thought the offers which were made, if I understood them rightly, in the course of the noble Marquess's speech were singularly inadequate to meet the difficulties with which we are faced. It is perfectly true that the objections to this Bill from various quarters of the House which were stated on Friday last ranged over a very wide field, and I do not suppose that any one of the speakers who took exception to the Bill itself would perhaps agree with the whole of the arguments that w ere used by the other speakers. Certainly in some respects some of the arguments that were used went further than I should be prepared to agree with. But on one main point I think the objections to this Bill are very strong, and that is that it does not make a sufficient distinction between those provisions which have to be made in a permanent way and those which are temporary in their character, and that is the point on which I feel personally most strongly that the treatment accorded to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and to the other voluntary bodies is not reasonable or fair and is not in the public interest. I say that not for the sake of the associations themselves, but because I believe that by largely cutting out these voluntary associations from their active participation in this work you will be doing the greatest injury to those individuals over the country for whose benefit this Bill is professed to be introduced.
Let me clear away one argument which was used on Friday against the position which I occupy. It seemed to be suggested by one or more of the speakers on behalf of the Government that a continuance of the existing state of matters in any respect would give voluntary bodies control over funds provided by Parliament. That is not the case. If it were the case, it is not an argument which I should put forward because I should be against any such proposal. But when I say that this Bill does

669
not make a sufficient distinction between the provisions which are permanent and those which are temporary, I refer on the one side to such things as were mentioned by the noble Marquess—pensions to widows and orphans, and pensions to disabled soldiers. Those are all permanent, and, as the noble Marquess said most rightly on Friday, will go on in all probability longer than any of us care to contemplate. There is a great distinction between those things and temporary separation allowances, and I cannot see any real reason why the more or less present arrangement of managing these separation allowances should not be allowed to continue. I venture to press very strongly the importance of that distinction. The chief reason, in my opinion, for not doing away with this voluntary work is that I believe it to be more efficient in the interests of the individuals concerned than any statutory body which could be set up.
I venture to ask what real harm would take place if a short delay occurs before a permanent system is set up. The noble Marquess used some argument to show that great harm would take place, but I do not think there was anything material in it, because as I understand everything might go on exactly as it is. A communication has been sent to me by a member of the committee of the National Relief Fund to the effect that the noble Marquess is misinformed in saying that that Fund has refused to finance the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association after July 31. I am told that on the contrary—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: What I said was that they had refused after July 31 to make particular advances in respect of certain payments. I did not say they had refused to finance the association.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I Should be the last person to wish to misrepresent the noble Marquess, but I understood that that was his argument, that these allowances which were being paid at the present time would not be drawn after July 31 from the National Relief Fund. The communication made to me is to the effect that there is to be a conference on the point on Wednesday, and it is confidently believed by my informant that if separation allowances were struck out of this Bill the National Relief Fund would have to go on with the policy which it has
670
pursued in the past until a settlement was come to. The offers, as I understand, made by the noble Marquess to pass this Bill at the present time were that representation of these voluntary associations should be put on the central Statutory Committee, and that some sort of moral claim will be inserted in the Bill for their continuance upon the local committees. I venture to say that that is entirely inadequate, and that it is contrary to the best interests of those chiefly concerned that the work of the voluntary associations should be interrupted in this way at this particular time. It does not even depend entirely en the question of money. It is a question of the help and advice and assistance which these voluntary associations and their members have been giving for eleven months to the people who are placed in the unfortunate position which we all know.
I cannot say offhand how universal the operations of these voluntary associations are, but their activities cover enormous tracts of the country. In the part of Scotland which I know best their operations are practically universal, and there they have been giving through all these months the most tactful consideration and help in cases of difficulty. I take the case of widows as an example. Many of those concerned are unable to cope with the difficulties with which they are met in official correspondence; there are strange and unexpected difficulties, which they cannot meet by argument. The agents of the voluntary associations, through their unpaid helpers, have given true sympathy and help in many difficulties. You may say what you like but a public body, whether it is appointed at the instance of the Government or of a local authority, will not be so tactful, and I know that in many cases strong feelings have been aroused by the neglect and delay both of those who represent the central Government and in some cases the old-age pension authorities. I have a letter in my hand which I received this morning from a lady who has given a great deal of attention to this work over a large district of Scotland. She uses these words—
"The Army pay officers, even after twelve months' experience, still cause endless delays in paying allowances. Their clerical work is still bad. They are continually losing important documents belonging to wives and dependants, such as birth, marriage, and other certificates, and had the poor victims of this carelessness no friends such as the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association workers and helpers their case would

671
be a hard one. But thanks to the energy and voluntary labour of members of the association these claims are righted in time."
My informant goes on to say that in some cases the difficulties which have occurred have injured recruiting. That, of course, is a matter of opinion, and I do not rely too much upon it. But what I do say is this, that a great deal of what we have heard about these poor women going to public-houses and drinking has arisen from this delay in payment, and from large sums being paid to them at one time, which makes them feel that they are very rich. It is not so much that they go and drink, but when their friends see that they have large sums of money they say, "Oh, now you are well off, you can afford to treat us." It is that class of thing which has brought a great deal of these payments into disrepute. I know that it is a small minority of these people who do these things, but it is by the voluntary associations advancing payments and taking the chance of recovering them that these evils, amongst others, are avoided. I am satisfied that if the Government persist in throwing out the work of these voluntary associations altogether they will make a grievous mistake. I venture to say that the least we could have at this time would be a complete separation in the Bill between what I have described as the permanent things and separation allowances. I repeat that no penny of public money will be at the disposal of any voluntary association, but it will be possible by keeping on the present state of things for a time to avoid many difficulties, much friction, and a great deal of discontent.
I am the last person to wish to put the Government in a difficulty, but I propose to move that this debate be further adjourned until after the recess. If the Government can give us any pledge that they will go a little further in the direction which some of us desire than the noble Marquess suggested in his opening remarks, I shall be the last to desire to press the Motion to a Division; but unless we get something more than has been promised to us in the noble Marquess's opening remarks I venture to say that. the dangers and risks of a week or two's delay at this time of the year will be infinitely less in the interests of those concerned than the total cutting adrift of the work of the voluntary associations. Supposing this Bill were to pass and to receive the Royal
672
Assent in the course of the present week. Do you think that you would get the local bodies over the country to meet at this time of the year and set up the local committees? I believe that you would be courting delay. The suggestion which I am making for a short adjournment would, I submit, do far less evil than the attempt to press the Bill in the form in which it is at present drafted upon the attention of Parliament. This cannot be put forward as a thoroughly considered scheme on the part of the Government. It is not what they introduced into another place. It was materially changed during the last stages of the Bill there; and to say in all the circumstances that the delay of a week or two would do real damage seems to me to put the case far too high.
Moved, That the debate be further adjourned until after the recess.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, there is one correction I desire to make. I interrupted the noble Lord when he stated that I had said that the National Relief Fund had refused further to finance the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. As I endeavoured to point out, that was not the case. So far as I know they have never expressed any unwillingness to go on paying supplementary allowances so long as they have the funds for that purpose, but what they have quite definitely done is this—they have decided and announced that from July 31 next they will refuse to make any further advances in respect of payments presumed to be due by the Government but in respect of which delay for one reason or another has taken place. I confined my statement to that. I certainly never said that they had refused to finance the association.
LORD TENTERDEN: My Lords, the question is not, I venture to think, whether we should consider so much the importance of one society or another, although it was a matter of congratulation to me and no doubt to other members of the House to hear the tributes that were paid to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. There is a wider point of view from which we have to look at this matter—namely, what is going to happen in the future. We have all been bombarded with requests for contributions to this and that new society as well as to existing institutions,

673
and it must be quite evident that the time is drawing close when there will be a great falling off in voluntary contributions and when, as the noble Marquess the Leader of the House said, no funds or inadequate funds will be available for the purposes we have in mind in connection with this Bill. It is recegnised by all that the Soldiers' and Sallors' Families Association has done a great and glorious work on behalf of our soldiers and sailors. At the same time one must not lose sight of the fact that it did this work chiefly during a time of peace. To its credit and to the credit of those noble ladies and gentlemen who have contributed towards its funds, the association has continued and extended its work during the present war. Great honour is due to them for what they have done. But, as I have said, the time will come when there generous subscriptions will not be forthcoming, and then what is to become of these pensions? How are we then to carry out the sacred pledge which has been given that these pensions and allowances shall be received by our wouaded soldiers and sailors or by their widows and orphans and other dependants? How are we going to carry out that pledge uniess some such Bill at this becomes law and the whole thing placed under State control and financed wit State money? I do not believe a successful continuance of these pensions possible unless they can be provided out of public money. If it is said that that is against the present ideas of economy, very well let it be so; but I am not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has yet said that he is unable to find the means to provide these pensions and other allowances. If it should come to new taxes for the purpose I should personally welcome them, for to no better purpose could money obtained from the taxpayers of the country be put than to the provision of these pensions and allowance to our soldiers and sailors who have fought for their country.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, my remarks shall be brief for two reasons. One is that I have already spoken in this debate, and the other is that my noble friend Lord Balfour has so entirely represented my views that all I need say is that I agree with him. The noble Marquess answered some but not all the arguments that were brought against this Bill on Friday last when it was hammered to such
674
an extent that my noble friend Lard Lansdowne was constrained to say that he rather wished he was sitting here than On the other side of the House. There was one particular point brought out to which the noble Marquess has not alluded. Several speakers expressed a strong opinion that this new Statutory Committee should be made up of officials who were already in the Service, and that no new appointments should be made. That was in consequence of the very great desire expressed on all sides to effect every economy possible. I think we ought to have some sort of pledge given us on that point. I do not say that that would remove the objections to the passing of the Bill in its present form, but it is an important point to which attention should be drawn. At this time perhaps more than at any previous period this House has become a sort of haven of refuge for politicians who wish to examine each case on its merits as it comes up, and I think therefore a very strong moral obligation rests on the Government to do all in their power to meet the criticisms winch have been made. If the House agrees to the Motion to postpone the debate until after the recess I hope that the Government will seriously consider the matter, and be able to make greater concessions than those which have been already announced.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I think the noble Marquess the Leader of the House was a little misleading in confusing the question of pensions with that of separation allowances. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association have nothing to do with separation allowances. That is settled by the War Office. What the association does in each case is this. Where the wife of the soldier lives in an expensive neighbourhood and the ordinary separation allowance is not considered adequate, they make it good out of their funds. I cannot for the life of me see why any objection should be taken to the reasonable and sensible suggestion brought forward by Lord Balfour, that in any Bill of this kind you should make a definite distinction between those matters which are permanent and those which may be said to be temporary. At this particular period, on the eve as it were of a Parliamentary recess—for how long a period we do not know—and at a time when people in the various parts of the country are going

675
away on holiday and when it would be very difficult to get these matters settled, what objection is there against the existing arrangement continuing for the present? We have not heard a single reason why the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association should not be allowed to carry on this work. On the contrary, everybody has admitted that the work has been clone with discretion and tact, and with a great deal of sympathy towards the men concerned and their relatives and dependants.
We have heard a great deal in speeches from public men about economy. Are we likely to get economy from the principle which is proposed in this Bill? Under this Bill there are to be set up local committees which are practically to make recommendations for the expenditure of public money, not one penny of which will they pay in any form or kind of rates. I look upon that as a most dangerous condition of things. Under the system of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association claims are considered carefully without undue pressure, without any member of the committee wishing to do a popular thing, and each case is decided on its merits. But if you substitute for that voluntary system a body such as a borough council you will find that these local authorities will all be anxious to spend money. Nothing is so easy or pleasant as to be generous at the expense of public money, and at the present moment there is nothing which we ought to put our face more strongly against than that. That to my mind is one of the most serious objections to this Bill.
I must also confess that I listened with some concern to the remarks that were made about raids on the Prince of Wales's Fund. I happen to be chairman of the relief committee for my county, and it is quite true to say that at the present moment, owing to the artificial employment which the war produces, we have very little distress in the county of Hampshire. Yet I wish it to be clearly understood that I am as certain as I am standing here that after the war we shall have to confront very serious and very grave distress of all kinds, and I do not think that the money that the public have given for the relief of civil distress ought to be used for purposes which I am afraid I agree with my noble friend Lord Devonport ought to be met by the Government themselves. If they are afraid that these voluntary associations
676
will not be able to maintain their duties, then they should put into the Bill some recognition that the Government are going to vote public money. That to my mind strikes at the root of the objections to this Bill. We are completely at sea about this Bill, because while no one in this House would support the view that public money should be spent without public control there is not a single penny of public money in this Bill. All we are asked to do at the present moment is to consider how we can take funds raised by voluntary subscriptions out of the hands of the voluntary associations who have done extremely well and place them under Government control. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association have administered their large funds at an expense that has not amounted to more than 1½per cent. I am perfectly certain that if the Statutory Committee with which we are threatened is set up, with another public official with a large salary and a large staff of Government employees, you will find that this will be another very heavy charge on the country, and another proof that although the Government are always talking about economy they never practise it.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, may I intervene for a few moments as one who has been chairman for some years of the Chelsea Hospital Commissioners. As far as I understand it, the object of this Bill is to set up an entirely new body. Unfortunately I was unable to be here on Friday, but my noble friend behind me (Lord Midleton) is reported to have said that it seemed to him desirable to consider whether the Board of Chelsea Hospital might not be brought into this case. Having been chairman of that body for three years and having taken part in their deliberations I know something about the important work they have done in regard to pensions. But in reply to the noble Viscount Lord Lansdowne said that the suggestion was a reactionary one. He said that the Chelsea Board was only concerned with the Army and not with women and did not contain a single lay representative. As a matter of fact, it contains a great many laymen as Commissioners. For instance, there is the Paymaster-General. I was Paymaster-General myself. My noble friend Lord Newton at present holds that office. He is no more a soldier than I am. Then the

677
Secretary of State for War as a rule is a layman. It so happens that we have a distinguished and gallant Field-Marshal as Secretary of State for War just now, but that is a precedent hardly likely to be Followed. In the future we shall go back, no doubt, to the old state of things. Then there are the political Under-Secretary and the Permanent Under-Secretary, both ex officio members of the Chelsea Board. Again we have the Financial Under-Secretary, always a member of the House of Commons, who is an ex officio member of that body; and the Treasury have the right if they think fit—sometimes they exercise that right and sometimes they do not—to appoint another layman in the person of a Junior Lord of the Treasury. So that instead of being a body consisting of distinguished soldiers only, the Board of Chelsea Hospital consists largely of civilians; and the chairman for the time being as a rule is a civilian, because it is rare indeed that the. Paymaster-General is a soldier. That disposes of the argument of the noble Marquess that this is a body which by its constitution is not entitled to deal with pensions to be given in the ease of women and children as well as in the case of soldiers.
Another argument was that the Board of Chelsea Hospital would not be able to deal with the present condition of things arising out of this war. But on May 5 this year there was a Royal Warrant issued to the Chelsea Commissioners authorising them to make further provision as to the pensions of disabled soldiers and giving them power to supplement those pensions so as to make the pension of the man what he was able to earn in his district, and also to make provision for granting allowances to the children of soldier. It is quite true that there is no provision regarding pensions to wives and children, but it is possible to issue another Royal Warrant to meet that case.
This Bill deals solely with matters arising out of the war. I understand that the Government have determined to set up an antirely new body, of which the chairman or vice-chairman is to have a salary—no doubt a large salary. In these days, whatever our views in the past were, every one leek that we ought to be on the side of cutting down salaries and officials. It seems to me that there is no need at all for constituting this new body, which must mean a very heavy expenditure. I notice
678
that the twenty-five members of this new body are to be increased to twenty-nine, and probably we shall get three dozen before we are done with the Bill. Not only are their travelling expenses to be paid, but there are to be allowances of one kind and another, and we know that when bodies of this sort are up there is heavy expenditure for offices and clerks and everything of that kind. When there is such an excellent body as the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital I do not see why it should not be used. No doubt it would be necessary to extend its powers and increase the staff there, but that would be far preferable to setting up another body. On that ground if on no other I shall support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that the Bill should be put oft for a month; and during that time the Government can consider whether the Chelsea Hospital Commissioners might not be used for this purpose instead of setting up a new and expensive body.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, if I am not out of order I should like to supplement the remarks I made on Friday last with regard to the Board of Chelsea Hospital because Lord Lansdowne, in answer to Lord Camperdown and myself, said shat the suggestion with regard to utilising that Board was a reactionary suggestion. I wish to confirm all that has been said by my noble friend Lord Strachie. For nearly five years I had the honour, as I told the House on Friday, of presiding over the Chelsea Board, and I cannot conceive a better foundation for a new pensioning authority than that body. The Chelsea Hospital Commissioners are in possession of every detail with regard to the soldier from the time he enters the Army until he leaves it, so that they have the foundation of doing justice in all these eases. If this matter is to be adjourned, I suggest to His Majesty's Government most earnestly that they should consider the question of using the Chelsea Hospital Commissioners. That body could be developed; you could add to its numbers and give it increased powers, and if you did that I am sure you could not have a better central body than the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I rise to call attention to one weakness in this Bill which by itself would, in my opinion, be a sufficient ground for reconsideration. The

679
bulk of the work of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association has been concerned with delayed payments. The work of the paymasters' offices has been most congested. Separation allowances have not been coming through, and they still do not come through. On Friday last in one single office in London there were at least a dozen seriously delayed payments, going back to May and even to December, and the families of those men were getting nothing. There is no machinery whatever in this Bill for dealing promptly with these deferred payments. If your Lordships will look at Clause 4 dealing with the functions of the local committee van will see that the local committee can make no grant whatever on their own authority; it can only be done by referring to the Statutory Committee, and then the matter comes back again to the local committee. Thus you get tangled up with a mass of officialism which must mean delay. A body like the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association can deal promptly with this matter, and unless the Bill is so amended as to admit of prompt dealing by some local committee which understands the business and can act at once this very serious difficulty of leaving the families of soldiers and sailors who have recently enlisted without supplies for six or seven or eight weeks is continued. Therefore the Bill ought to be reconsidered on this point if on no other.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, before my noble friend replies on tins debate, I would venture to add my hope to that already expressed by so many of your Lordships that time will be given for the further consideration of this Bill. I am sure that there is the strongest feeling in your Lordships' House in regard to the work done by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society in the past, and there is every desire to continue that work in the future. The noble Marquess who leads the House has made some concessions on that matter, and for that I think we may be grateful to him. But there is a further point which has been pressed on your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Portsmouth and my noble friend Lord Strachie which surely is of great importance. That is that this Bill provides for the formation of an entirely new department entailing considerable expenditure over which in the Bill there is absolutely no check at all. The chairman or vice-chairman, who will be
680
some one, I presume, not already in the Civil Service, is to have a salary, and there is a clause providing that this Statutory Committee of twenty-five gentlemen, perfectly independent, are to be allowed to appoint as many clerks and secretaries, and the rest of it, as they choose and to establish a scheme of pensions for them. There is net even the usual check of Treasury sanction as to the amount to be expended in this matter. Surely that is a testimony that at any rate from the point of view of public expenditure this Bill has not received the consideration which it deserves. If postponement should result in the delay of a few weeks before the new scheme can come into operation I think that time might be well spent by His Majesty's Government in considering whether they cannot act on the suggestion made to them to-night and utilise the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital as the foundation of a body to deal with this matter. That, I think, would be an infinitely more economic system than the proposal in this Bill. At any rate delay will enable them to consider further that matter, I hope to the public advantage.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords. I am afraid I cannot follow my noble friend in his Motion for the further adjournment of this debate. It seems to me ab clutely essential that a public body should be set up as early as possible to deal with the matters which are to be deals with by the local committees. I thought I heard the noble Earl who has just sat down say something about pensions.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Yes.
LORD HARRIS: Where does this Bill deal with pensions?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: At the top of page 3—
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.
LORD HARRIS: I thought the noble Earl was talking about the pensions of soldiers and sailors.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: No.
LORD HARRIS: Because the Statutory Committee have nothing whatever to do with the pensions of soldiers and sailors except under paragraph (a) of Clause 3, where they may be called in upon a question of fact by, we will say, the Chelsea Hospital Board, and I should say it would be a great advantage to the Commissioners at Chelsea if they had some local bodies to whom to refer on a question of fact, upon which the amount of a pension or grant out of the fund might depend. The Board at Chelsea, as at present constituted, has very little opportunity or means of ascertaining for itself what are the contingent circumstances of any pensioner or his wife and child, and I should think it would be rat rather an advantage to them to have some local body to whom to refer. Or the central authority may have to deal with cases arising under paragraph (e), where it becomes a question whether any supplementary grant is to become forfeited. There, again, I think advice from a local body would be of great use. Otherwise, under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) they are purely supplementary moneys and nothing whatever to do with public moneys.
I understand that my noble friend Lord Balfour is anxious for an adjournment for the length of the recess in order that the part of the Bill which deals with moneys other than public moneys may be eliminated. If you eliminate from the Bill the expenditure of moneys other than public moneys I do not see what remains for the public body to do, because it is with the moneys other than public moneys that this body has to deal. Unquestionably in the cases of wives and children, and possibly of dependants, which are mainly the cases with which this body would deal, it is very important that there should be a public authority, and having regard to the way in which local authorities of late years have carried out the extra public duties that have been thrown upon them I think they may be regarded as trustworthy bodies in a matter of this kind. I do not think it was reasonable to suggest that they would not be sympathetic. I am rather inclined to agree with my noble friend behind me (Lord Portsmouth) that they will, perhaps, be too sympathetic. But whether they are going to be sympathetic or unsympathetic I think that local inquiry and local advice sent up to the Statutory Committee will be of very great advantage to that body.
682
My noble friend Lord Balfour seemed to think that somebody or other was about to take a holiday. I have not come across that individual myself yet. I am perfectly certain that the local bodies in the country are not going to get any holiday. They have the registration work to carry out and they will all be there, and I am confident that they will be willing to do the extra work thrown upon them in forming the local committees. My noble friend behind me and several other noble Lords have argued as if the admirable eleemosynary work of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association is going to be terminated by the formation of this Statutory Committee. I do not see why that should follow. After the South African War the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association went on to some extent assisting families of soldiers and sailors who were still in want out of moneys which had come into their hands during the war, and which they were quite entitled to spend in this way although the war had ended. I do not think that charity will cease when this war is over, and I believe that the Soldiers and Sailors' Families Association will be still able to collect funds for charitable work, and will be able to do and will do a lot of good work outside of anything that may be asked of them by the Statutory Committee. My noble friend behind me objected to the local committees because they would be actuated rather by charitable feelings than by considerations for the taxpayer and would have the power of disbursing public funds. They will have no such power. The funds will be sent down to them by the Statutory Committee for distribution. Their functions are to advise merely, and the practice will be set up by the central Statutory Committee.
THE EARL OF MAYO: And to collect money.
LORD HARRIS: But that is voluntary, It is not public money. It is voluntary money which they themselves collect in the neighbourhood, just the same as the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association do now. I have the greatest admiration for the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, and at the beginning of the war I felt a good deal of indignation that more trust was not put in that association by those who started the Prince of Wales's Fund. I think the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association might have been used

683
to a much greater extent at the commencement of the war. The great value of that association was shown in the confidence that has been expressed in it in the debates that have taken place, and by the assurance of the noble Marquess opposite that he is quite willing to put two representatives of that body on to the Statutory Committee.
The Motion before us is for the adjournment of the debate, but I confess I do not see that it is impossible for us now to deal with this Bill in Committee. Amendments could be moved to carry out the suggestions that have been made, and I should have thought that it was quite possible o provide for the necessary safeguards—sueh a Treasury sanction, for instance, which was so forcibly put by the noble Earl on the Front Opposition Bench—by Amendments. To defer this Bill for an indefinite time is not advisable on more than one ground. I think it is desirable that the whole of this matter should be dealt with as quickly as possible. In my opinion it is absolutely essential that there should be a public body to deal with these cases. On those grounds I would prefer that the debate should not be adjourned, but that we should go into Committee forthwith on the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the question before your Lordships is whether you will allow the Bill to be read a second time this evening, and I venture very earnestly to entreat you to think twice before you decide that this debate shall be once more adjourned. No one during the course of these long discussions has been found to say that legislation on this subject and on these broad lines is not called for. The evidence that this is so seems to me overwhelming. You have the evidence that was taken before the two Committees which have dealt with these matters—the House of Commons Committee, and the Committee presided over by Sir George Murray. There was a long debate in the House of Commons, during the course of which the Bill was no doubt severely criticised in detail, but during which, so far as I am aware, not a word was urged against the broad outlines of the measure. And what seems to me a little remarkable is that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, a body which has been so often mentioned in this debate, has itself in a lately published
684
leaflet proclaimed its view that a Bill of this sort is desirable. Here are the words—
"It is recognised that legislation was inevitable. There can be on doubt that in order to widen the basis of operations occasioned by naval and military developments it was necessary to instal a central authority under Government control empowered to assist, regulate, and disburse the ever-increasing volume of money payments. The Committee therefore desire to make it quite clear that they offer no objection to the Bill itself."
That testimony from the body which is supposed to have been so ill-used by this measure is, I think, worthy of your consideration; and I noticed with satisfaction that in the course of a critical speech my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, unless I misunderstood him, recorded his own opinion that it would be desirable, if these points of detail could be settled, that this measure should not be delayed at any rate at this stage.
What I want to ask the House is this. Admitting that the Bill may be open to criticism, is it so bad that you are going to lay it on one side for an indefinite period, a period as to the length of which I shall say a word in a moment? Do your Lordships realise the extent to which, if you adopt this course, you are likely to bring to a standstill the whole of the machinery which is so urgently required in order to give effect to what I believe to be the policy universally approved by the people of this country? My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh spoke of a delay of a week or two, but the adjournment of this debate until after the vacation means a great deal more than laying aside the Bill for a week or two. I am told—I do not know that any announcement has yet been made—that the other House of Parliament is to adjourn for a period of about six weeks. Now whatever your Lordships' House does, even if you were to adjourn for a shorter time, it is quite clear that should you insert Amendments in the Bill its further progress will not be possible until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of dealing with your Amendments. Therefore the adjournment of this debate really means that this Bill is to be laid aside for a period of six or seven weeks, or perhaps longer. During that time, as my noble friend behind me (Lord Crewe) has told the House, there will be no provision available for supplementing the pensions of widows, orphans, and disabled men. We all know that the flat rate which these un-

685
fortunate people will be entitled to receive, although a liberally conceived rate, is wholly inadequate in many cases to supply the real necessities of the recipients. There will be no machinery for giving effect to the policy laid clown in the Report of Sir George Murray's Committee. Nothing can be done for training and otherwise assisting disabled soldiers and sailors to earn their livelihood. As any noble friend pointed out, owing to the decision of the authorities of the National Relief Fund no advances will be made on account of separation allowances after the end of the present month, and it is surely obvious that in the absence of these advances very great difficulty will be experienced by the War Office in dealing with these cases. There are other points at which the pressure will be felt, but I hope I have said enough to show what serious inconvenience the indefinite postponement of this legislation is likely to occasion.
The noble Lord opposite (Lord Strachie) and the noble Lord behind me (Lord Southwark) expressed their strong preference for the Chelsea Board as compared with the Statutory Committee which would be set up under this Bill. I remain of opinion that, as compared with the Committee which will be set up under the Bill, the Chelsea Board would be a very inadequate agency for dealing with these matters; and I call the attention of the House to this, that neither of the two Committees to which I have just referred thought of suggesting that the Chelsea Board should be made use of for the purposes of this Bill. My noble friend Lord Midleton, who in all things has very properly an eye to economy, dwelt the other evening upon the extravagance of the arrangements proposed under the Bill. But does any one suppose that if we were to adopt the Chelsea Board we should escape from the necessity of creating a considerable staff? I see that the Royal Hospital at this moment has only three staff clerks, one minor staff clerk, and five clerks of the second division—
LORD NEWTON: Several others have been taken on lately.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But does any one suppose that that staff or a anything like it would be sufficient for the work that will have to be done under this Bill. It is idle to suppose anything of the kind. My noble friend Lord
686
Midleton was anxious that we should secure that this new Department—for it will be a new Department—should be to a great extent staffed from officials not fully employed at the present time. I do not know what information he has upon that subject, but I am certainly not under the impression that at this moment there are a great many idle or unemployed Government officials or ex-officials. Every one that one meets or hears of seems to be at this moment fully employed in one fashion or another in helping the Government. But if my noble friend has that view, let him draft an Amendment. I do not think it would be a very easy one to draft. Let him draft an Amendment and bring it up in Committee and let us see whether we can make anything of his proposal. Then we are told that this new Department will be entirely beyond the control of the Treasury. I was under the impression, when we inserted in the Bill a clause under which the salary of the chairman or vice-chairman is to be paid out of public funds, that that in itself gave the House of Commons an opportunity of discussing the vote for this Statutory Committee and of criticising any details that it might feel called upon to criticise. At any rate, by all means let us so far as we can make it perfectly clear that the new Department and everything that concerns it is to be subject to the closest possible financial criticism.
After all, the gravamen of the complaint against this Bill is that we have put an undeserved slight upon the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. That slight apparently consisted in two things. In the first place, that having provided that the association should have representatives on the Statutory Committee the clause was amended and the two representatives struck out. The history of that decision has been given, and my noble friend has told the House that we are prepared to restore the two representatives of the association to their place on the Statutory Committee. That, I think, is a very important concession to the friends of the association. It at once gives them a locus standi upon the Statutory Committee, and it will enable them to see to it that the claims of the association are not ignored; because, my Lords, it cannot be too much borne in mind that the Statutory Committee is responsible for the manner in which these local committees are to be composed. As I

687
ventured to say the other evening it seems to me inconceivable, still more inconceivable if the association has representatives on the central body, that the claims of the ladies and gentlemen who have been working so hard and so successfully for the association should be ignored when it comes to setting up these local bodies. But we are prepared to go further than that. We are prepared to put words into the Bill which shall make it perfectly clear that, in the view of Parliament, the association's local committees where they are active and efficient should have representation in the ranks of the new local committees. My noble friend gave words to the House just now, but whether his words are taken or others substituted we are prepared to amend the Bill in that respect, and the actual form of the Amendment will, of course, be a fair subject for discussion.
The other suggestion which has been made to us—it is one which I confess attracted me at first—was that we should take separation allowances out of the Bill altogether. It is perfectly true, as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh told the House just now, that there is this difference between separation allowances and these grants and pensions that separation allowances are temporary allowances which will after a time cease to be granted, whereas the others will last into a future the duration of which we are quite unable to foresee. That is quite true; but you have to look at the other side of the case, and I am deeply convinced that there would be a real and practical difficulty in arranging that the pensions and grants and so forth should be dealt with as we propose to deal with them under this Bill by new local committees, and that the separation allowances should continue to be dealt with by the present committees of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. What would that mean? Would it not mean that you would have working side by side in the same areas two bodies dealing with the same people, at any rate the same sort of people, and perhaps containing the same individuals, because if our hopes are realised the most efficient members of these Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association committees will find their way on the new local committees, so that you will have the old committees shorn of their best and most active members working side by side in the same place with the new committees which are set up under this Bill, and competing with them for public support. I
688
cannot conceive an arrangement more likely to lead to confusion and overlapping. Quite apart from that, what we have to remember is that the organisation of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association by no means covers the whole country. There are many places where these committees do not exist at all, so that here again you would have a body of one kind working in one part of the country and a body of another kind working alongside of it in another.
Then there is the further objection, which has been urged more than once in these debates, that there is a reluctance—and it seems to me a not unnatural reluctance—to entrust these self-constituted committees of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association with the disbursements of money which must in the end, to a great extent at any rate, come from public sources. I will tell the House why I say this. It is possible that the National Relief Fund may, after all, and in spite of what it has said, come to the rescue of these committees. It is possible. We have no guarantee for it, and I do not see how we can expect one. But apart from that, what resources has the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association to dispose of? The association has no assured means of its own. Let me state to the House the account which was given by the secretary of the association when he was examined before the House of Commons Committee. He was asked this question, "You said you had only now funds from the Prince of Wales's Fund?" and he answered "Yes." "But you are an organisation in receipt of considerable voluntary subscriptions in ordinary times, are von not?" he was asked. "Yes," he replied, "I have brought my last report here; roughly our tincome—that is the last figure I have got—was about £11,000 or £12,000." The member of the Committee who was examining the witness said, "That would not go very far?" The witness replied, "No, it would be no good for war purposes. It enables us to carry on in times of peace." I think that shows conclusively that the normal private income, so to speak, of the association is not sufficiently large or sufficiently assured to give any certainty that it will be financially self-supporting.
What the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association really ask for—and I think we ought to bear this in mind, because every speaker during this debate has spoken of the claims of the association upon our

689
consideration—is this. It is in the same leaflet front which I have already quoted. They say—
"We are strongly of opinion that this association which occupies, as we have noted, an exceptional position, should secure statutory representation on the local committees"
That is their demand. What I hope we shall give them under this Bill is the statutory representation on the local committees which they are so anxious to have, and in my view it will be much better for them and much better for their clients that they should be represented in that way than that we should allow them to drag on a moribund existence working side by side with these other local committees and dealing only with a fragment of the general work.
I venture to sum up what I have to say by imploring your Lordships to allow this Bill to be read a second time. I honestly believe that there is nothing to be gained by shunting the Bill for an indefinite period of time, and I can assure your Lordships that if you will read the Bill a second time and allow the House to address itself to the task of dealing with it in Committee we shall do our best to meet any reasonable demands and criticisms which may proceed from the other side.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Marquess would not consider it a compliment if we allowed the debate to close after his powerful speech without some attempt to make good the position which has been taken up, and I am sure also that every one on this side of the House would in a matter of this kind far rather find himself deferring to the noble Marquess's judgment than differing from him. But I think I have the right to ask my noble friend whether in the course of his long experience of this House he has ever gone through such an ordeal as he did on Friday last or heard a Bill more condemned front every quarter of the House by independent members speaking without the least collusion with each other? He playfully said that he wished he was back on this side of House, and none of us wondered at it. I only regret that my noble friend List Harris, who spoke so forcibly just now, was not present on that occasion, because the debate to-day, which has been only a continuation, has not attempted to cover the whole of the case which is made against the Bill.
690
I feel convinced that if the noble Marquess had had to draw this Bill in the first instance and had not had merely to second the presentment of a Bill already made in another place, those of whom he and Lord Crewe have spoken so feelingly—namely, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association—would have had something more than an academic recognition of their labours, and would have got something in the Bill which would be a little more than what my noble friend Lord Balfour called a "moral recognition" of their right to continue service. No amount of rhetoric can hide the fact that this association, which has been doing at least half of the work which is contained in the Bill, is at best, under the concession adumbrated by Lord Crewe, to get two representatives out of the twenty-five on this new body. That, I suggest, must involve a great change not only in the prestige of their work but in the personnel who will be employed upon it.
So much has been said that I apologise for adding a single fact which has been brought to my notice since our last debate. A lady who has been working in the East End came to me and said, "Is it supposed that the local body or any public body can deal with the cases of these women?" She said, "Only last night I had a telegram from a man who was going back to the Front to-morrow—Sunday morning—whose wife and children I have been looking after. She was confined the day before; she had died; there were two other children besides the baby." The man telegraphed to this lady, "Will you send at once and take charge of my children?" and she made arrangements for them within two or three hours. How can any one expect that, a local council can establish, unless they rely on the same organisation, this self-denying system on which the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association have worked during the last eleven months?
The noble Marquess did not touch upon all the questions which were brought forward last Friday. He said very little about the unwieldy nature of this Patriotic Fund Committee. I would ask, when we are told that it is necessary to put these matters into public hands, did any one ever hear of an expenditure of several millions annually of public money being put into the hands of a committee of twenty-five persons? It certainly would seem an unreasonably unwieldy body for

691
such a purpose. My noble friend spoke in answer to some very strong observations by Lord Portsmouth and by my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn with regard to the necessity, if it exists, of setting up new civil officials. Lord Lansdowne thought that the present civil workers of the Crown would be found to be fully worked. On that I venture to make two points. The first is that our contention—and I hope that the Committee over which Mr. McKenna is to preside will give effect to it—is that in the Government service at this moment there is much work which need not be undertaken, which is forced on officials, and by reducing the work you might reduce the workers and set them free for other employment. All the annotating and so on, and the sheaves of letters sent to one man about a single point—all this might be cut away. I am afraid I must refer again to the statement made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer three months ago that 97 per cent. of the work of land valuation was now accomplished. Yet there are still 600 permanent officials in the Land Valuation Office. I ask, Can they be fully employed?
My noble friend spoke of the urgency of this matter. The Committee reported to the House of Commons on April 14. Is there any reason why the Bill should have been delayed for three months, and should then become of such urgency that it has to be discussed and disposed of by Parliament in less than three weeks? It seems to me that unless we have the clearest proof that this is the only Bill which will meet the case we have strong ground for urging that some reasonable delay should be allowed. Surely if my noble friend
opposite calls upon us to show cause why we should put off the settlement of the question for as long as four or six weeks, is not the very fact I have stated our justification? After so many faults have been found in the Bill, would it he wise to go into Committee in a few hours, which we must do if we are not to put the Bill off until after the recess? I really think, with the strong feeling which exists outside, that your Lordships have a fair right to due time for discussion.
The noble Marquess who leads the House spoke in the same sentence of hanging up the Bill and rejecting the Bill, as if they were one and the same thing. In the Motion of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh there is no wish to reject the Bill. We earnestly desire to recast the Bill. We desire to divide what is temporary from what is permanent. We desire to maintain the voluntary system of workers, and not to flood it out by the official system; and we desire that the Government should have an opportunity, which it is quite obvious they have not been able to have since the great change made in the House of Commons a week ago, of considering how to fit the Bill, which has lost its whole foundation of finance, into the new position. On those grounds if my noble friend goes to a Division on his Motion for the adjournment of the debate for from four to six weeks I shall support him.
On Question, Whether the debate on the Motion for the Second Reading be further adjourned until after the recess?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Knaresborough, L.

Rutland, D

Knutsford, V.

Latymer, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Peel, V. [Teller].

Leconfield, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Camperdown, E.

Balfour, L. [Teller].

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Cromer, E.

Barrymore, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

St. Audries, L.

Halsbury, E.

Charnwood, L.

Sanderson, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Lichfield, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Sinclair, L.

Mayo, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Strachie, E.

Northbrook, E.

De Mauley, E.

Sudeley, L,

Portsmouth, E.

Devonport, L.

Sydenham, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Glenconner, L.

Templemore, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Welby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Buckmaster, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lytton, E.

Harris, L.

Crewe, M.(L. President.)

Plymouth, E.

Haversham, L.

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

Selborne, E.

Hylton, L.

Islington, L.

Allendale, V.

Muir-Mackenzie, L.

Devonshire, D. [Teller.]

Knollys, V.

Newton, L.

Ranksborough, L,

Blyth, L.

Reading, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Colchester, L.

Rotherham, L.

Lincolnshire, M.

Colebrooke, L.

Southwark, L.

D'Abernon, L.

Stanmore, L.[Teller.]

Amherst, E.

Emmott, L.

Tenterden, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and debate adjourned accordingly.

NELVE-SHAKEN SOLDIERS.
THE EARL OF LYTTON THE EARL OF LYTTON rose to ask the representative of the War Office—

1. What provision is being made for the hospital treatment of nerve-shaken soldiers who have been medically diagnosed (after an interval for rest) as "uncertifiables."

2. Are any uncertifiable soldiers placed at present under asylum doctors in buildings situated within the grounds of county asylums.

3. Are asylums which have been commandeered for the use of soldiers withdrawn during the war from the jurisdiction of the Lunacy "Board of Control" in the same way as the Lunacy "Block D." at Netley has by military custom been always kept apart from it.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Questions which I have placed on the Paper have reference to a class of men who are, perhaps, more deserving of our pity than any others who have suffered in this war—namely, those whose nerves have been so shaken by their experiences that for a time at any rate their reason has become deranged. Some of these men may probably be permanently disabled, but the majority of them, it is hoped, will ultimately recover. I am sure your Lordships will agree, at any rate in the case of those whose reason is only partially or temporarily deranged, that they should not be subjected to treatment as ordinary lunatics or placed under the ministrations of regular lunacy officials. In the Navy I understand these cases do receive careful consideration and diagnosis, and certification takes place by medical officers belong-
694
ing to the Service and not by asylum doctors; and even in the case of men who are certified as insane, they are placed in special naval hospitals and not in the ordinary county asylums. This principle, I understand, is accepted by the Army also. I fear, however, that owing to the large number of cases which have been created in this war the principle is not carried out in practice. Special provision for hospital treatment has been made for officers, and perhaps the noble Lord who will reply can tell me whether special hospital treatment is also being provided for the men who have suffered in this way. I beg to ask the Questions standing in my name.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, uncertifiable nerve-shock cases are treated in the neurological sections of the military hospitals, of which there are twenty-three throughout the country. In addition, accommodation is available at two institutions which were formerly under committees responsible to the Lunacy Board of Control—namely, at Springfield House, Wandsworth, which is situated in the grounds of the Middlesex county asylum although separated by a high fence from the asylum itself, and at the Red Cross Military Hospital at Maghull, near Liverpool, which was to have been opened as an institution for the mentally defective. These are asylums which the authorities have been good enough to lend to the War Department for the period of the war, and are in exactly the same position as Netley as regards the jurisdiction of the Board of Control. Speaking generally, all neurological cases are divided into four classes—(1) cases of nerve injuries caused by wounds; (2) cases of men who are quite insane; (3) cases of a milder character; and (4) cases of epilepsy; and there is special treatment in each of these cases.

695
I should like to supplement my reply by informing my noble friend that in order to obtain information at first hand I have, since the Questions appeared upon the Paper, visited two of these institutions myself—the No. 4 London General Hospital at Denmark Hill, and Springfield House, to which I have alluded. The Denmark Hill establishment is a clearing hospital, where the different classes of patients are sifted; and as for the Springfield House hospital, all I can say with regard to it is that it appeared to me to be an admirably conducted establishment in every sense. There was no sign whatsoever of lunacy treatment of any kind. The only difference I could see between the treatment at this hospital and the treatment at every military hospital was that the diet was on a more generous scale, and that the men were upon the whole considerably mere comfortable. The noble Earl may rest assured that the War Office have no intention whatever of treating these unfortunate men as ordinary lunatics; and if he will avail himself of the opportunity, or if any one else will avail himself of the opportunity, which I know will be gladly granted by the War Office, of visiting these establishments—I should like to add that I visited them without notice—I feel satisfied that he and they will be convinced that there is absolutely no foundation for the allegation which has been made in various quarters—not by the noble Earl himself—against the War Office as regards this particular question.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I hope you will excuse me if I detain the House for a few minutes on this matter. My excuse for doing so is that I have been thrown into very close contact with a number of these unfortunate men who are suffering from nervous shock. I am responsible to-day for two hospitals for officers who are suffering from nervous shock, and for a third one for officers who are suffering from organic shock; and we are about to open a fourth for officers who are what we laymen call mad, though we hope only temporarily so. Therefore it has been necessary for me to inform myself as to the best form of treatment for curing these men, and also to satisfy myself that the officers, and the men too, are getting the best possible chance given them for recovery. Therefore I have made myself aware of all the arrangements
696
which the War Office have made for the soldiers under their care, and I ask you Lordships to believe me, speaking with some knowledge of hospitals, when I say that the arrangements made are particularly good, and that they are carried out, I do not like to say with loving care, but at any rate with the most intense desire to do everything possible to help towards the recovery of these poor fellows.
For men suffering from functional nervous injury—men who have lost the power o speech, men who have lost control of their limbs, men who cannot sleep, men who have terrible nightmares, men whom the slightest noise throws into a paroxysm o distress, men who feel the floor is falling away from them, men who cannot go ou into time open air, men who cannot go into a shut room because they see the wall closing in on them—for those men who are suffering from functional nervous disorders the War Office has, as Lord Newton has told us, engaged the neurologic departments of no less than twenty-three general hospitals as special hospitals. I the Men at those hospitals get too bad, i they get into such a condition that they may do harm to other patients, or if they need more care taken to protect themselves from injury, or if, what is so often found, a complete change of surroundings will help them to recover, they are then sent either to the military hospital at Moss Side, Liverpool, called the Maghull Hospital or to the Springfield Hospital at Wands worth. If, unfortunately, they get worse and become mad they are then sent to St. Albans. It is perfectly true, as the noble Earl said, that the Navy have asylums of their own, but it is a questionable point whether they are wise to do so. I know that as a matter of fact it has often been discussed whether it is worth while going on with them at all.
Now, my Lords, what is the supposed grievance? I cannot disguise from you that though the Question is innocent and I believe the questioner himself to be quite innocent, hidden behind this Question there is a grievance which has been agitated about considerably. It has been mentioned in what we call here "another place"; in fact, it would be very difficult to find any place where this supposed grievance has not been mentioned. The grievance is that at Springfield and Maghull hospitals the soldiers are treated by men who have

697
made mental disorders the study of their lifetimes; but it is a complete misconception to try and draw any line between doctors who treat lunatics and other specialists who treat mental disorders. There is no such line to be drawn. It is perfectly true that these doctors who are mainly concerned in treating lunatics are called alienists, out they bitterly resent this agitation that has been got up against them and the representation that because they are alienists every man who goes to them is necessarily mad. If any one that we oved dearly ourselves were mentally afflicted, they are the men in the whole world to whom we should choose to send our own relations, and the soldiers to-day are getting the very best care from these men.
The next grievance is that soldiers are sent to buildings which were formerly used as lunatic asylums, and it is suggested that some stigma attaches to these men because they have been treated in such a building. There is nothing in that grievance at all. Nowadays, there seems to be a sort of breed of persons who discover grievances where none exist. Does a soldier call himself a pauper because he is treated in a Poor Law institution which the War Office have commandeered? Does a soldier think that he has received charity when he goes to one of our civil hospitals when he is wounded because our civil hospitals are supported by voluntary contributions? Do the soldiers think that a stigma is attached to them because they are treated at the large Norfolk lunatic asylum which the War Office have commandeered for the treatment of wounded soldiers? There is nothing at all in such a grievance. But even if there were, I would like to tell your Lordships that the Maghull hospital had never been used at all; though it was built for people of deficient intellect it had never been used before and was a brand new building. With regard to the Springfield hospital, that building had only been used for children. Do the soldiers suggest that they are looked upon as children because they are now in this beautiful building where children were treated before? I could not wish for myself, if I had a nervous disorder, for a more beautiful retreat in which to spend a month or two.
This scheme for treating these poor fellows has been most carefully considered and most properly carried out by Sir Alfred
698
Keogh and his staff—men who have managed the medical part of this war in a way of which it is impossible to speak too highly. Can we not trust them to treat these poor afflicted soldiers properly? What have they done that they should not be trusted? Do your Lordships realise that in this war there has been no dysentery? Do the public know that lock-jaw, which was the great curse of all former campaigns, has been reduced to a negligible quantity? Do the public realise that ever since the war started there have been only 920 cases of typhoid, and that to-day in the whole British Army there are only sixty cases of typhoid? Cannot the men who are responsible for these splendid results be trusted to show sympathy, kindness, and consideration to soldiers who are mentally afflicted?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sure the House must have listened with satisfaction to the statement made by the noble Viscount opposite. I entirely believe, with the noble Viscount, that there is greet difficulty in drawing a sharp line between medical men who are alienists and medical men who are not, and perhaps also in drawing a sharp line between asylums and institutions, premises which have been used for the treatment of mentally disordered persons and those which have not. But I believe you can draw a very sharp line between the treatment of the two classes of patient, and I am convinced from what I have learned from official sources that it is the policy of the War Office that the treatment of these nerve-shaken men shall in no sense resemble that of ordinary lunatics, or be of a nature which would leave on patients of that kind what is sometimes called the taint of lunacy.

WASTE IN ARMY CAMPS.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE rose to ask the representative of the War Office whether his attention has been called to the waste of Army property, for receiving which various persons were fined by the magistrates at Guildford on July 16; whether it is a fact that on the removal of the 11th Division from Witley Camp, 500 loaves were thrown away, and a quantity of meat, which was subsequently removed by various persons; whether the stores given away included 28 pairs of new boots, over 200 pairs of secondhand boots, a large

699
number of khaki trousers, cord riding breeches, horse rugs, and other articles to the value of over £100; whether a large number of blankets, shirts, etc., were also given away; also whether it is a fact that a civilian was found guilty at Devonport on the 19th of July of having stolen 36 lbs. of bacon, besides other articles, and a private in the 6th Worcestershire Regiment was bound over in £10 to keep the peace in connection with the same case; and whether arrangements which will secure the public against the recurrence of similar waste will be made by the Secretary for War.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question which stands in my name on the Paper is, I fear, a lengthy one, and it deals with an aspect of a subject which has occupied your Lordships in different forms very much during the last few weeks—namely, that of economy. I placed it on the Paper last Wednesday for the following day, but my noble friend Lord Newton, who replies on behalf of the War Office, asked me to postpone it on the ground that nothing was known on the subject at that Office. I think if justification were needed for my Question that reply would have furnished it, for surely the facts should have come to the knowledge of the War Office within a week of the time the persons were convicted in a Court of Justice. I do not mean to say that all these matters should come to the notice of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal who has so many important matters with which to deal, but I think there should be some department of the War Office which should be made acquainted with facts such as these.
The facts are very simple, and are not in dispute. The first one I want to take is that of the persons who were convicted before the Guildford magistrates on July 16. The facts are recorded in the Surrey Times of July 17, under the heading "Great Haul of Army Property—Charges of Receiving Camp Stores." That the stores received were both many and various may be gathered from the fact, also recorded in this newspaper, that a military transport wagon was requisitioned to remove the stores from Godalming to Guildford for the trial. I am not going through all the cases seriatim, as it would occupy too much time, but I should like to mention one or two. In the first place there was a woman who was charged with having in her pos-
700
session 19 lbs. of beef, three tins of mustard, and a large quantity of currants. When stopped and asked whether she had anything in her possession she denied it, but the beef was discovered under her baby in the perambulator, while the other things were concealed in two boxes which she was carrying in her hand. She was fined £2. I will take another case where a member of the Godalming Corporation was charged with having at Witley received a large quantity of new and secondhand boots, many pairs of riding breeches, and divers other articles to the value of over £55. The prisoner pleaded "guilty," and stated that he had received them from a quartermaster-sergeant to whom he had given £12 for them. I should like to call attention to the fact that this is not the only case where it has been stated that quartermaster-sergeants had received sums of money for things which they had sold. This person was convicted and fined £15, and I think he well deserved the fine.
I will not deal with any more of the cases that were tried before this Court, but I should like to say a word about the evidence which was given by an officer in the Army with regard to one case. I am not mentioning the names in any of the cases because I think it is fairer to individuals not to do so. This gentleman was an officer commanding the detail. He stated that he wished to give evidence, and he caused sonic surprise by declaring that the woman had done no harm. When the camp broke up there were, he said, large quantities of provisions left on the ground; something like 400 to 500 loaves were thrown away, and a lot of meat which was putrid and covered with flies was also thrown away. Then the Chairman said that did not justify its being in the possession of the woman, and that she would have to be dealt with according to law. The witness said they could not be bothered with Acts of Parliament, and the stuff had to be cleared. I will now deal with the Devonport case which is somewhat different, where a soldier was charged with stealing 38 lbs. of bacon, 11 lbs. of tea, 10½ lbs. of sugar, 2 lbs. of butter, and two tins of preserved herrings. At first he said he knew nothing about it, but afterwards confessed that he had given these to a workman at the camp, and his excuse was that the man had a large family, and he knew how difficult it was to rear a large family. The presiding magistrate stated

701
that the sergeant in evidence had sworn that more than this was thrown away every day.
In both these cases, particularly in the case of the Guildford offences, it was stated that the meat was bad. I do not think that is any excuse, because it shows that there is a want of care and supervision if more meat is purchased than is required and it is allowed to go bad, and if such large quantities of bread as from 400 to 500 loaves are thrown away. We have all known that from the beginning of the war there have been accusations of waste of provisions. Stories of large quantities of meat and loaves being thrown away were current last autumn, but I think most people were of opinion then that it would be very unfair to criticise the War Office at a time when they were engaged in recruiting, equipping, feeding, and arming men on a scale never before attempted in this country. It was felt that time must be given to the War Office to get into its stride. But I think the case is different now after nearly a year of war, and when these facts are no longer rumoured but substantiated by convictions in the Courts of Justice. In asking this Question, I do not think I can be accused of wanting in patriotism or in confidence in the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, the Secretary of State for War, whose services to the country are so well recognised by every one.
Since I put this Question on the Paper I have been inundated with communications on the subject from people telling me of waste of every kind and description. I have been told that tins of beef have been used for mending roads in Flanders, and that biscuits are commonly utilised at the Front for lighting fires. We admire the way in which the work has been done with regard to providing our soldiers with food. There is one universal chorus of praise both for the food they have obtained and the manner in which that food has been got to the proper place in time. There is not one of us who would not rather there was a little too much food sent out to France and Flanders than that any of our gallant soldiers should find themselves short of provisions. But this is hardly a reason why the great waste that there seems to be here should not be inquired into. Last week the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in speaking of the Committee that was being set up to inquire into civil expenditure, stated that a
702
similar inquiry would be impossible with regard to expenditure in the Army and Navy. I was sorry to hear that, although I recognise the weighty reasons he put forward. But he told us at the same time that a Departmental Committee of the War Office was to be set up, and I cannot help thinking that matters such as I have ventured to bring before the House will be considered by that body. I beg to ask the Questions standing in my name.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, my experience of the War Office has only been a short one, but the congested state which prevails there inclines me to the belief that there is little prospect of my noble friend's aspirations being gratified. This particular Question appeared on the Paper last Thursday, and it was only this morning that the War Office were able to obtain a report on the matter. Therefore my noble friend will recognise that it has not been possible so far to go judicially into the various points raised. The statements made by the noble Lord are, so far as I can gather, substantially correct, but the property which he enumerated was not given away but was purchased by civilians from non-commissioned officers. This property has now been recovered and taken into store. It appears that the statement made by the captain who gave evidence—the gentleman who professed so profound a contempt for Acts of Parliament—was marked with gross exaggeration. The camp quartermaster-sergeant who went round the camps after the departure of the troops states that the amount of bread left was very small, and it is a peculiar circumstance that the captain in question was the officer responsible for the food not being wasted. As regards the general question, most stringent orders have continually been given to the units as to returning surplus stores before they proceed overseas and against waste of food, but owing to the fact that there are naturally a certain number of comparatively inexperienced commanding officers, adjutants, and quartermasters, and also that frequently very short notice of moving is obtained, these orders are unfortunately not invariably carried out.
One reason for the failure or inability to carry out these orders is that certain articles have to be retained for absentees and men on leave when sudden orders arrive. These articles cannot be returned.

703
and at the last moment- some of them turn out to be superfluous and have to be left. In these circumstances it will be appreciated that dishonest non-commissioned officers have opportunities of peculation with regard to articles which should be -returned to store. This is a thing which would not occur under less strenuous pressure of work. So far as is known there is no preventable waste in the Aldershot Command, but on their departure abroad so many men are hospitably treated by their friends that they are not able to consume all their rations; and if the troops leave before mid-day they do not draw rations, and it has been found even with experienced firms of contractors that a great deal of waste does occasionally take place. On the whole, therefore, I may say that every step has been taken to prevent such occurrences as have come to the notice of my noble friend. Strict orders have been issued with regard to the return of all superfluous equipment to store and against waste of food, and officers have been sent down to explain these orders and to assist officers commanding units in carrying them out. I am afraid I have not been able to give a detailed answer to my noble friend. As regards the Devonport part of the Question, I regret I am unable to answer that at all. My noble friend only gave me notice of that late on Friday afternoon; therefore it is naturally impossible for me to reply upon that particular point. But if my noble friend desires to return to the subject I shall be most happy to supply him with all the information wit bin my power.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Every one knows the difficulty experienced by commanding officers of units in keeping control over these matters at this time, especially as they have not experienced officers under them. But would it not be wise, as whole divisions are leaving together now, that commanding officers should hand over the camp to one another? That is where the difficulty is. All the officers are marched off, and no one is left in authority who can deal with the camp.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I gather from what my noble friend said that a considerable quantity of these stores had been sold by non-commissioned officers but have been subsequently recovered. Surely the non-commissioned officers must have stolen them, and I presume they have been punished?
LORD NEWTON: I suppose these men will be proceeded against in the ordinary course; but, as I explained, I have not been able to obtain any information up to now. With regard to the question put to me by the noble Viscount, I will see that it is brought before the proper authorities.

AIRCRAFT RAID INSURANCE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state on what statistics and facts the rate of premiums chargeable to a farmer who desires to insure against the risk of damage from aircraft or bombardment has been fixed in the Government insurance scheme. I ask the question for this reason. There is a very exaggerated view as to possible damage from bombardments or aircraft raids as regards farmers' stock, and I think it is a pity that this view should not be corrected.
What has been the experience up to date? I think the House will not wonder at my Question when I say that up to date in both bombardment and aircraft raids one lamb, one pony, and one pig represent the entire injury done to live-stock in this country. As regards damage to crops, there has been none at all. No doubt holes have been caused in the ground where the shell has fallen, and in respect of those compensation has been paid, amounting to something like £20 in the aggregate. According to the statistics I have given the damage is practically negligible. Will the noble Duke tell me, in these circumstances, why sums of 3s. and 4s. 6d. respectively are to be charged as insurance premiums to farmers, whereas, as I said the other night, a nominal sum of 1d. or 2d. would cover the risks according to the experience gained by the Committee over which I presided.
There have been seventeen of these raids altogether, which have been inquired into. But I will give an illustration of what happened in one case. A Zeppelin went over sixty-four miles through country districts and dropped ten explosive shells and sixty-six incendiary shells. No damage of any kind was done to the crops or to the live or dead stock. A certain number of holes were made in the ground, which

705
were filled in at a nominal price. Of course it is true, although it has not happened up to this time, that a particular shell might do a lot of damage if it were dropped into, say, a flock of ewes. Therefore it is not right that the farmer should have nothing in the shape of insurance. Yet these figures of 3s. and 4s. 6d. are absurd charges. I ask the noble Duke on what experience and facts these rates have been fixed. It has been said that they have something to do with fire premiums, but there is no analogy between a fire premium and a question of this character.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend much more information than I have already supplied. The Question is one which could only be answered fully by the Committee which formulated the Government scheme, and there has been no time to consult the members of that Committee as the Question only appeared on the Paper on Saturday morning. However, the lines on which the Committee proceeded are clearly shown in their published Report, and there is no doubt that all the martial facts relating to the raids that have taken place were in the possession of the members of the Committee. The question of principle having been decided—that the scheme was to be one of insurance and not of indemnity—the task of formulating the scheme and fixing the rates to be charged was entrusted to insurance experts whose training and experience specially fitted them for the work of estimating the risks. The Committee, as the House is probably aware, consisted of Mr. Huth Jackson, the chairman, who was also chairman of the Committee which framed the marine insurance scheme; Sir Raymond Beck, the chairman of Lloyd's; Mr. Cuthbert; Heath, a Lloyd's underwriter who has special experience in aircraft insurance and is also a director of the Fine Arts Insurance Company, one of the largest non-tariff companies; Mr. Roger Owen, general manager of the Commercial Union; and Sir Gerald Ryan, general manager of the Phœnix Company. These gentlemen had no interest to serve bus to formulate a scheme which would be fair both to the Government and to the insured, and I think it will be agreed that they were competent judges in a matter of this kind and that their judgment can safely be trusted.
LORD HARRIS: Might I point out that the period so far as the farmer is concerned is a very limited one. It is not green crops that are in danger from incendiary bombs; it is dry corn, which means corn that has just been cut or is in the sheaf, and that is for a period of about a fortnight. Therefore the charge under this scheme is to be 3s. and 4s. 6d. respectively for a fortnight, and not 3s. and 4s. 6d. per annum.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not know whether it is within the power of the noble Duke to give this matter reconsideration, but the proposed charge is an absurdity, as any one knows who is acquainted with the risk to farmers' crops. I am not very much impressed with the names which the noble Duke read out. I remember once that I wanted to insure a watermill, and I was charged by the insurance people just the same as for a mill containing steam machinery throughout.
LORD PARMOOR: May I say, in answer to the noble Duke, that the only information in existence upon this particular matter could not have been before this Committee. It was proffered by the East Coast Raid Committee, who had the statistics, but so far from being accepted it was thought that a theoretical scheme could be made by these gentlemen. Surely the noble Duke must see that if you want to have a fair scheme or anything like a fair scheme you cannot get that from the intuition of gentlemen, however skilled they are, if they neglect the whole substratum of fact which they could have ascertained had they cared to have the information. My desire is that there should not be an exaggerated view of possible damage, and that the farmer should be fairly treated. I hope that the attention of the noble Earl who presides over the Board of Agriculture will be called to this matter, because I cannot imagine anything more injurious to farmers than that there should be this false impression.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Under Clause 2 of Schedule III of this scheme the Government have the power of varying the rates. I shall certainly take the opportunity of bringing what has been said to-night to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade, and I have no doubt that it will meet with his consideration and close attention.
LORD SOUTHWARK: Might I appeal to the noble Duke also to ask the President of the Board of Trade to take into consideration the suggestions which were made by the London Chamber of Commerce. They have made many suggestions, but no reply has been received. When these matters about agriculture are being dealt with, perhaps the other points may also be considered. This insurance scheme, as I said the other day, was put into operation before time had been given to consider the suggestions made by the London Chamber of Commerce.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not know whether any assurance is necessary from me, but the noble Lord can take it that anything coming from the London Chamber of Commerce will receive every attention from the President of the Board of Trade.

CUSTOMS (WAR POWERS) (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

SPECIAL ACTS (EXTENSION OF TIME) 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 Duke of Devonshire.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Extension of time, limited under special Acts.
1.—(1) Where the time within which a duty is to be performed or a power may be exercised under any special Act is limited, an application may be made to the appropriate Government Department for an order under this Act extending that time; but only in cases where the time is due to expire within twelve months of the date of the application.
(2) An application may be so made by or on behalf of the person by whom the duty is to be performed or by whom the power may be exercised, or by or on behalf of any other person appearing to the Department to be interested in the extension of time for the performance of the duty or the exercise of the power.
(3) If on any such application the Department are satisfied that, in the circumstances of the case, the time in respect of which the application is made should be extended, they may make an order so extending the time, and the special or other Act by which the time is limited shall, as respects the time extended by the Order, have effect as if the time as so extended were substituted for the time specified in the Act:
Provided that, without prejudice to the making of any further order, no time shall be extended under any such order for more than a year.
An order shall have full effect notwithstanding that the time to which it relates has expired, if the application upon which the order is made was made before the time expired.
(4) Before dealing with any application, the Department may require the applicant to publish any notices which the Department direct him to publish, and, in any case where it appears to the Department necessary, to give notice to such persons as the Department direct, and may give any person appearing to the Department to be interested in the question of the extension of time an opportunity of representing his views to the Department in such manner as the Department think fit.
(5) An order made by a Government Department under this Act shall be published in the London, Edinburgh, or Dublin Gazette, as the ease requires, and shall not, after it is made be questioned on the ground that it was not made by the appropriate Department; and if any question arises as to the Department to which an application under this Act should be referred, that question shall be determined by the Treasury, and their decision on the matter shall be conclusive.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I wish to move a small Amendment in subsection (1) of this clause in order to make the third subsection read with the first subsection. In subsection (3) the words are "and the special or Other Act"; whereas in subsection (1) the words are "any special Act." I move to insert the words "or other" in subsection (1).
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after ("special") insert ("or other").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I have not had an opportunity of consulting the draftsman, but I rather think there is more in this than my noble friend suggests. It is defined in the interpretation clause that "in this Act the expression 'special Act' means a local or private Act, and includes any public Act of a local or private nature." If the words "or other" were inserted, as proposed, it would considerably enlarge the scope of the Bill, which would then apply to all public Acts.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: Then what do the words "or other" mean in the third subsection?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The provision applies to a special Act in the first instance, but there might be another Act, or another special Act, which had already limited the operation of that special Act. I think that is the explanation. But I will have the point looked into before the Third Reading, and no doubt in the meantime my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-morrow.

EXECUTION OF TRUSTS (WAR FACILITIES) AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3a To-Morrow.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Marquess who leads the House whether he will be able to make a statement to-morrow of a similar kind to that made by the Prime Minister in another place this evening on the subject of the action which the Government propose to take in regard to the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill; and also whether the noble Marquess will then be able to tell us when, and for what period, he proposes to move the adjournment of your Lordships' House for the recess.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I hope to-morrow to be able to make a statement on the subject which the Prime Minister, as the noble Earl has pointed out, mentioned in another place to-day; and I also hope to be in a position to give a definite answer as to the date, and also the length, of the proposed adjournment of the House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.