Sitting of 27 July 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords],
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I beg to move, "That, in the case of the Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords], Standing Order 211 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill this day."
Mr. KING: I must object to this Motion. I do not think it is at all necessary. If it was put down because it was expected the House would adjourn to-day there might be more reason for it, but in view of the fact that we are sitting to-morrow I hope the Chairman of Ways and Means will put it off till to-morrow, and meantime I will try and see him on the subject. The passing of the Motion may then be arranged.
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: May I explain to the hon. Member that the Motion will be no good tomorrow? The Committee is appointed to sit to-day to deal with another Bill, and the only effect of not passing this Motion will be that the Committee will have to sit again to-morrow. It is very desirable we should finish the private business at once, and I hope the hon. Member will not press his objection.
Mr. KING: Will there be an opportunity of considering this Bill before the Third Reading? If not I must persist with my Motion.
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: There is no opportunity between Committee and the Third Reading.
Mr. KING: I withdraw my opposition, but without being convinced that I am wrong.
Ordered, That, in the case of the Education Board Provisional Orders Confirma-
2118
tion (London) Bill [Lords], Standing Order 211 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill this day.
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES' REPORTS.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (DERBYSHIRE, ETC.) BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read a third time To-morrow.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 12th July; Sir Frederick Banbury]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 317.]
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE) (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 15th July, 1915, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Exempt Persons) Consolidated Regulations (Wales), 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table) and to be printed. [No. 318.]
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (TEACHERS' SALARIES).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 18th June, 1914; Mr. MacCallum Scott]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 5, 1915).
Copy presented of Convention between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, renewing for a further period of five years the Arbitration Convention of 15th February, 1905. Signed at London, 25th March, 1915. Ratifications exchanged at London, 12th July, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 6, 1915).
Copy presented of Convention additional to the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Reciprocal Establishment between the United Kingdom and Switzerland of 6th September, 1855. Signed at London, 30th March, 1914, Ratifications exchanged at London, 12th July, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 7, 1915).
Copy presented of Commerce and Navigation between the United Kingdom and Honduras. Signed at Guatemala, 5th May, 1910. Ratifications exchanged at Guatemala, 21st June, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 26th July; Mr. Brace]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 319.]
UNITED KINGDOM (TRADE, COMMERCE, AND CONDITION OF PEOPLE).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 26th July; Sir Walter Essex]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 320.]
MUNITIONS.
Copy presented of Provisional Rules, dated 23rd July, 1915, made under Section 8 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, by the Minister of Munitions as to Badges [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (SPECIAL PENSIONS).
Copy presented of Return for the year ended 31st March, 1915, of Pensions specially granted under Articles 777 and 1201 of the Pay Warrant [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Report of Proceedings at the Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting of Representatives of Authorities under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Annual Report on the Administration of the Grant for the Encouragement and Improvement of the Live Stock Breeding Industry for the year ending 31st March, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,—That they have agreed to,—
Customs (War Powers) (No. 2) Bill,
Execution of Trusts (War Facilities) Amendment Bill, without Amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    STEEL TURNINGS AND SCRAPS (EXPORT).
    Mr. HUGH EDWARDSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the proportion of output from Briton Ferry in various forms which goes to France, he will suggest to the French Government the desirability of a reciprocity on their part by permitting steel turnings and scraps to be shipped from such ports as Brest, Pornic, and Rouen?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The French Government have, since the outbreak of War, granted export permits for certain quantities of steel turnings and scrap for Briton Ferry, at the instance of His Majesty's Government, who will continue to support applications for further quantities.

    ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL WELLS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked when the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's pipe-line was cut; whether it has been repaired; and, if so, when?
    Sir E. GREY: The line was first damaged in the first week of February. The necessary repairs were finally completed by the second week in June.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT (LONDON) CORPS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to announce that the Anti-Aircraft (London) Corps is, or is not, to pass under the control of the War Office?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): No decision has yet been reached in this matter.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Mr. H. EDWARDSasked whether the War Office authorities can see their way to give the usual pension to the dependants of Mr. Thomas Morgan, of Seven Sisters, near Neath, who joined the Royal Army Medical Corps early in October last and served at the Western Hospital, Cardiff, but who, as a result of the strain of his duties, suffered a mental collapse and subsequently died in Bridgend Asylum?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I think the hon. Member is misinformed as to there being a "usual pension" in such cases. The scheme is not yet set up.
    Mr. EDWARDS: May I ask if there is any hope for the relatives?
    Mr. FORSTER: The case is included in the scheme as soon as it is set up.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the remuneration of clerks to pension committees for work in connection with the investigation of Army and Navy separation allowance claims is at the rate of 2s. 6d. for each of the first fifty claims and 1s. for every subsequent claim in each quarter of the year; if he will say what
    2122
    sums have been paid or are payable for such work to the clerks of the pension committees for London, Manchester, Glasgow, Dublin, and Cardiff, respectively; and (2) how many claims for Army and Navy separation allowances were reported upon by pension officers in each of the quarters ended 31st December, 1914, 31st March, 1915, and 30th June, 1915, respectively; how many claims in the same periods, respectively, were considered by pension committees; and what sums have been paid or are payable to clerks of pension committees for their work in connection with such claims in each of the same periods, respectively?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The approximate numbers of claims and applications for reconsideration of claims, to Army and Navy separation allowances for dependants, reported upon by pension officers in the quarters ended 31st December, 1914, 31st March, 1915, and 30th June, 1915, are 226,000, 304,000, and 284,000 respectively. I am unable to say how many claims were considered by pension committees and sub-committees in the same periods. The remuneration of the clerks of pension committees and sub-committees for this work is at the rates stated by the hon. Member. Complete accounts of the fees payable to the clerks have not yet been rendered by them, and information as to the amount payable in respect of any of the three quarters in question is not, therefore, at present available.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether pension officers are entitled to any and, if so, what addition to their ordinary remuneration for their work in the investigation of claims for Army and Navy separation allowances; whether he is aware that, on account of the increase in the ordinary work of the pension officers and the difficulty in augmenting the staff in war time, their duties in connection with separation allowances involve overtime work; whether he is aware that all other Civil servants of the same grade as pension officers, including those in the same Department, have been paid overtime throughout the past twelve months when doing extra work; whether he proposes to pay pension officers overtime on the same scale as other Civil servants for their work in the investigation of separation allowance claims; and (2) whether the work of investigating and deciding

    2123
    upon claims for Army and Navy separation allowances has since the beginning of the War been discharged by pension officers, while a small percentage of such claims, namely, those in which the claimants are dissatisfied with the award of the pension officers, have come under review by the pension committees; whether, notwithstanding that the work thus thrown upon the pension officers has been exceedingly onerous, involving for the most part overtime work, pension officers have received no additional remuneration for this work; whether the clerks to the pension committees have received, and continue to receive, additions to their ordinary remuneration for their work in relation to separation allowances; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy the grievance referred to?
    Mr. McKENNA: The function of the pension officers in connection with claims to Army and Navy separation allowances for dependants is not to decide upon the claims but to investigate and report as to the fact and degree of dependence. I fully recognise the demands which have been made upon the pension officers in consequence of this addition to their duties, and the question of awarding special remuneration for it will be considered. The matter cannot, however, be settled without consideration of other Departments where there has been war pressure, and I am not at present in a position to announce my decision. I would remind the hon. Member that the clerks of pension committees are in a different position. They are not, like the pension officers, whole-time employés, and are paid fees to cover out-of-pocket expenses.
    Mr. McNEILL: Does it all come to the fact that one set of officers are getting no pay for very heavy work and that the others who are doing very little work are getting very heavy pay?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, I do not think I can agree with that description.
    Mr. McNEILL: Is that not to be inferred from the right hon. Gentleman's answer?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think so.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that in many cases the work of these pension officers is not at all appreciated by the persons whom they examine?
    Mr. McKENNA: I believe the pension officers' work is most excellently done.
    Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: Could the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to pension officers to act more closely in concert with local committees? There have been many cases in which that is not the case, and the difficulty is thereby increased.
    Mr. McKENNA: I shall be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will bring any particular case to my notice, and I shall be glad to inquire into it.

    PROFICIENCY PAY (VOLUNTEER FORCE).
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can now make a statement in reference to the request for proficiency pay by ex-Volunteers who attained proficiency while members of the Volunteer Force and who are now serving in His Majesty's Forces?
    Mr. FORSTER: After very full consideration it has been found necessary to adhere to the decision that service in the Volunteer Force does not count for proficiency pay.

    SECOND LIEUTENANTS (PROMOTION).
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERasked the Under-Secretary for War whether anything will be done to expedite the promotion of officers who have been in the trenches over six months and who are recommended by their commanding officer for promotion, and to remedy the hardship of having officers who have seen no service, but have received promotion at home, being sent out to take precedence of officers who have seen much service, but who are retained for some reason or other in their original ranks, especially as the officers referred to have been acting as captains and first lieutenants for a considerable period without receiving any addition of rank or pay?
    Mr. TENNANT: The promotion of officers is governed by establishment. I have already on several occasions explained in what circumstances and to what extent temporary promotion is given to officers who have been acting in higher ranks than their permanent rank. When reinforcements are required in a certain rank, officers are sent out from home, but, unless the units are to be starved of reinforcements, it is not possible to arrange that no officers of ranks higher than the lowest are sent out in this way, and if captains or

    2125
    lieutenants are sent they must take their proper precedence. With the rapid promotion which is now obtained, I do not think cases of supersession such as the hon. Gentleman has in mind are in any way frequent.
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will try to expedite the promotion of these officers who have been transferred from the Reserve, but are still kept in the lower rank? Is it a fact that only one regiment has been dealt with so far as regards the promotion of any of these officers?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member is alluding to. If he is alluding to the general scheme for giving temporary rank to officers serving in a higher rank than their permanent rank—
    Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I am alluding to the case of officers who have gone out as second lieutenants. They have been out there six months and have been recommended for promotion by their commanding officer, but they still remain in the lower rank.
    Mr. TENNANT: Now I recollect to what the hon. Gentleman is alluding. I have made representations on the subject, and it will not be lost sight of—indeed, I hope the matter will be expedited.
    Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the number of cases in which officers went out as second lieutenants at the beginning of the War and have since been superseded by officers holding the rank of lieutenant which they gained at home, without having had any experience in military operations?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is precisely the point to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn my notice. My answer, therefore, is in the affirmative.

    EAST AFRICA (OPERATIONS AT TANGA).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he will, if no objection exists, inform the House what losses were suffered by what troops during the fighting at Tanga last November?
    Mr. TENNANT: Amongst the 2nd Batt. Loyal North Lancashire Regiment and the
    2126
    British officers serving with the Indian troops the casualties were:—

    Officers:

    Killed

    …

    …

    …

    …

    19

    Wounded

    …

    …

    …

    …

    16

    Missing

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    Other Ranks:

    Killed

    …

    …

    …

    …

    25

    Wounded

    …

    …

    …

    …

    58

    Missing

    …

    …

    …

    …

    27

    The losses amongst the Indian troops were as follows:—

    Officers:

    Killed

    …

    …

    …

    11

    Wounded

    …

    …

    …

    15

    Missing

    …

    …

    …

    3

    Other Ranks:

    Killed

    …

    …

    …

    247

    Wounded

    …

    …

    …

    236

    Missing

    …

    …

    …

    140

    ARMY MEAT RATIONS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the meat ration served out to His Majesty's troops in this country and abroad is almost exclusively beef; and, if so, whether, having regard to the amount of mutton exported from Australia to this country, it would be possible to issue mutton in lieu of beef more frequently?
    Mr. FORSTER: On a general scale mutton is issued twice a week to the troops at home, arid abroad the proportion of mutton sent out is 10 per cent. It has not been considered advisable to increase this proportion, as a more frequent issue of mutton has not hitherto been popular with the troops. In view, however, of the different conditions now obtaining the matter will be further considered.

    FREE RAILWAY PASSES FOR SOLDIERS.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will say, seeing the Government have guaranteed the dividends of railway companies, why soldiers before they leave for the front are not allowed a free pass to say good bye to their relatives; whether he is aware that in the case of married men who have made an allotment to their wives these men are unable to find the money for the half-railway fare, seeing that many of these regiments are brought long distances from their homes to certain camps before they leave for the front?
    Mr. FORSTER: If the question is intended to suggest that under the arrangements made with the railway companies no question of cost is involved, the hon. Member is mistaken. Military as well as financial considerations are involved in the grant of passes. I have the subject under consideration in conjunction with the military authorities at the present time.

    GOLD EXPORT.

      RESTRICTION UPON TRAVELLERS.
      Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if travellers leaving England for the Continent find no difficulty in taking with them as much of their money in the form of gold coins as they desire, and that Boulogne is infested with German agents engaged in collecting gold coins; and whether he will take steps to secure that no passenger be allowed to leave the United Kingdom for the Continent with gold in his possession?
      Mr. McKENNA: I am anxious to avoid taking any steps which might have the appearance of interfering with the free commercial export of gold which is essential to our credit and to the maintenance of the foreign exchanges. In view, however, of the uneasiness which has been created by reports of the character referred to in the question, I propose to take immediate steps for a closer supervision of the proceedings of Channel passengers in the matter. I think that it would be very desirable if all private travellers proceeding to the Continent would exchange any British currency in their possession for currency of the country to which they are going before leaving the United Kingdom.
      Mr. McNEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any restriction is placed on the use of gold in the payment of wages and salaries of employés in Government and municipal service; and whether, with the object of reducing to a minimum the export of gold from the country and of preserving gold for national emergencies, he will withdraw the half-sovereign from circulation, raise the limit of silver legal tender, give instructions that all wages paid by Government Departments and public bodies shall be paid in notes and silver only, and prohibit the banks from issuing gold to their customers in the ordinary course of business, introducing legislation, if necessary, for these purposes?
      Mr. McKENNA: Instructions were given to public departments shortly after the outbreak of War that currency notes should be used instead of gold as far as possible, both for the payment of wages and for other purposes, and the same course was recommended by my predecessor as Chancellor of the Exchequer to the public generally. I am now considering what further steps should be taken to economise the use of gold for internal circulation with a view to strengthening the central reserves, for the purpose of meeting the foreign drain arising from the present balance of trade, and I will not fail to give careful consideration to the suggestions made in the question. It is, however, very important that it should be clearly understood that any steps which may be taken by the Government will, so far from attempting to interfere with the legitimate and necessary export of gold for the adjustment of foreign indebtedness, be expressly directed to mobilising our resources for use as and when required for that purpose.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government spending Departments paying weekly wages are using these notes or are still using gold as they did?
      Mr. McKENNA: I am inquiring into that very point, which I am glad the hon. Baronet has raised. I will see what steps can be taken in the matter.

    EMPLOYMENT OF DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
    Mr. PRATTasked the Secretary for Scotland what special steps, if any, he proposes to take with reference to the employment of discharged and disabled sailors and soldiers on the land in Scotland; and whether he has yet considered the resolution from the Royal Scottish Arboriculture Society, urging the expedition of schemes of afforestation in Scotland?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The Board of Agriculture for Scotland is making inquiry as to the matter referred to in the first part of the question. The resolution mentioned in the second part of the question has been referred to the Scottish Advisory Committee, who will consider it and report to the Board.

    CEYLON (MARTIAL LAW).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date or dates was martial law proclaimed in Ceylon, and to which provinces did the proclamation extend; whether martial law is still in force; whether he has any evidence that the rioting, as a consequence of which martial law was proclaimed, had an anti-Government character or was entirely due to local religious and racial animosities; whether courts-martial have been trying ordinary cases of rioting; whether any sentences of death have been passed and executed; whether forced levies are being raised from individuals who had no connection with the riots in order to pay compensation; and whether he can make any statement as to the present situation in Ceylon?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): Martial law was proclaimed in the Western Province and the Province of Sabaragamuwa on the 2nd of June, and in the Central, Southern, and North-Western Provinces on the 3rd of June. As far as I am aware, these Proclamations are still in force. Martial law w as also proclaimed as a precautionary measure in the Province of Uva and the North-Central Province on the 17th of June, but this Proclamation was revoked on the 29th of June.
    The evidence at present obtained is to the effect that the rioting was chiefly due to racial and religious animosities. Special Commissioners, who possess judicial powers as district judges and police magistrates, deal summarily with ordinary cases of riot, and only remit to courts-martial those cases which appear to them sufficiently grave to warrant such procedure. Sentences of death have been passed in certain cases, but I am not aware whether they have been confirmed or executed.
    In assessing the compensation to be paid, it is considered that, where all villages in a district would appear to have been concerned in rioting, it is right that every village in the district should contribute except such as can satisfactorily prove that they took no part in the riots. The latest information which I have received shows that the situation is satisfactory.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask for a further explanation with regard to those cases which are submitted from the
    2130
    ordinary Courts to court-martial? What is the distinction in such cases? Is it agreed, when tranquility reigns and the ordinary Courts are sitting, that they should consider the cases, and on what grounds, therefore, are grave cases submitted to court-martial? Is it considered that they will receive a better trial by court-martial?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The trials are all under martial law, but it is considered better that ordinary criminals should be dealt with by ordinary methods. The others are under the ordinary military government.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any evidence has been received that German intrigue instigated these riots?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: There is no evidence at all that has reached me to that effect, but I should not be myself inclined to say it was impossible that it had something to do with it.

    MUNITIONS.

      CARNARVON LABOUR EXCHANGE.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the officials of the Labour Exchange at Carnarvon, under orders, decline to give any information either to public bodies or public men who desire to co-operate with the Labour Exchange in facilitating the bringing together of employers and workmen for ammunition and other purposes; and whether he will give instructions to the Labour Exchange, in view of the War, to relax the rules and to give to and receive information from all persons who can be of assistance in this time of emergency?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): Local Labour Exchange officials have been instructed that they should not, without special instructions in each case, give information as to individual applicants for work or as to employers who have applied for workpeople. It is evidently in the interests of all concerned that such information should, as a rule, be regarded as confidential. Any information, however, that can properly be given is and will be given by the responsible superior officers at the Divisional Offices or at the Central Office for Labour Exchanges.
      Mr. DAVIES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it took this particular office over twelve days to answer a certain letter regarding inquiries of the Board of Trade?
      Mr. PRETYMAN: In reply to that I would say that the letter had to be referred to the divisional office, and then other inquiries had to be made. I have looked into the matter, and, so far as I can see, every reasonable expedition was used.
      Mr. DAVIES: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that in time of war it should take twelve days to answer a letter as to whether or not a man could find work in munition works?
      Mr. PRETYMAN: That depends entirely upon the case and the areas over which inquiries have to be spread.
      Mr. DAVIES: Does the hon. Gentleman think it reasonable that an inquiry made in Carnarvon, by a Carnarvon resident, should be sent to Cardiff, 200 miles away, and that it should take ten days to say whether a particular individual could not find work as a fitter in a munition factory?
      Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think the answering of the letter had any influence whatever on the efforts already being made to find work, which is the material point.

      VOLUNTEER WORKERS.
      Mr. H. EDWARDSasked the Minister of Munitions whether, in his instructions to the Munitions Local Bureaux, in reference to their methods for the registration of munitions volunteers, he will urge the necessity of a very careful analysis of the class of each application?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend fully appreciates the necessity for the exercise of care in the direction indicated by my hon. Friend, and the detailed instructions issued to officers in charge of Munitions Bureaux laid special emphasis upon the necessity of the details of the workman's employment being fully and correctly stated on the enrolment form.

      CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC), SCOTLAND.
      Mr. PRATTasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Central Control
      2132
      Board (Liquor Traffic) have yet come to any decision as to the areas to be scheduled by the Board in Scotland; and, if so, what are these areas?
      Dr. ADDISON: An Order in Council scheduling certain Scottish areas, and making regulations applicable to them, will be made to-morrow.

    NETHERLANDS OVERSEAS TRUST.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that letters have been issued by Customs authorities demanding from exporters, under severe penalties, proof that goods which have, under permits from the War Trade Department, been consigned to the Netherlands Overseas Trust have not reached enemy destinations; and if, in view of the fact that exporters have no control over the delivery of goods consigned to the Overseas Trust and no responsibility in regard thereto, all such letters already issued will be withdrawn and the further issue of such letters prevented?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The letters in question have been issued in pursuance of the powers conferred upon the Board of Customs and Excise by Section 5 (1) of the Customs (War Powers) Act, 1915, and I see no reason why they should be withdrawn. The Board inform me, however, that in the case of goods exported under licence specifying the Netherlands Overseas Trust as the consignee, they are content with evidence that the goods have in fact reached the Trust.

    EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN.
    Mr. H. EDWARDSasked the President of the Board of Education what steps he proposes to take to supervise the hours of labour, the remuneration, and the conditions of labour where children of school age are employed in any capacity; and whether, in such action as he contemplates, he will arrange that inspectors of schools shall visit the places of employment and report to his Department the conditions amid which children are employed?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I may refer my hon. Friend to the answers given on the 7th July to the hon. Member for Brighton, and on the 22nd July to the hon. Member for West Bradford, of which I am sending him copies.

    BRITISH TRADE (NEUTRAL MARKETS).
    Mr. YEOasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any statement as to the progress of the steps which are being taken for the development of British trade after the War in neutral markets and notably in China?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: A Special Commissioner is now in China, and his report should prove of considerable assistance in this direction. An Assistant Commercial Attaché has also recently been appointed in China. Steps have been taken to bring to the notice of British traders the opportunity afforded by the War to secure trade previously in German hands, and I have reason to hope that some of the trade in neutral markets so secured will be permanently retained.

    ALIEN ENEMIES.

      WORK OF INTERNMENT COMMITTEE.
      Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many alien enemies and how many persons of hostile origin or association have been interned or repatriated since the 12th of July; how many of each of these classes, respectively, are still at large in prohibited areas and in the rest of the United Kingdom, respectively; how many claims for exemption from internment or repatriation have been made; and how many of such claims have been allowed?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The Internment Committee, presided over by Mr. Justice Sankey, has sat on no less than forty occasions since it first met on 27th May last, and, by working very long hours, has been able to report to me today that it has practically finished its work. It has received more than 14,000 applications for exemptions from internment, each of which has been dealt with on its merits. The largest class of
      2134
      exempted persons consist of those who are by race Poles, Czechs, Italians, Alsatians or the like. British subjects have been treated with so much more leniency in Austria and Hungary than in Germany that exceptional consideration has been given to applications for exemption on the part of Austrians and Hungarians.
      The figures are as follows: Out of the 14,117 applications for exemption, 7,325 have been refused and 6,092 have been granted. There remain 700 cases which have been considered, but their final decision waits the result of inquiries.
      The Repatriation Committee, which is presided over by Mr. Justice Younger, has been devoting itself to its task with equal assiduity, but as this branch of the work was undertaken later, it has not yet completed its labours. Since the present policy was announced, alien enemies, including children, have been repatriated to the number of 6,302. The additional number interned is now 9,325. The internment is proceeding at the rate of about 1,000 a week. About 6,000 remain to be interned, and this process is expected to be completed before the end of next month.
      The House and the country are greatly indebted to the two judges and the four Members of Parliament (the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Epping Division, the hon. Member for Peebles and Selkirk, the hon. Member for the Bewdley Division, and the hon. Member for Newry), to Miss Lawrence and Miss Talbot, the ladies who are serving on the Repatriation Committee, and also to the secretaries of the Committees, Mr. Brodrick and Mr. Atkins, and the officials who have worked with them, for the energy and devotion with which they have carried through their most laborious task.
      Mr. McNEILL: How many of the 6,000 cases which have been granted exemption are Germans?
      Sir J. SIMON: I made that inquiry to-day. I cannot give the figures at the moment, but the intention is to analyse the figures further, and it may be well to issue a White Paper which will show under different statistical heads how that matter stands.
      Mr. KING: Out of these 6,000, have a number been granted exemption in order that they might leave the country for America or elsewhere, or in order that they may stay here?
      Sir J. SIMON: I think in nearly every case they stay here. It is contrary to the policy which the Government has adopted to allow alien enemies to leave this country and go to a neutral State, at any rate if they are persons of military age.
      Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: Can my right hon. Friend give any idea as to the principle that is adopted with regard to persons of Polish nationality?
      Sir J. SIMON: Those of Polish nationality in most cases may fairly be regarded as belonging to a friendly race, even though of an enemy State, and we have rather had regard to their friendly race than to the enemy State to which they belong.
      Mr. RENDALL: When the tables are published, will my right hon. Friend see that men and women are distinguished?
      Sir d. SIMON: Yes.

    IRISH VOLUNTEERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary what are the terms of the instruction issued from the Censor's office or its representative in Ireland to Irish newspapers to suppress all mention of the banishment of Irish Volunteers from Ireland for their political opinions, without trial or accusation, and all matter relating thereto; and under what Statute, if any, this instruction has been issued?
    Sir J. SIMON: No such instructions have ever been issued.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it from the right Hon. Gentleman or from the Censor that the Under-Secretary at Dublin Castle receives his power and instructions for the action he has taken in this matter?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not think instructions are received either from the Censor or from myself.
    Mr. GINNELL: He has done it off his own bat.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will give the terms of the instruction issued from Dublin Castle to Irish newspapers to suppress all mention of the banishment of Irish Volunteers from Ireland for their political opinions, without trial or accusation, and all matters relating thereto; and under what Statute, if any, this instruction has been issued?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No instructions of the nature indicated in the question have been issued by the Irish Government.

    ENGLISH WIFE OF INTERNED ALIEN ENEMY.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary what has been done or is about to be done for the destitute young English woman sent to prison by magistrates at Gravesend for having married a German who is now interned in this country; seeing that, as an English woman by birth and race, she would not be admitted to Germany and cannot be sent there; whether any grant has been asked or obtained for her out of the moneys placed in the hands of the American Ambassador for destitute Germans; and, if not, whether she will be employed in the internment camp in which her husband is or in some way be enabled to live elsewhere than in prison, since she is not accused of any illegality?
    Sir J. SIMON: This case was mentioned at Question Time yesterday. I have been in communication with the justices about this case, and though the girl undoubtedly contravened the Aliens Order, I have felt justified in all the circumstances in advising the remission of the fine imposed. The girl, as I stated yesterday, has already been released, the fine having been paid for her. The Commissioner of Metropolitan Police has made temporary provision for her, and I do not anticipate any difficulty will arise if she wishes to return to her parents.

    BARONESS VON SCHROEDER.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Home Secretary whether Baroness von Schroeder, who, together with her husband was naturalised after the outbreak of War, and who has sons fighting in the German army, has been permitted to go abroad; and, if so, to what places?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am informed that Baroness von Schroeder has not gone abroad.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Not been abroad. That is the question on the Paper.
    Sir J. SIMON: I am sure the answer I have been furnished with means that.

    2137
    Our information is that she has not gone abroad in the sense that she has not been abroad.

    ADMIRALTY MOTOR CARS.
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if all the motor cars belonging to or in the service of all Departments of the Admiralty have distinctive marks upon them by which they can be readily recognised by the public as being used on Government service?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Generally speaking, the answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. FELL: The usual "O.H.M.S." and so on?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, or "R.N.A.S."

    NAVAL BOUNTY (FREDERICK EVANS, DECEASED).
    Mr. H. EDWARDSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that Frederick Evans, Royal Naval Service, of His Majesty's ship "Cæsar," who was discharged on 15th February, 1915 (Certificate No. 2,127 D), on the ground of ill-health, within a few months of the period of twenty years' service which would have entitled him to a bounty, has recently died at the Aberystwyth Infirmary and has left behind him a widow and two small children, the Admiralty will give favourable consideration to their claim for the allowance which Frederick Evans would have been entitled to?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not having fully completed the necessary period of service, the late Seaman Evans was not entitled to the Royal Naval Reserve gratuity, and the Regulations do not provide for the payment of any proportionate part of the gratuity in respect of the completion of any less period than twenty years. He was originally awarded a Naval Disability Pension of £13 14s. a year for life, but as, on a further review of his case, it is considered that the disease for which he was invalided may be regarded as developed in the Service, the pension awarded will 'be revised in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services
    2138
    (Pensions and Grants), and any additional sum due on this account, as from the 1st March, will be paid to Evans' legal representatives. The necessary inquiries, with a view to the award of a pension to Mrs. Evans and of allowances for her children, are being made.

    MAIN ROADS (EXPENDITURE).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has any authority over county councils in respect of their expenditure upon main roads directly under their control; and, if so, whether he exercises or is prepared to exercise such authority in order to prevent the continuance of excessive expenditure at any rate during the War?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Except as regards expenditure proposed to be defrayed out of loan, my right hon. Friend has no authority other than that involved in the audit of the accounts of these councils.

    IMPRISONMENT AND EXPULSION (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the number of Irishmen arrested, imprisoned, now in prison, expelled, and now under notice of expulsion, respectively, in Ireland, on political grounds, since the War began, specifying the number of cases in each class in which there has been no trial; the number of those imprisoned with hard labour; and the number now in prison without trial or accusation?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No Irishmen have been arrested, imprisoned, expelled, or given notice of expulsion on political grounds since the War began.
    Mr. GINNELL: Are not those punished under the Defence of the Realm Act punished on political grounds and no other?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. I do not consider that anyone who is found trespassing in a prohibited area, or who gives false information about the presence of German submarines, can be said to be punished on political grounds.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House

    2139
    showing what these gentlemen have really done; whether they have been merely criticising the general policy of the Government or done something more serious such as would qualify them for Cabinet rank?

  RESTRICTIVE LIQUOR LAWS.
  Mr. PRATTasked the Prime Minister, having regard to the need for thrift and economy among all classes in the United Kingdom and the increase of savings of the Russian people consequent on the enactment of restrictive liquor laws in that country, whether he will consider the desirability of similar legislation for this country, in addition to what may be done by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic)?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I must refer my hon. Friend to my answer to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh on the 5th instant.

  Transit of Eggs (Ireland and Great Britain).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether traders and provision factors in the egg trade in Glasgow and Manchester, while satisfied that eggs are put on rail in Ireland in good condition and packed to bear reasonable handling, yet arrive broken and unsaleable from rough usage in transit, and in consequence threaten to stop taking Irish eggs; and, having regard to the growing importance of the egg industry for both Ireland and this country, whether the Board will do anything to improve the transit of eggs?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I can only, refer the hon. Member to the answer he received to a similar question asked by him on Thursday last.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does the Board of Trade regard as complaints questions put on the Paper in this House, or do they think they are being put for fun?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: When the same question is put three days running there is some little doubt on that subject.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the Board of Trade inquire into this serious matter?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, Sir. The answer that was given was that the Board of Trade are inquiring and are doing their best.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman let me know the result?

  Local Education Authorities.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether it is the policy of the Board that local authorities which are local education authorities should still be encouraged as far as possible to use the powers conferred upon them by Section 4 of the Education Act, 1880 (as amended by Section 6 of the Education Act, 1900, and Section 1 of the Education Act, 1899), also the provisions of Section 6 of the Education Act, 1876, also the provisions of Section 7 of the Education Act, 1876 (as amended by Sections 5 and 25 of the Education Act, 1902), also the provisions of Sections 3, 5, and 13 of the Employment of Children Act, 1903, also the provisions of Section 29 of the Education Act, 1876, and of Section 8 of the Employment of Children Act, 1903?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: So far as these matters are within the province of the Board it is certainly their policy to encourage local education authorities to use their powers for the benefit and protection of school children. The Board have indicated the extent to which, in the present exceptional circumstances, they feel justified in acquiescing in exceptional arrangements for the employment of children in agriculture.

  Letters Intercepted (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General what extra remuneration or prospect of promotion has been offered to postal officials in Ireland for intercepting, reporting, or sending to headquarters for examination letters of persons supposed to be political opponents of the Government; how many of them have so far consented to act in this manner; and how many have been dismissed and warned, respectively, on political grounds during the last twelve months?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I understand the hon. Member to suggest that certain Post Office servants in Ireland have been requested to act in a manner contrary to their ordinary duty, that those who have so acted have been rewarded,

  2141
  and that those who have refused so to act have been penalised. There is no foundation for any such suggestion.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last clause of the question?
  Mr. PIKE PEASE: The question is really a very improper one altogether.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    DEDUCTIONS FROM ACCOUNTS.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he will state the reasons justifying the deductions insisted upon by the National Health Insurance Commissioners (England), in circular I.C.L. 124, of one-third of the quarterly accounts of panel practitioners, chemists, and institutions, after services have been rendered and an agreement has been entered into by each party?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): There is no question of any deduction from or abatement of the remuneration payable under the agreements to which the hon. Member alludes. The circular in question had reference only to the subject of advances on account of that remuneration, and indicated the extent to which such advances might safely be made without risk of exceeding the sums which will ultimately prove to be due under those agreements.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked why there has been no advance on account nor adjustment of the deductions of 10 per cent. made in the accounts of doctors, chemists, and institutions for the year 1914; and whether the Government will instruct the Commissioners to deal with the deductions owing to enlistments upon a less arbitrary and more generous basis by a temporary increase of the Treasury Grant, if necessary, considering that the medical profession has undertaken the free treatment of soldiers' wives and families and other dependants and have lost the most healthy portion of their panel?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The final settlement for 1914 has been unavoidably delayed by certain difficulties arising out of the present state of war. The balance due, which is considerably overestimated in the hon. Member's question, will be ascertained and paid as soon as is practicable;
    2142
    while in the case of the chemists, who might otherwise have suffered hardship, steps were taken in April last to effect an emergency settlement which is now in progress. In reply to the second part of the question, I cannot admit the implications of the hon. Member's epithets or his suggestion that a further sum should be provided by the Exchequer.

    Street Widening, Cardiff.
    Mr. H. EDWARDSasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state when he hopes to announce the name of the independent valuer whom he has nominated in connection with the widening of Duke Street, Cardiff; and whether, in view of the violation of the promise given to the representative ratepayers' association that they should be heard by the Duke Street Improvement Committee before that committee put forward any scheme to the city council of Cardiff, he has ensured that, at the promised independent inquiry by the valuer nominated by the Local Government Board, the Cardiff Ratepayers' Association will be given an opportunity to formulate their objections?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: If the hon. Member will refer to the reply given to his question of the 12th instant, he will see that he is under a misapprehension as to the position. At that date my right hon. Friend had already received the report of the valuer nominated by him, who was satisfied that the scheme is a fair and equitable bargain. No other independent inquiry has been promised, and at the present time none is contemplated. The name of the valuer is Mr. John Murray.

    Police Duties (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will say how many county and district inspectors of police in Ireland receive yearly allowances, and how much, for the upkeep of a man servant and never keep one; how many receive yearly allowances, and how much, for the upkeep of a horse but use a bicycle or hired car when they require one; how many policemen of all ranks are now engaged in political espionage, as distinguished from ordinary police duties; and whether, as an example of and inducement to thrift, he will stop these items of expenditure or bring them under the notice of the Economy Committee?
    Mr. BIRRELL: A servant's allowance of £15 per annum is paid to 217 county and district inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary, of whom 194 have servants, the remaining twenty-three being at present without them for various reasons. The allowance of £50 per annum towards the maintenance of either a horse or a motor car, the possession of one or other of which must be certified each month by all officers drawing the allowance, is at present paid to 212 of them. It is part of the ordinary duties of all members of the force to exercise such supervision as may be possible and necessary over persons who have committed or are suspected of committing illegal acts. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.

    Temperance Teaching (India).
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in 1907 the Government of India recommended to the local government the introduction of suitable temperance teaching in schools; whether he is aware that the Secretary of State for India, in his dispatch to the Governor-General of India in Council, dated 29th May, 1914, suggested the adaptation of the syllabus of the Board of Education in England for this purpose; and whether he can state what steps have been taken in each of the major provinces of India to carry out this recommendation?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): My information is to the effect that on receipt of Lord Crewe's Excise dispatch of 29th May, 1915, the Government of India requested local governments to give effect to the suggestion referred to by the right hon. Member, and that in Bombay, Madras, and Bengal the Education Department has been called upon by the local government to submit proposals. I presume that similar steps have been taken in other provinces. I will ask the Government of India to see that the action taken in each province is noticed in the next Provincial Excise Reports.

  EMPIRE BATTALLION.
  Colonel BOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of state for War how it is that, while hon. Members have been asking for the report in connection with the Empire Battalion, the "Globe" newspaper to-day has printed what assumes to be a full
  2144
  report, and whether, in view of the misleading effect upon the public mind caused by this premature publication, he will now make a statement on this matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: The notice which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given me has only just been put into my hands. Therefore, I have had no opportunity of seeing what is reported in the "Globe" newspaper. Consequently, I am unable to say whether that report is true and accurate, and anything like a full report, or merely a picturesque account of what occurred at the proceedings in connection with the Empire Battalion. In these circumstances, I hardly think the House would expect me to make a statement on a matter of this importance.
  Colonel BOWDEN: As this is a matter of great public interest and deep concern to myself personally, is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to make a statement, or will he make a statement tomorrow? An explanation has been promised time after time. Will the report in its official form be on the Table to-morrow and be in a position to be debated?
  Mr. TENNANT: The report will be in the hands of hon. Gentlemen this evening.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: How has this report got into the "Globe" newspaper?
  Colonel BOWDEN: I much regret to say that the thing is so unsatisfactory that I must give notice on the Adjournment of the House to-night to raise this subject. I very much regret to have to occupy the time of the House in doing so.
  Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend asked how this report got into the newspaper. I should very much like to know myself.
  Colonel BOWDEN: I sincerely hope that you will know.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    MILITARY AND NAVAL WAR PENSIONS BILL.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUELasked the Prime Minister what action the Government proposes to take in view of the decision of the House of Lords to postpone the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill until after the Recess, especially having regard to the inconvenience and loss to many soldiers and sailors who are waiting to get their permanent pension fixed under this Bill; whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that on 18th November, 1914, a pledge was exacted by the then Leader of the Opposition from the Government that they would act on the decision of the Select Committee, and that such a pledge was given on behalf of the Government; therefore, does not this pledge constitute a binding bargain between all parties in the State that they would abide by the findings of the Select Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will deal with this matter on the Adjournment to-morrow.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Are we to understand from that statement that the House is going to rise to-morrow, whether this Bill passes or not?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend must understand that I am, to-morrow, going to move the Motion for the Adjournment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Are we to understand that the soldiers and sailors are to go without their pensions for the convenience of the Government?
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many loyal supporters of the Government, who are quite prepared to fall in with his Motion, feel a great deal of concern about starting for the holidays with this question unsettled.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure that is so.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Then why do not you insist upon it?
    Mr. HOGGE: May I appeal to the Prime Minister to tell us to-day whether the Bill will be proceeded with before the Recess, and I would ask him whether he thinks it is fair to us to only make a statement to-morrow, when the only thing that is open to us to do is to continue the discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to what I have said.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that we Members of Parliament are receiving letters every day asking us questions about the pensions of these men, and does he not think that it is really a most serious matter that we should now have a delay of two months before this Bill comes into operation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I quite sympathise with the hon. Member's observations.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the Prime Minister aware that the discussion was curtailed on this Bill on account of the urgency of the measure, and will he take that into account in reconsidering his decision as to the length of the Recess?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I shall not reconsider the decision in regard to the length of the Recess, but I shall take all these other matters into consideration.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Having regard to the large number of Members who desire to take part in the Debate to-morrow, and the further fact that it is generally understood that two Members of the Cabinet are going to make important Ministerial statements, can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to move the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-morrow?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Not unless I receive something like a general expression of opinion that such is the desire of the House.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: By what method does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that we can convey our views in the direction he has suggested?
    The PRIME MINISTER: By the ordinary method.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Are we going to have the Closure moved to-morrow before 11 o'clock?

  PRICE OF COAL (LIMITATION) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  PRICE OF COAL (LIMITATION) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Sale of Coal in London in Small Quantities.)
    The Board of Trade may make regulations fixing the increase in the price of coal sold in any place in quantities of less than two hundredweight over the price of the same coal sold at the same place and time by the ton.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    In view of the decision that the first Clause which stands on the Paper in my name was outside the scope of the Bill, I may be allowed to express considerable regret that it has not been possible for that reason to bring to the notice of the House a scheme which would have had a very great effect in enabling purchasers in London and elsewhere to obtain coal at low prices. No more can be said about that, but it is an additional argument which I venture to put before the House in support of the Clause which now I am allowed to move. The Clause as it appears on the Paper differs from the Clause which I moved in Committee, and if its drafting is not exactly as it should be that is due to the fact that it had to be drafted in the course of a few minutes after the Committee stage, when everybody thought that the Report stage was going to be taken on the following morning, and that therefore all Amendments would have to be put on the Paper at once. While I apologise for the form of the new Clause, yet in bringing this subject once again before the House may I say that one of the principal causes, if not the principal cause, of the dissatisfaction which led to the appointment of the Committee on low prices was the fact that among the very poorest of our population, especially among the very poorest in London, last winter the prices of coal were rushed up to a figure which was absolutely exorbitant. When speaking in the Committee I ventured to make use of the expression "a political fraud," and though I did not say that the Bill was a political fraud, as in itself I do not consider it to be so, yet I did say this, and I adhere to it:—
    "If this Bill goes forward in the shape in which it now is the Government will be considered to have fathered a political fraud. …. If the public, in the course of next winter find, as I believe they will certainly find, unless this Amendment is carried, that
    2160
    they are not in a better position than they were last year, they will say the whole thing has been a fraud."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, col. 1767.]
    I still believe that to be the case, and if this Bill goes forward as it is at present, without any definite provision of the kind affecting the sale of coal in small quantities by hawkers among the poor, and the prices go up to 38s., 40s., and 45s. per ton, as they did last winter, I feel certain, judging from the number of letters which I have received on the subject during the last two or three days since the subject began to be discussed, that the public will say that they have been absolutely misled by the promises of the Government with regard to the prices of coal. This matter was raised early in the year, and very much was said in the Debate on the prices of coal and food with regard to the exorbitant prices which the poor were suffering from, and when this question came before the Committee that point was considered, and they expressively say—
    "We also recommend that the Government should at once consider the question of inviting the London County Council to arrange that the council itself, and any other public bodies which already possess or can secure the necessary facilities should during the coming summer acquire and, so far as possible, store within easy roach of London large stocks of household coal to be sold during the winter at prices and under conditions to be fixed in consultation with the Government to the traders engaged in supplying small consumers. Such a step would, we believe, have a salutary effect in steadying prices."
    It is the case of the small consumer about which I am most concerned throughout this discussion, and it is with the object of benefiting the small consumer that I put down this proposal, which I have some slight hope that the Board of Trade may accept. The Government have brought in a Bill to fix the increase in the price that is to be paid for coal by the purchaser at the pit-mouth as compared with the price of 1913. They have also gone further, as was announced by the President of the Board of Trade on the Second Beading of this Bill, because they have entered into agreements with merchants in London by which an additional sum—the figure has never yet been stated, but I believe it to be 7s. 6d.—is to be allowed to the merchants at which to sell over and above the price which they have to pay for the coal at the London depot. So there is the 4s. at the pit-mouth, then there is the freight, and then there is this margin which has to be added in the case of all coal in London sold to the ordinary consumer. But those agreements do not and cannot regulate the additional price which will be put on the coal hawked among the poor.

    2161
    As far as I am able to see, the poor people of London, and I believe elsewhere, are really to be left not only to the mercy of the coal merchants—many I have no doubt will adhere to their undertaking—but also to the mercy of the hawkers, who it would appear have no obligation placed upon them at all. May I point out once again that, during the three months in which the rapid rise of coal took place, to the ordinary householder the price in February was 7s. over and above the price in November, but the hawkers at that time raised the price to the poor, by increases, from 11s. 4d. to almost 17s., so that the enormous increase which took place in the price of coal really fell on the very poor. The reason is that the very poor are always living on the verge of famine prices, and the moment any difficulty occurs, whether it be in coal or anything else, the poor man suffers. The poor man cannot buy more than half a hundredweight or a hundredweight of coal at a time, for he is a person who is living from hand to mouth, and he has to purchase at whatever price he can. It is for that reason that any shortage falls immediately and with the greatest heaviness upon the very poorest of the people. I regret that the Board of Trade has not seen its way to do more in this direction than it has' done. That it can be prevented I am certain.
    Last winter in many parts of London, when coal was being hawked at 38s. 4d. a ton in those districts where the poor people dwell, coal at 26s. 8d. was being supplied by various charitable institutions and others at the rate that the ordinary well-to-do consumer paid for his coal. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, of which we hear so much, through its committee have, all through this winter, provided coal for the wives of soldiers and sailors upon their paying 1s. 4d. a hundredweight, which is about 26s. a ton. The woman who pays the 1s. 4d. gets a ticket and goes to the coal merchant, where she is able to get her coal with the ticket. Under this course of business the coal merchant is sure of his money, his dealing with the coal is simplified, and in this way the poor can be saved from this exorbitant system of charges by hawkers, about which we have heard so much during the last year, t believe something could be done in this direction; but if this House leaves the Bill as it stands, and gives no one any authority to deal with this question, I do not see how anything is going
    2162
    to be done. Therefore I suggest that it we could give the Board of Trade power to at any rate limit the amount of the additional price to be put upon the sale of coal in small quantities, I believe it would have a very desirable effect. If it be said that it is impossible to do that, then we have done our best, but if something can be done, the Board of Trade, I have no doubt, will give us their aid to carry it through.
    I apologise to the House for spending so much time on this particular question, but I submit that, by merely giving the Board of Trade power to make regulations, we shall be doing, no harm and may be doing a great deal of good. The London County Council, as I pointed out in Committee, have made a by-law for regulating the sale of coal in small quantities. The by-law imposes the obligation upon the hawker to show upon a board fixed to his cart the price o£ coal, it may be 35s. a ton or whatever the charge may be, and by the by-law he is not allowed to sell the coal by any kind of subterfuge for more than that amount. But there is no by-law to regulate the figure put on the board fixed to the cart, and I believe, if the Board of Trade had that power, that it might regulate in London the price at which the hawkers would be allowed to hawk the coal I earnestly ask the President of the Board of Trade not to refuse this merely discretionary power which I suggest should be bestowed upon his Department, and I believe a great thing for the poor people in the coming winter could in this way be accomplished, while very likely it would avoid a good deal of dangerous agitation, which I feel certain would occur if the price next winter should be anything like the figure to which it reached last winter.
    Mr. GLYN-JONES: I beg to second the Motion.
    Representing, as I do, one of the poorest of the East London constituencies, I should fail in my duty if I did not urge the Government to accept my right hon. Friend's Amendment. My right hon. Friend stated that those who have fairly large salaries can to a large extent protect themselves from the ordinary advance of winter prices. There are very few of my Constituents who can do that. But I am not at the moment urging the case of people who can even buy a ton of coal at one time; I am asking consideration for a class of people whom I am sure the

    2163
    Government will try; to help, and I believe the House would desire that it should do so. It is quite a common sight in the winter to see little children carrying seven pounds or fourteen pounds of coal for which they have been sent to the coal dealer in some back street or slum. All that this particular Amendment does is to say that if the Government cannot fix a retail price at which coal shall be sold by the ton, at any rate let them, where the price per ton is fixed by the ordinary methods of competition, step in and say that the rate of increase for the small quantities shall not be above a certain scale.
    These poor people cannot help themselves. It is deplorable that they are being compelled to buy their coal, as many of them buy the necessaries of life, in driblets. All this is deplorable enough, but when you consider that advantage is taken of their extreme poverty to make an increased profit out of them because they are not able to buy two or three hundredweights or a ton at a time, I do think that the House will see that there ought to be protection for these people. The Government, at any rate, have dealt with the main problem, the big difficulty, in regard to the maximum price at the pit-head, but, in view of the facts I have stated, the proposal which is now made is no very heroic thing which the Government is called upon to do, nor a very difficult thing, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a very useful help for these poor people, who are really deserving of all the assistance we can give them. I shall be told, perhaps, by some hon. Members that it is an impossible thing to do, and that these small hawkers or small coal dealers in these poor constituencies will find some other way of getting the increased percentage of profit out of them. I do not think that is any legitimate excuse for not doing this much, at any rate, for these poor people, who have to pay these large prices all over London. It has been suggested that the hawker would say: "If you only have 14 lbs or 28 lbs. or half a hundredweight, I will get an extra sixpence for bringing it to your door, or lifting it off the cart." The ingenuity of these poor people will, at any rate, run to this: that they will send their children, as they do now, to carry the coal from those small coal yards. I hope that the Government will not,
    2164
    because they cannot do more than this, decline to accept the proposal of my right hon. Friend. I beg to second.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The object which my hon. Friends have in view is undoubtedly a good one, and if it were possible to help those whom they represent, in this House, by the adoption of this Clause, I should certainly be one of the first to support it. The Clause itself does not provide any machinery for carrying out the obligation which is placed upon the Board of Trade. But I do not criticise it on those grounds, for its object is one with which we all sympathise, and the only question is how far that object can be carried out by this proposal. The case of the small purchaser who buys small lots, practically by the pail or scuttle, has always been difficult, not only because they are the victims of those with whom they trade, and here I would say in passing, that all the traders are not to be put in the same category, but victims of their own habit. Panic in the demand for coal is by no means unknown amongst the large consumers. Directly we get cold weather in London there is, by a great part of the population which is not provident, and have no means whereby it can be provident, a rush for the moment to pay almost anything to get a coal supply. This was a case that was brought before the Committee presided over by Mr. Vaughan Nash. They spent a good deal of time on that Committee in trying to deal with this particular case, because of the extreme necessity, and that Committee were certainly as benevolently-minded as this House, and they came to the conclusion, after examining the case, that it was impossible to give relief effectively to those poor purchasers, by means of fixing maximum prices, and they said so in their Report. The very first paragraph of that section of the Report which provides us with recommendations, declares that they could not recommend that maximum prices should be fixed, I presume for this or for any other class. That is not the view of my right hon. and learned Friend who proposed and of my hon. Friend who seconded this Clause. I put to them one or two of the difficulties which seem now and seemed to the Committee insurmountable. The first is that the only way in which this could be made effective would be for the Board of Trade itself to deal with the case of every district in London, and it is quite conceivable it might be

    2165
    necessary to deal with the case of almost every street in London. But even when they had dealt with it, and arrived at what they thought to be a fair price for the scuttle of coal, they would be faced with the constant difficulty of having to follow the hawker from door to door before they knew whether he was or was not adopting the regulation. It was because of the impossibility of dealing with the small coal trade in that way that the Committee were not prepared to recommend maximum prices, even for the relief of those small consumers.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Committee also reported against dealing with maximum prices for large consumers.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, they did, for the retail trade, but they did not report against regulations at the pit-head. The effect of this proposal, as it is now on the Paper, and as it is commended by the right hon. Gentleman, if it were passed and the price fixed by the Board of Trade were too low, might lead to whole districts being deprived of the advantage (and there is some advantage), of sale in email quantities. Indeed, one of the dangers of dealing with retail maximum prices is that in the effort to cut down prices for small consumers and purchasers we may do the next worst thing, or perhaps worst of all, namely, prevent the supply reaching the district at all, and the Committee had that also present in their mind. If they came to the conclusion that this is not the best way of dealing with the situation, I fear I must accept their view. I should not be prepared to leave the case there. When the Committee reported I at once put myself into communication with the London Counts' Council, and, for reasons which they thought good, they ultimately decided that they themselves could not and were not prepared to establish depots. There is another suggestion which my right hon. and learned Friend had down on the Paper, but which does not come within the scope of this Bill, namely, that offices for the sale of coal in small quantities in every Metropolitan borough or within the Metropolitan police district might be provided. It is not in order to discuss that proposal now, but that certainly would have been one of the ways of dealing with the sale of coal by providing for its distribution, and that is really the serious matter before us, over the areas where it is most needed. Indeed, if the sale of coal could properly be placed under control,
    2166
    I know of no other or better way of dealing with it than that.
    4.0 P.M.
    In this Bill we cannot insert a Clause of that nature, but I think it is as well to let the House know what some of the largest of the coal distributors have undertaken to do in conference with me quite recently. They are concerned mainly with the large consumer, and the small consumer, for their purposes of organisation practically does not pay. Men who are dealing with an enormous quantity of coal cannot be bothered with the detailed organisation for distribution, scuttle by scuttle, or from door to door, nor are their depots in the districts where the demand is most insistent. These large purchasers who control such an important portion of the supply in London have both written and told me that they are prepared, should occasion arise—that is to say, if coal goes up in price unduly during the coming winter—to open in the poorer parts of London shops which will do for the poor people what the depots do for the better-to-do. The well-to-do classes are amply provided for in practically every district, but unless there are shops where the poor people can drop in and get the scuttle of coal they can buy, they must be driven into the hands of the hawker. Those merchants to whom I refer are prepared, with the help of others engaged in the trade, and in many cases with the help of philanthropic societies, to open coal shops in those poorest districts; and although it may be a different manner of business from that which they have been conducting in the past, I am sure I should be glad to hear that they had greatly extended the distribution of coal for which they are responsible in those poor districts. The poor are much safer in the hands of large merchants, who have a name to keep up, than in the case of the individual dealer who may not care a rap about his reputation, so long as he can get rid of his cartload of coal. That is one of the ways in which I hope some relief will come to the poor in London. But the Committee itself, when it went into the question, believed that it could only dominate prices in London effectively by controlling the price at the source of supply, and that is what the Bill attempts to do. Any attempt to fix retail prices by this House or by the Board of Trade or by any other legislating authority would I fear be futile, and would not attain the object which my hon. Friends have in view. I think it is

    2167
    in other directions that we must seek relief from the hawker troubles which were present in the minds of my hon. Friends. In so far as we keep down the pit-head price, I have no doubt some of the benefits will trickle through to the poorer portions of the community. I fear it would not be useful to any of us if we accepted the Clause as it has been moved, and I hope my hon. Friends will be satisfied for the present with other means of dealing with the question.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: As far as I am concerned, I should welcome the adoption of this Clause by the Board of Trade. It is on all fours with the voluntary arrangement and agreement which the leading coal merchants of London have made with the Board of Trade, and that being so there can be no objection to it so far as I am concerned. In fact, I am not sure that it would not be helpful to those merchants if the duty were placed upon the Board of Trade, and the public knew that the Board, of Trade was sharing with us the anxieties and responsibility of regulating the price of coal for the small consumer. A very natural surprise exists throughout London at the variety of prices for the small consumer. It is rather extraordinary that in the Metropolitan area there should be such varying prices. As I told the House on other stages of the Bill, the cost of coal in the different districts of London varies to the extent of 3s. a ton. You get two workmen on a job, one buying his coal at King's Cross and the other at Streatham or Croydon. The King's Cross man has to pay so much a hundredweight, while the Streatham man may have to pay 2d. a hundredweight more. The man who lives at Streatham does not know what the railway rate is, and he thinks that he is being robbed to the extent of 2d. a hundredweight by somebody. My experience of the public is that while there is always a genuine objection to paying high prices for anything the thing that offends them more than anything else is the feeling that they are being robbed, overcharged, or exploited by the people who are sending them goods, whether coal, meat, or anything else. If you could have something which would give confidence to the people outside that these difficulties were being met by the Board of Trade and the coal merchants concerned, I think it would relieve public anxiety to a considerable extent.
    Perhaps I might explain what really happens in regard to the sale of coal by
    2168
    small quantities. First of all, there are the trolleys which are sent out throughout London by the principal merchants. That trade has developed during the last twenty years. Previous to that, all coal sold in small quantities was sold by people called dealers. People who lived in London twenty years ago will remember that coal merchants, greengrocers, and a large number of that type of traders existed in London, and were called dealers. They came to the merchant's depot, bought coal, and were the means of distribution to the small consumers. About twenty years ago competition started amongst the leading coal merchants. One firm saw an opportunity of entering into a trade which the other large coal merchants were not doing, and they put upon the streets of London a large number of trolleys. The other coal merchants had to do the same thing in competition. So this trade by trolleys arose from competition amongst the coal merchants themselves, and they have done during the last twenty years a large trade in coal by the hundredweight and half-hundredweight. The men who take out these trolleys are paid so much a ton. It used to be 2s. a ton altogether. Then a question rose about wages. I do not think there was a strike, but there was a controversy about wages, and it was agreed that the men should have 2d. a ton more for every penny per hundredweight that the coal went up in price. The result is that when coal is 1s. 9d. or 1s. 10d. a hundredweight, as it was last winter, and I am afraid in some cases is now, the wages these men get is really a great deal more than was originally intended, and it seems to me rather too high, being about 3s. 6d. a ton. When a man under his trade union rate of wages gets 3s. 6d. a ton on the coal sold on his trolley, it very much increases the price of coal. It is only fair to the men to say that they do not put the whole of that into their pockets. These men trust their customers. They leave coal at a house, then misfortune comes to the customer, and they do not get their money. If you said to a trolley-man, "You have earned a lot of money; you have sold so many tons of coal, and you get 3s. 6d. a ton," he might fairly answer, that he had lost so much in bad debts. You cannot ascertain exactly what a man earns, and you cannot say positively that he earns more than he is entitled to for his work.
    Then there is another side to the question. The man does not earn so much as

    2169
    might be thought; neither does the merchant. The merchant can only keep his round of trolley-men by sending trolleys up and down the streets in the summer at a considerable loss. If he did not do so the men would not have a round in the winter. This is not a trade that the coal merchants are very anxious to maintain, although of course we want to maintain our tonnage. At the same time, it is a trade that has grown up. With regard to the price of the coal sold on trolleys by responsible merchants, it has been said that last winter, when there was a famine in coal, the trolley-men were not satisfied with the price at which the merchant sent the coal out, and they asked for more money. That may or may not have been the case. I am afraid it was so in some cases, but it would not be fair to charge the whole of the trolley-men with it. To meet that difficulty the London County Council have made a by-law, which comes into force almost at once, making it obligatory on coal merchants to place on the trolley an enamel plate bearing the price at which the coal has been sold. That is to be a fixed price, and it will be an offence if the men charge more than the amount there displayed. That will be some protection for next winter which we had not last winter.
    That is one method of supplying the small consumer. But there are a certain number of the old dealer class still left, and they are found, as my right hon. Friend has realised in going into this question, more in the poorest districts. They have remained in the poorer districts more than in the better-class neighbourhoods of London. Under them you get coal-sheds—I do not believe they are very numerous in London, but where they do exist it is a real hardship for the poor. When you take the whole Metropolitan area, and talk about the price paid by the poor for coal to these coal-sheds or small dealers, it would be wrong for the House to form the impression that a very appreciable quantity of coal is involved. It is a very small quantity indeed. I am not saying that in order to ask the House not to deal with that small quantity. I simply want the House to understand that it is not a large volume of trade. There is all the more reason, if it is a small volume of trade, that somebody should do something to remove the evil which exists. If the President of the Board of Trade had seen his way to accept the Clause as far as we as I merchants are concerned, we would have
    2170
    welcomed the intervention and co-operation of the Board of Trade. I apologise for speaking in this House about my own business. I have been in the House for ten years, and hon. Members who know me will agree that I have never, until this Bill came forward, spoken in reference to my own business or my own affairs. But I thought it my duty to the House on this occasion to do so. Speaking on behalf of the London coal merchants as far as I have any influence or control over what is to be done, I can only say that we shall be but too glad to put our minds to work in reference to this matter, quite apart from whether there is a gain or a loss. The quantity is so small, so far as the large merchants are concerned, that the question of profit or loss should not be considered.
    I think the leading coal merchants will be well-advised if, after the Debates in this House, and after public attention has been drawn to this question, they undertake the responsibility of going to the various poor districts in London, and setting up in each of those districts some establishment under their own control where poor persons who have to buy small quantities of coal can buy them without the cost of the trolley-men's wages and other items which belong to the ordinary sales. Coal merchants will be well-advised if they apply their minds to this matter, and arrange to have some scheme which will prevent this question from ever rising again as a black spot in the distribution of coal in this Metropolis. I hope the House will see that we share the anxieties of everybody with regard to this question. We should have welcomed the insertion of this Clause in the Bill, but, failing that, everything we can do—at any rate, everything I can do—shall be done in the direction desired by my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson).
    Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I am informed on good authority that coal is being sold to the poor in Fulham to-day at 1s. 9d. a cwt., which is 35s. a ton. That was the price ruling, I believe, in January last, and if that is a sign of what we are to expect next winter we have a very serious situation to face. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to accept this Clause, at any rate he will not treat the Report of the Departmental Committee as being the last word on the subject, but will realise that it is urgently necessary that something should be done to meet the

    2171
    hard case of London. The Departmental Committee have pointed out that the position of London in the matter of coal supply is peculiar. That peculiarity consists in this very unpleasant fact, that for reasons explained by the Committee, in times of scarcity London is the worst sufferer, and this further unpleasant fact, that while all London suffers badly the poorest in the community are hit hardest. That is mainly due to two causes. First of all, that they have no storage accommodation, and, in the next place, it is due to the very expensive system under which coal is distributed in London. Obviously it costs a great deal more to hawk a ton of coal round a large number of streets than if the customers purchased in larger quantities the amount of which was ascertained in advance. As, unfortunately, we are not able to discuss the Clause that my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras wished to propose, I hope that the President of the Board of Trade, as he referred to it sympathetically, will, at any rate, try to see whether some arrangement cannot be arrived at by which this very heavy cost of distribution in London may be reduced. There was one passage in the Report of the Departmental Committee which really speaks volumes. It said that—
    "During last winter the poor simply could not pay the prices that were demanded."
    When we realise what that means, and the consequent suffering—and those of us who are London Members are obliged to witness it—I think we must admit that every possible means should be utilised in order to try to prevent anything like equal suffering in the coming winter. I just make these observations in the hope—and I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will give full consideration to this matter, for he is, I believe, in full sympathy with the desire and with what we have said—that some useful and practical step will be taken.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: As a member of the Departmental Committee I apologise to the House for my absence, which was unavoidable, during the Debates on this Bill. The speeches which we have heard, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, has shown the grave importance of the issue which is now before the House. I quite agree with the statement of the President
    2172
    of the Board of Trade that the Departmental Committee did not try to fix a maximum price. First of all, we had mainly in our minds the larger question of the larger supply, and we also had put before us evidence and statements similar to those made by the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Sir E. Cornwall) as to the varying cost over the area, of Greater London, and the difficulty, therefore, of fixing one maximum price for the whole of that area. But I do not think that the President of the Board of Trade quite did the Committee justice in his résumé of the position at which they arrived. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that we had not fixed, or did not suggest, a maximum price for small quantities for London. But we did make so far as we could a distinctive proposition in our recommendations in connection with the necessity of something being done for these small supplies. Our recommendation may have been very crude in its character, but at least it pointed out that something would have to be done, unless we were going to be face to face with one of the gravest difficulties conceived of in regard to the supply of coal amongst the poorer people of the Metropolis, and other places of a similar character, during the ensuing winter.
    Our recommendation was that steps should at once be taken—and I do not forget that we signed our Report far back in March—to consider, in consultation with public bodies, the question of the accumulation by such bodies of a reserve of coal in or near London for the use of the small consumers during this winter. It will be seen that our recommendation really probably covers the proposition of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson). He has indicated some machinery in his new Clause. We simply made a general proposition. But at bottom we distinctly stated that we—the whole of us—were convinced of the necessity that something definite must be done for the people who were likely to suffer in the ensuing winter—with coal at the price which they could not buy it; and that they ought not to be jockeyed as they were last winter and the beginning of this year. I am not going to put the blame upon the hawkers, because come of them are as honest as anyone else, or the trolley-men, but we urged that the poor should not be jockeyed by taking some substance supplied to them as coal, at the highest possible price, the burning qualities of which were very poor

    2173
    indeed. I ask, under these circumstances, whether it is not possible for something to be done, or indicated, that would alleviate the difficulty. I have had information from the Board of Trade to the question which I put yesterday. I am glad that they did, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us to-day, approach the London County Council and that the London County Council said that they could not deal with the matter. It will be seen that by local authorities taking up and obtaining a reserve, the whole question of fixing the price could be settled, according to the cost of taking it to their various localities; you would not have a flat rate fixed, irrespective of the cost in any direction.
    The right hon. Gentleman has done much, in my opinion, outside the scope of this Bill in, if I may say so, bringing some rational consideration to the minds of those concerned in the coal trade, and he indicated to us now, as reported to us by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, that there is in the minds of the merchants some idea that something could be done. How far, could he tell us—I should like it to be a little more fully stated—are the merchants going on the lines indicated by the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green. If we can have the assurance that they are going to meet this difficulty in a rational manner, I think that the House will be satisfied, and if it is met in that way it would suit quite as well as by legislation. I hope something will arise out of this Debate—not necessarily this Clause—which will impress, not only the community at large, but those interested in the coal trade, with the necessity of grappling with this grave and serious problem: otherwise, listening as we did to the evidence given to us by the various witnesses in respect to London and large places like London, we shall have a very serious problem to face in the ensuing winter.
    Sir S. COLLINS: The House was very glad to hear, and the outside public, and especially the very poor, that a decision has been taken, and that it is proposed to establish depots by the largest distributors of coal throughout London. We were very glad to hear the statement of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green that he will give this scheme his hearty support. I am sure he will, from what I know of him personally, and the work he has done in connection with the poor, and the distribution of coal, when he was a Member, with the hon. Member who has spoken on the
    2174
    other side, of the London County Council. With all due respect, however, to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, I rather think he is not quite right when he said that there are not so very many now of those small distributors. I have had a little experience of that even in my own Constituency, and more so in the East End of London, and many other of the very crowded parts. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of poor people from cellar and garret who are continually, day after day, buying their coal in these very small quantities of 10 lbs. and 14 lbs.
    I could not help feeling rather amused when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade just now gave us that picture of the poor people rushing, possibly in their thousands, and running up the price of coal to panic prices. It is very, very different from that. The panic with them is to find the few coppers to buy the coal. That is their difficulty. There is no danger of those poor people running up the prices. The trouble with them is to find the money to buy coal in the small portions which they have to buy it in year by year. I trust, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that we are going to have these depots by the large distributors, and that this difficulty will soon be taken in hand; if not the poor people will suffer from the extortionate prices as they have suffered. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Clause lacked the machinery necessary to carry it out. The right hon. Gentleman, after all, has himself the ingenuity, and could find the machinery, especially when he seems to speak sympathetically about the Clause. If the only difficulty is that it lacks machinery I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that he will, in conjunction with the Member for North St. Pancras, set up the machinery, and so pass the Clause. If we do that, and we also have these large depots by the distributors, it will, I am sure, do very much to lighten the burdens of the oppressed poor in London, who will be able to get their coal in this coming winter without having to pay extortionate and even famine prices. I heartily support the adoption of this Clause.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am afraid that this Clause is being considered by the various speakers as if it were only a London Clause. I presume if it is passed it will apply equally to my Constituency as to the Metropolis. [An HON. MEMBER:

    2175
    "Hear, hear!"] Very well, then, at present the discussion has been almost monopolised by London Members, and there has been some talk about some London Commission. There has been, so far as I know, no desire expressed throughout the country for any such scheme as this; and what I am perfectly clear about is that it will neither work in London nor in the provinces.
    Sir S. COLLINS: The London Members have supported it up till now.
    Mr. BOOTH: Exactly, and the London Members supporting it up to now have only spoken of London. I quite agree the London Members proposed it, but they were proposing a Clause which will apply to the whole of England, for you are not suggesting its non-application out of London. After all, would it work in the country as well as in London? How will a Clause like this work in the agricultural districts? I represent a little borough which is in the position of having agricultural districts adjoining the colliery area, and I have been trying to think, as well as I could, while the speakers have been busy, how this Clause can possibly apply to the West Biding of Yorkshire. I have given it up. In my opinion it cannot be done. The hon. Member who brought in the Clause made no attempt to show how it could do so. There is an utter failure to deal with the rest of the country. I would, if I may, without any impertinence, even take the London Members upon their own ground of London. I submit the Clause would not work at all in London. Hon. Members seem to think that they need but come to this House and plead for the poor of London. They need not do that. The House is not hard-hearted. We have heard that something should be done for the poor of London. What we are anxious to hear is that the London Members have found a way to do it—some practical solution! I am afraid we have been listening in vain. I do not use those words idly.
    Twenty years ago I was living in these very poor areas of London, attempting to solve this problem. It was with us twenty years ago. I have been listening to London Members, and they have made no progress upon this subject. Exactly the same problem was with us when I used to discuss it with the late Hugh Price Hughes, who lived in St. Pancras himself. We tried to find a solution. Hugh Price Hughes was driven to the co-operative
    2176
    system. It was clear to us that you could not solve the problem except by some system of voluntary co-operation on the part of the working people themselves. I do not know whether he was right or wrong, but at any rate he had a constructive suggestion to make. I have not heard one from the House. I found twenty years ago, and I dare say it is true to-day, that within a mile and a half of this House coal was charged as much as 1½d. a hundredweight difference in two adjoining courts. It is not a question of the same place, or even the same street. You get two courts of the same street where totally different prices are charged. That was one of the troubles with which we were met. It did not only apply to coal. The people were buying cooked food from stalls and little shops in those courts at double and treble the price for which they could have bought the articles clean, fresh and raw, if they had taken the trouble to cook it themselves. I only mention this to show that the problem is a large one, and it has been with us ever since there was a London. I do impress upon my right hon. Friend that those who come from the provinces, and who know that this London problem is so intricate, would help if a feasible plan could be shown. I hope he will not think for a moment that we do not receive his attempts to find a solution in the best possible spirit, but the only reason we cannot support these Clauses at present is that they will not work.
    There is the question of the quality of the coal. First of all, one would ask, is coal ever sold by the ton at St. Pancras or Somers Town? It is sold close by, on the siding, by the ton, but is it so sold in the narrow streets and courts of Somers Town? Even if it is sold by the ton, how will you prevent the sale of one ton or two tons at a price which will enable dealers to charge an extra price per hundredweight? I do not see anything in the Clause to obstruct that, and the ingenuity of the London dealer is second to none in the world, as everyone knows who is connected with the poor in London. Even if you overcome that difficulty, there is nothing to prove, so far as I see, that the quality of the hundredweight sold by the hawker is at all comparable with the quality of the ton. I am sorry upon these questions to have been continually somewhat of a destructive critic. It is no pleasure to me. I hope the House will consider I do it

    2177
    bonâ fide. I made sacrifices as a young man which very few have made in living on a very few shillings a week in a London slum and trying to battle with these problems. I have gone into the domestic credit of the very poorest, made returns upon scores and hundreds of cases, and submitted them to Hugh Price Hughes and his colleagues in connection with that work, and we were baffled again and again. I am sure the instincts of Hugh Price Hughes were right, and that unless you get some common co-operative action amongst the poor in these matters you will not get anything permanent.
    The suggestion with regard to the opening of depots I was very pleased to hear, because it may make possible a suggestion I am about to make. I appeal to the large coal dealers in London that, whenever they establish one of these large retail places which are incidental to their business in one of these poor areas, they should allow it to merge into a voluntary cooperative system for the people in the district to take up. If they could establish one or two of these shops in some of these neighbourhoods where local people would come forward and let them merge into a voluntary co-operative system, where people could buy coal by the ton and distribute it amongst themselves by the hundredweight, sharing whatever profit or dividend there may be, I think that is a way in which to solve the problem in some parts of London. I put this suggestion forward in all good faith. I claim no credit for it, but heard it from Hugh Price Hughes twenty years, ago.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: The suggestion which the hon. Member has just made is a very admirable one, and might solve the question in another twenty-five years or so; but we are dealing with a very urgent problem, which wants to be dealt with before the autumn comes on, and the suggestion in the proposed Clause is one which, I think, would enable the Board of Trade really to do something. The proposal is that, if in any particular district coal is being sold by the ton at a certain price, the Board of Trade could fix a margin for the distribution of smaller quantities above the price charged by the ton beyond which the coal should not be charged to the small consumer. The need for protecting the small consumer surely does not want urging; we know it already. I represent one of the poorest districts in London, and this matter comes home to me as it comes home to my Constituency,
    2178
    and, if it is not impossible, surely something ought to be done. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is quite impossible, and that the only thing that would make it possible—
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend must have misunderstood me. I did not say it was quite impossible, but I said there was no practical value in the suggestion as put.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: The right hon. Gentleman said the fixing of maximum prices would be impossible. I gather his real objection was that he did not see it was practicable, and that it would only become practicable if the deliveries were followed round by inspectors, and every sale were checked. The London County Council employ inspectors to test quality and weight, but they do not examine every delivery. They pounce upon deliveries here and there, and the effect of the liability to discovery in giving short weight or improper quality has been such as to put tens of thousands of pounds into the pockets of the poorest purchasers in London. I do not see why you need examine every delivery if the distributor knows that he is liable at any moment to be detected. It is only the exceptional man and the exceptional case where that would occur. I do not want to go into the whole question, but I do want to press on the right hon. Gentleman, the fact that we have a very large and extremely poor population in many parts of London, who do not want to wait for the evolution of a co-operative scheme such as my hon. Friend suggests, but that they want protection between now and next September. The prices already even in the summer are far higher than they ought to be, and only by fixing some limit beyond which prices shall not be charged, and by doing that in such a way as to enable the population more or less to protect themselves by knowledge of that, will we be able to protect them at this critical period. There has recently been a conference of local authorities—Metropolitan, City, and borough councils—who came to a series of resolutions, which I received this morning, the last two of which are—
    "That the retail distribution of coal in London should be co-ordinated by the Government; and
    That the Board of Trade should themselves, or should empower the borough councils, after consultation with the Board, to advertise from time to time the reasonable price at which coal should be retailed by shopkeepers and trolley dealers."
    If you could make known to the occupants of small tenements the local prices beyond

    2179
    which charges should not be allowed, you would enable them to protect themselves by purchasing from those persons who are willing to sell at that price, and the risk of famine in certain districts suggested by the right hon. Gentleman because, of the fixing of these prices would be eliminated by the fact that the small distributors themselves have to get their living in their own neighbourhood. So long as that is so, they will find some means or other to obtain coal at the best price they can, and to sell it to those who want it at a price which, I think, the Board of Trade, if they care to take these powers, could make effective. This Clause as suggested is not obligatory. The Board of Trade may take powers; they are not compelled to use them. If they find it impossible to put them into operation, then they will not do it; but why do they refuse even to have placed in their hands the powers which may promise some amelioration of the lot of the poor? I earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he might not accept this Clause after all.
    Mr. TICKLER: I wish to associate myself with the Clause which has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras, because I think he appears to have made an honest attempt to meet the case of the poor people. The only thing to which I object in this Clause is that it only applies to the London area. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I should like to see it apply to the whole country. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does!"] I should like to see it apply to the rural districts all over the country, and if the right hon. Gentleman would be agreeable to that I would give him my whole-hearted support. I think it is a matter which requires the very serious attention of this House. At the present time we have a price of over 30s. a ton for coal in London, and we are only in midsummer, and no doubt in the near future we shall have the extravagant prices of last winter. I cannot myself see much difficulty about the distribution of this coal. If the borough councils take the matter in hand, their coal committees will be able to buy large quantities of coal and be able to arrange the distribution of these coals through the ordinary channels, the coal merchants. I should think that if you give the coal merchant a ticket to deliver coal at a certain price, and give him cash for it, there would be no difficulty whatever, and we should surmount the difficulty, which has been
    2180
    mentioned by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, that many of the coal hawkers have a good many bad debts. In these cases I suppose there would be no difficulty in opening offices where coal could be ordered and a ticket given and sent on to the coal merchant to deliver coals to the various purchasers, who, of course, would pay cash for them.
    I was rather disappointed to hear the President of the Board of Trade say they had come to the conclusion that the only way to regulate the price of coal was at the pit-mouth. That may seem feasible, but it does not work out in practice. Last year, when the War broke out, we had immediately from the coal merchants a notice that the state of War suspended all contracts, but if we would only let them know what our requirements were, they would endeavour to carry out our orders to the best of their ability, though they could not be bound under the con tract to fulfil the contract and to supply us with the quantity stated therein. Coals went up 12s. a ton. The consumer who got the coal could not get it in the quantity that he wanted, and he was obliged to buy at a higher price on the market because he could not get delivery of the contracts he had made. This Pill is not going to refer to contracts already made. Therefore, instead of—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to be discussing the general principles of the Bill, and he must confine his remarks to the new Clause.
    Mr. TICKLER: I was trying to show the effect this Bill would have on the price of coal that was going to be sold after this Bill is passed, and that this exclusion of the contracts already made would prevent 20 per cent, of the people who have not contracts from obtaining any coal at all, and if they wanted to get coal they would have to pay a higher price. To regulate the price of coal at the pit-mouth is not a matter that will affect the poorest people, and that is a matter that I am anxious should be dealt with because I want to secure that the poor people in the coming winter have coal at a reasonable price, and not at the unreasonable price they had to pay last year. Some hon. Members have said that many poor people have not facilities for storing coal, but I am afraid that in a great many cases they have the storage but they have not the money. I think we ought to endeavour to make

    2181
    such arrangements that the poor during the coming winter will not suffer the privations which they have undergone in the past because of the high price they had to pay for coal. I think if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras would alter his Clause so as to include borough councils all over the country in England and Wales I should be glad to support it, because I think that there are a great many places where there are a large number of poor in every town, and they are all affected very seriously by the high price of coal. We want that provision as much in the borough councils and the rural district councils as in London, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way clear to include the borough councils and the rural district councils in his Clause.
    Mr. YEO: I very heartily support the position which has been taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras, because I find it deals with the whole of England, and not with London alone. There is one aspect of the situation which I think has been lost sight of this afternoon. I feel very sorry that the London County Council did not see their way clear to take steps to store coal in London to enable poor people to get it at a reasonable price, seeing that to-day in connection with one of their contracts for over 25,000 tons of coal the difference between the price of last year and to-day is over £14,000. There are a number of other contracts which the county council is making, and I am rather disappointed that they have not seen their way clear to take steps in the direction I have mentioned, so that the public might be able to purchase from them coal at a reasonable price. Another aspect of this question is in regard to trading in small quantities. It is a well-known fact that as far as that matter is concerned people are defrauded again and again out of their proper weight. I have had cases come within my own knowledge to be dealt with on the bench of magistrates where men have actually put a 7 lbs. weight on the back of their scales when people have been purchasing small quantities, and they have received their coal less this 7 lbs.
    I am one of those who believe, perhaps wrongly, that it should not be outside the power of the Board of Trade to set up a standard in London to ensure that the public should receive coals at a reasonable price by an arrangement with the coal
    2182
    merchants and the mine owners of this country. One case the Board of Trade could help in is where coal is retailed at 30s. or 32s. a ton by purchasing a ton, poor people should not have to pay at the rate of 40s. per ton if they buy in smaller quantities. The whole matter is in the hands of the coal owners and the large merchants in London, and if they want to show their patriotism and demonstrate that they have some interest in the poor people of the country they have an opportunity of supplying London at a reasonable price, and the poor people should not be robbed and defrauded as they constantly are in the purchase of that commodity which they can afford to purchase only with great difficulty in the coldest weather. It strikes some of us that before this season is over all the money they can earn they will want for commodities to help to keep them warm. The Board of Trade with its wisdom and power and all the knowledge it has in hand from reports ought to be able to show the country that they will not tolerate this exploiting of coal and those commodities which the people need to keep them alive.
    Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I am disappointed that the President of the Board of Trade has not been able to devise some machinery for dealing with this important question. I am persuaded, from my own experience in provincial towns, that unless there is some method of publishing fair prices, which the public may compare with the prices that are asked, or unless some maximum price is fixed, we shall have during the coming winter, not only in London but in provincial towns, cases of very severe and grave hardship. Merchants are human beings—they may be quite up to the average, but I do not think they are above the ordinary standard, and with the demand for coal probably in excess of the supply there will be a natural disposition to put up the price, especially when sold in small quantities. Very often in provincial towns you find that they have no large merchants who carry on a considerable trade, and the business is largely in the hands of small merchants, who have to buy from the large merchants. The larger merchants purchase from the collieries, and, consequently, you have the large purchaser and the sub-purchaser, and in other ways you have additional prices added to the commodities which the working men have to consume.

    2183
    I do not think, if the facts are carefully considered, that this House can come to the conclusion that the price of coal sold in small quantities can be left entirely to be fixed by the law of supply and demand; neither can it be left to the honesty and commercial integrity of the coal merchants, whose pockets are so much affected. I think the President of the Board of Trade would be well-advised to take some further steps beyond those he has already taken to deal with the prices charged by merchants, as well as the prices charged at the pit-head. I have listened with very great interest to the lucid explanations of this Bill given by the President of the Board of Trade, and the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in removing many of my own objections. Nevertheless, he has not convinced me that he has understood and realised all the facts of the case. The officials of the Board of Trade, no doubt, have taken very great care to consider how best to deal with great colliery companies, and the price of coal at the pit-head, but I do not think that they have realised how complicated and widespread are the ramifications of the business connected with the distribution of coal in this country, and unless some method is adopted by which, in provincial towns as well as in London, the maximum prices are duly advertised and fixed, the difficulty will not be remedied. This is a very serious matter, and I ask the President of the Board of Trade to give a little further consideration to the matter of checking prices not only at the pit-head, but at the various sources of transit by which they finally reach the consumers.
    Mr. ROBERT PEARCE: I think this really is a sex question. The consumers who are mostly interested in reducing the cost of coal in households are the women, and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that if he will look into the history of prices he will find that most of the reductions in all kinds of goods and commodities of every sort have been brought down to the present level by the action of the women. I think he ought to form a committee, containing among its members some of those philanthropic and benevolent ladies with whom he is so intimately acquainted, and take steps to form a committee of co-operative consumers of coal, most of the members of which should be women, and they might confer with the President of the Board of Trade and devise
    2184
    machinery which would bring about what we all desire in order to prevent distress during the coming winter.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Limitation of Retail Price of Coal in London.)
    (1) Coal shall not be sold, or offered for sale, at any place within the Metropolitan police district and the City of London at a price exceeding the London maximum price.
    (2) The London maximum of any coal shall be a sum equal to the price of that coal at the pit's mouth as fixed under this Act, together with such additional price per ton as the Board of Trade may allow to provide for the cost of freight and distribution and reasonable profit to the merchants and vendors of such coal.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    5.0 P.M.
    I can hardly expect the right hon. Gentleman to accept this proposal, because he definitely refused a similar proposal in Committee. Nevertheless, the importance of this question has not been diminished by the lapse of time, and I am perfectly certain that public opinion outside agrees that the only way by which a satisfactory arrangement can be made in London is by fixing a London maximum price. In the first place, this is a different Clause to that which was suggested in Committee, because I have profited by the observations which were made on those occasions, and I now suggest that the authority which shall have full discretion to regulate the price shall be the Board of Trade. I am suggesting simply that the Board of Trade should have put into its hands by means of this Bill the very power which the right hon. Gentleman has said he is going to exercise for the purpose of obtaining the very object we all have in view. According to his statement on the Second Reading, the scheme that is in his mind with regard to the supply of coal in London is first of all that the price at the pit-head should be limited to 4s. above the price of 1913, and, secondly, that there should be added to that price the freight, over which the Government, of course, have absolute control now that they have the control of the railways and the cost of

    2185
    distribution by the merchants in London, which is going to be regulated by certain agreements to which he has referred. I must say that I think we have some slight ground for complaint that the right hon. Gentleman in foreshadowing these agreements has not told us precisely what they are. I know, as a matter of fact, although he may have agreed with the Coal Merchants' Association, that there are a large number of coal merchants in London who are in no way bound by that agreement, and, although it is probable all the coal merchants will be at any rate induced, if not enforced, to observe the agreement which has been made by the leading coal merchants, they will certainly be under no binding obligation to do so. I think the right hon. Gentleman should tell the House now what real authority he will have over the non-signing merchants of London, and also, especially, over the hawkers, of whom we have been speaking. I submit, if the power which I suggest in this Clause were given to the Board of Trade, that it would place him in a position of authority, and that he would be able to enforce the observance of these agreements by every coal merchant in London. I do not know why he refuses to have this power thrust upon him. I am certain that it would be of the greatest value. I do not believe, as the Clause is now drafted, that it is open to any of the objections which the right hon. Gentleman had to the fixing of prices, because it will only be used by him when it is necessary and as a last resort. I have, therefore, no hesitation in asking the House to agree to this Clause, and particularly in begging the right hon. Gentleman to make some public announcement which will enable the public to know what are the terms which, in his mind, are going to secure the price of coal when delivered in London.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: After what I said on the Second Reading, and after the discussion we had on this proposal in Committee, I do not feel that it is necessary for me to add much now on the Report stage. My right hon. Friend has cut out of his proposal the limitation of 15s. which appeared in the original proposal, and he has substituted the Board of Trade. I am sure he will not think me ungrateful when I say that we do not specially desire to have extra duties thrust on the Board of Trade. Our duties are already very wide and responsible, and the duty which is suggested in this new Clause is not only one which I
    2186
    do not desire, but is one which I believe would in itself prove to be harmful rather than helpful.. The London maximum price of coal is not any one price at all; it may be a great number of prices. It must depend upon the distance from the railway depots, from the coalfields, and upon a number of other considerations, including carriage and distribution. Moreover, any attempt to fix the London maximum prices of coal would necessitate our going into a very large number of distinctions, both as to quality and condition alike, and that is in itself a thing which the Board of Trade, without, I am sure, showing itself unduly modest, must decline.
    My right hon. Friend asked what arrangements have been made that are going to help London in the coming season. In the first place, I hope that this Bill will do something towards helping to keep down the price of house coal at the pithead. That is something. You certainly cannot have a low priced coal distributed to London householders if the price at the pit-head is abnormally high. That, after all, is the dominating factor, and whatever arrangements may be made at later stages there is no doubt that a real shortage of coal in Great Britain would lead to high prices at the pit-head, and that no matter how many authorities you drag in—the Board of Trade, the local authorities, the co-operative societies, and any other authorities you please—would involve you in a very high price to the consumer in London. Having laid that basis which, as I said in Committee, is not a watertight and economic basis, but which I believe to be a good working basis, the next stage is the adding of the expenses which come from the cost of carriage. I do not anticipate that railway rates are going up during the coming autumn season; at all events, so far as we have control of railway rates we shall prevent them going up.
    Let me remind the House that house coal comes into London mainly by rail. Gas coal comes largely by sea, but house coal comes mainly by rail, and to that extent I think we shall have greater security than in the past. Then comes the distribution of coal by the merchants in London, who take the coal from the depots, and pass it by way of carts or wagons to the consumers. That must vary with practically every district in London. The district varies, the position of the dep6t varies, and the railway rates to those depots vary, so that to fix any one maximum price would be impossible. When I say "impossible," I do not

    2187
    mean politically, but actually and arithmetically impossible, unless you give an undue advantage to those who live in and around the depot districts over those who live a great distance from them. My right hon. Friend asked what arrangements we have made with the coal merchants. The arrangements will, I believe, cover something like 200 firms. Having given us a chance of examining the out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the distribution of coal, they have undertaken that the amount which they will charge in the coming season will not give them an added profit above that which they got in pre-war time, and as that must vary with the individual district, it is of course impossible to name any one flat figure at which coal will be vended all over London. I propose, as long as we are satisfied that undertaking is abided by, to publish the names of those merchants who have entered into it, and I would recommend consumers in London that they would be well advised to give their orders to those who have entered into this arrangement with the Board of Trade.
    Sir T. WALTERS: Will that apply to places outside of London as well?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: That which I have done in London can be equally done by the local authorities in their own districts. If it is suggested that the Board of Trade is to embark on the same arrangement in all the areas of Great Britain, I must reply that we have not a staff large enough to do it, but the local authorities can equally make these arrangements for themselves.
    Mr. WATT: Will you press the local authorities to do so?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no power to press them; I can only recommend them. I would suggest that the House should not pile on to the Board of Trade duties which should be performed by other authorities. The local authorities are much more closely in touch with the facts than we can be at Whitehall, and they ought to look after the interests of those who live in their areas. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be comparatively satisfied with the statement which I have made, and that we may now proceed with the Bill.
    Mr. DICKINSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his expression "pre-war profits" means the profits in 1913?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, in 1913–14, which, I think, is the best period to take—that is to say, the autumn, winter, and summer previous to the outbreak of the War.
    Question put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Limitation of Price of Coal at the Pit's Mouth.)
    (1) Coal at the pit's mouth shall not be sold or offered for sale by the owner of the coal or on his behalf at a price exceeding by more than the standard amount per ton the price of coal of the same description, sold in similar quantities, and under similar conditions affecting the sale at the pit's mouth at the same coal mine on the corresponding date (or as neap thereto as, having regard to the course of business, may be practicable) in the twelve months ended the thirtieth day of June nineteen hundred and fourteen (in this Act referred to as the corresponding price).
    (2) The standard amount shall be four shillings: provided that the Board of Trade may, by order, if they are satisfied, as respects any class of coal mines specified in the order or the coal mines in any districts so specified, that owing to special circumstances affecting those mines the standard amount of four shillings should be increased, substitute for that amount such higher sum as they may think just in the circumstances; and as respects those mines this Act shall have effect as if the higher sum so substituted were the standard amount.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "sale" ["coal at the pit's mouth shall not be sold or offered for sale"], to add the words "directly or indirectly."
    The purpose of inserting these words is to make it quite certain that it will not be too easy to evade the object which we have in this Bill. Without the words "directly or indirectly," some dodge might be resorted to by persons who wished to evade what we desire to get at. Therefore, if any case came into Court, I think that it would be of assistance to the judge to inquire whether there had been any sales "directly or indirectly." A sale indirectly to a second person would naturally lead to an evasion of the Bill, and it is in order to strengthen the hands of the Court that we wish to insert the words "directly or indirectly."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Notice had been given by Mr. O'GRADY of an Amendment, at the end of Subsection (2), to add the words, "(3) In every contract for the sale of coal at the pit's mouth under which such coal has been sold but not delivered at the time of the passing of this Act it shall be an implied term that the price of such coal shall not exceed the lawful price as determined by this Act, and any disputes arising therefrom shall be submitted to the Board of Trade for determination in accordance with the Board of Trade Arbitrations, etc., Act, 1874."
    Mr. O'GRADY: I understand that this Amendment is not to be moved, in view of the fact that the President has an Amendment lower down attempting to meet the views expressed in this Amendment. That being the case, we propose to wait until the Amendment is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Decision of Question by the Board of Trade.)
    (1) If in any proceedings any question is raised as to the corresponding price of any coal, or as to the cost of railway or other incidental services, the Court shall refer the question for determination by the Board of Trade, and the decision of the Board shall be final and conclusive for all purposes.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "services," to add the words "or as to the sums charged for the use or provision of trucks."
    I move this Amendment in order to make sure that the provision which we inserted in the Bill at the request of one of my hon. Friends should also come under our purview.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Application, Short Title, and Duration.)
    (1) This Act shall not apply to any sale of coal for export, or to any sale of coal for the manufacture of patent fuel for export, or to any sale of coal to be used on any ship.
    (2) This Act shall not apply to the sale of coal supplied in pursuance of a contract made before the commencement of this Act.
    (3) This Act shall not apply to Ireland.
    (4) This Act may be cited as the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act, 1915.
    (5) This Act shall have effect during the continuance of the present War and a period of six months thereafter.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "export" ["This Act shall not apply to any sale of coal for export"], to insert the words "other than coal sold to the Admiralty or any other Government Department, or purchased by them on behalf of the Governments of any country which is or may be fighting in alliance with the United Kingdom during the present War."
    On the Committee stage of the Bill I raised the question of the Allies of this country obtaining coal under the provisions of this Bill, and my right hon. Friend in effect asked me to withdraw my Amendment, inasmuch as the Government of this country and our Allies would substantially obtain that which my Amendment seeks to accomplish. My right hon. Friend during the Committee stage was quite clear that the Government of this country would be entitled to avail themselves of the provisions of this Bill when buying coal. I was rather doubtful about that view which he expressed, and I took the opinion of a legal Gentleman in the House, who assures me that my right hon. Friend has not been correctly informed about the matter. Then the discussion reached what I may call a private stage, and I cannot, of course, without the permission of the right hon. Gentleman, deal with that. But, passing from it, let me say I am asking the House to accept an Amendment, the object of which is to enable the Government of this country to have the benefit of the provisions of this Act, and not only our Government, but also our Allies. The proposal is that they should likewise receive coal at the increase of 4s. per ton on the pre-war prices. It seems a most remarkable proceeding on the part of the Government that it should refuse to insert into this Bill words which would give it the same advantage as is conferred on consumers and householders. Why, I ask, should not the Government of this country obtain coal from the collieries at 4s. increase over the prices of 1913–14?
    What has happened in practice has been this. The Admiralty, under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act, are entitled to requisition coal, and have done so, from the collieries. They have no power whatever to fix the price which is to be paid for any portion of coal that they may

    2191
    take from any colliery. But the Admiralty have met the colliery owners, and, by agreement, have arranged prices which they suggest are reasonable, but which I think are wholly unreasonable. Take the district of Yorkshire as an example. The Admiralty, in Yorkshire, are represented by very able men, who buy coal extremely well. Nevertheless, at a certain period of this year, they were paying for coal for Admiralty purposes from 10s. to 12s. a ton above the prices prevailing in 1913–14. Owing to the operations of the Export Committee, the price of coal had fallen very considerably in South Yorkshire, but, notwithstanding that, the Admiralty go into the market like ordinary consumers for their supplies, and also for supplies for any of our Allies who require coal, and they have been paying these high prices. In Wales an arrangement has been arrived at between the Admiralty and the coal owners of Glamorganshire, under which the Admiralty get their coal at the price of 25s. per ton, and if they had the provisions of this Bill applied to them they would clearly be entitled to receive that coal at a price very considerably less. Seeing that 1s. per ton represents an enormous charge on the general taxpayer of this country, and bearing in mind that we have no idea how long this War is going to last I cannot understand why the Government should not avail themselves of this opportunity, and why, too, our Allies should not also have the advantages of this Bill.
    What is the reason why the Government Departments do not desire to come under this Bill? They would get their coal cheaper under it than they could do by voluntary arrangement. To say that a voluntary arrangement is better than statutory power seems to me to be an argument so futile that I am at a loss to understand the attitude of the Government in the matter. I should not have let this point go through on the Committee stage unless I had had some assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that this Amendment, in principle, was going to be accepted. I have not the Report of the Debate before me at the moment, but the effect of my right hon. Friend's speech was that what the Amendment sought to achieve was practically carried out by the Bill itself. I cannot make a speech in reply on the Report stage. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say in answer to
    2192
    my argument, but I do want to put this point to him. We are spending £3,000,000 on the War, and, owing to our gross waste and want of efficiency, we are throwing money away on all sides. Our Allies the French are only spending half the amount which we in this country are paying out to-day. Here is a chance of saving money, and the Government reply is, "No, let the money go." I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Admiralty in Yorkshire alone have been paying prices 10s. or 12s. above those which prevailed in the year 1913–14, and I remind him, too that they are also paying in Wales prices considerably in excess of what they would have to pay under the provisions of this Bill. I then ask him to accept the Amendment. I do not say that the phraseology is very good. I do not think it is. But it will be possible, if my right hon. Friend accepts the principle, to alter the wording in another place. I am sure the principle is sound, and I am equally sure that the Bill ought to apply to our Allies.
    Look at the position of our Allies. The greater part of the French coal-fields are in the hands of the enemy, and they have to rely practically on us to-day. In Belgium the mines are also in the hands of the enemy. In peace time France draws what supplies she requires above her own production from Belgium, Germany, and this country. Belgium and Germany are closed to her, and half of her own coal mines are in the hands of the enemy. It does seem to me, when we are fighting shoulder to shoulder with our Allies, when we bear in mind the great sacrifices they have made, when we remember that their mines are destroyed, it is only right that we should give them the opportunity of obtaining the coal they require at the lowest possible prices, and we should give them the full benefit of the powers we are going to take for ourselves. The same argument applies, more or less, to Italy, not with regard to mines, but she is a poor country, and to call upon her to pay 2s., 3s., or 4s. more per ton must make a very material difference to her when she has to use large quantities of coal in the manufacture of munitions. In these circumstances I hope my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that on the Committee stage of this Bill I was not in possession of full information as to the

    2193
    decision of the Admiralty, as I might have been, and I spoke on the assumption that the information I had received represented its final decision. To-day I can only repeat what is their decision, for, naturally, I am not in control of the purchase of coal supplies by the Admiralty, nor am I able substantially to control the Contract Department of that body. My hon. Friend knows a good deal about the method of buying, both in Yorkshire and South Wales, and I dare say he could, if he liked, give much information as to the way in which the Admiralty have been making purchases since the War broke out. I have not that knowledge, and I can only give the House the latest information I have as to the view of the Admiralty. They consider their business arrangements are such as not to make it advisable for them to come under this Bill. They have to make arrangements in South Wales and other parts of the country with which I am not conversant. I can only speak in what I may call a secondhand capacity as to the policy adopted by the Contract Department of the Admiralty. I have always been informed that that Contract Department was most efficient, although those with whom they have dealings may differ in their views as to its business capacity. On the whole the purchasing capacity of the Admiralty—its ability—has not been one of the least conspicuous features of the Admiralty since the War broke out. If the Admiralty decide that they do not wish to come under this Bill, I fear I have no other course open to me than to say that the interpretation of the Bill which I gave on the Committee stage is not one which the Admiralty has any desire to apply to themselves. They would rather be free to make arrangements in their own way and under their own conditions than take advantage of the Bill as now drafted.
    My hon. Friend says we ought to give the full benefit of the Bill to our Allies. I agree with him, and the arrangement which I announced on the Committee stage will be adhered to, namely, that when the British Government is buying coal for itself, it will also buy coals on the same terms and under the same conditions for the French Government. Further, when it is requested to do so, it will buy coal also for the Italian and Russian Governments. Up to the present the Russian and Italian Governments are quite well satisfied to go on with the contracts which they have at present running, and
    2194
    naturally they are not going to take advantage of our prices until their own good contracts have expired. When they do expire the Admiralty will be prepared to make purchases on their behalf on exactly the same conditions and terms as it is making them on behalf of the Government. I regret that I have no power to accept the proposal made by my hon. Friend. What may have been the inner business organisation reasons which have actuated the Admiralty I cannot explain to the House, but if my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty were here—
    Mr. HODGE: Why is he not here?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: He would make the reply I am now making, that it is not in consonance with the public interest that I should say exactly how coal is purchased by the Admiralty.
    Sir T. WALTERS: When the right hon. Gentleman says the British Government will buy for the Allies, does he mean that the Allies will have the advantage of the prices fixed under the terms of this Bill, or will their supplies be purchased at higher prices'! In other words, are the Allies to pay the same prices as those paid by the British Government on the market, and is it the case that neither the Allies nor the British Government are to get any advantage out of this Bill?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The information I have received from the Admiralty is that the arrangements they can make are better than those which they would be able to make if they had to depend purely upon this Bill.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Yes, because they pay higher prices.
    Mr. HODGE: The hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield has made a definite statement that in Yorkshire the Admiralty has paid from 10s. to 12s. per ton more for their coal than the prices which prevailed in 1913–14. I asked why the Admiralty were not represented here to-day, as the right hon. Gentleman stated that he was not in a position to give any information so far as that Department was concerned. I think if the Admiralty had been represented, we could have been told what is the position, and whether they are prepared to go on buying at this extra price of 10s. or 12s. per ton.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: They are not paying that now.
    Mr. HODGE: It is satisfactory, at any rate, to have that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "commencement of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifteen."
    "Provided that in any contract made between the twenty-fourth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifteen, and the passing of this Act, it shall be lawful for any party thereto to give notice to the other party that he desires the contract to be revised with respect to coal to be supplied after the date of the notice, and thereupon he may apply to a judge of a County Court who may revise the contract and may fix the price or prices to be paid for the coal to be supplied thereunder so as to make such price or prices equal to the price or prices which in the judge's opinion would have been inserted in the contract had it been concluded on the basis of the price or prices of the coal at the pit's mouth as fixed under the provisions of this Act."
    I propose to ask the House to allow me to move my Amendment, in spite of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has put down another Amendment. I do so in order to meet the wishes of the House expressed during the Debates on the Committee stage. The Amendment which has now been put down by the right hon. Gentleman is one that raises certain very distinct points of issue. The suggestion I make is very different from that which the right hon. Gentleman makes in his Amendment. I will not keep the House longer than is necessary, but I should like to bring back the recollection of the House to the position on this question. We had a lengthy Debate in Committee, when one or two things were proved beyond doubt. It was shown that the proposal of the Bill to limit the price of coal at the pit's mouth by an additional 4s. had been rendered almost entirely nugatory by the fact that a provision was inserted in the Bill under which all coal that had been contracted for up to the passing of the Bill would have been put outside that limitation of price. Therefore it appeared almost useless to pass the Bill in the form
    2196
    in which it then was. The right hon. Gentleman has explained to the House why he proposed to limit the price at the pit's mouth by this additional 4s. He explained at considerable length the process of thought which had gone through his mind and it expressed itself in the last words in his speech on the Second Reading, when he said:—
    "When all the extra expenses are added together, the total amount by which the expense of getting the coal has been increased is something over 3s. How much over I cannot say, but the average has not been less than 8s. Some happy coal owners have succeeded in keeping the cost lower than that. Some of them have already placed their contracts at prices under the standard rate named in the Bill. Four shillings was therefore inserted in the Bill as a figure which was fair to the coal owners as a class and individually, and fair also to the consumer."—[OFFICIAL REPOST, 19th July, 1915, col. 1213.]
    I take it that the essence of the proposal was that the additional 4s. put the coal owners in a position in which they would make as much reasonable profit as the right hon. Gentleman thought was fair. I submit that is the very problem that we have to meet in a number of cases in connection with this War. If it was thought that the coal owners should only receive the amount of profit represented by that figure on their coal, it ought not to be possible—I think this appeared from the discussion—for them to escape from that obligation and to get an additional profit simply by reason of the fact that they had entered into contracts during the last three or four months to the extent of selling, as we understood in the Debate, at least 80 per cent, of their whole produce for the winter. I may, perhaps, be allowed to give one example, not an example given during the Debate in Committee, but one I have ascertained to-day. I think it exemplifies the necessity of the House considering very carefully the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed. I find that a coal merchant who has entered into contracts to sell his coal to bakers for the purpose of making bread contracted for that particular coal in 1913 at a price of 10s. 3d. at the pit's mouth, and has now contracted at a price of 17s., with an additional obligation to pay 3d. per ton for every 2½ per cent, increase in wages. If you take this Bill and add to the 10s. 3d., which was to be paid in 1913, the 4s. allowed under the Bill, you find that the price the purchaser ought to be able to buy at is 14s. 3d. instead of 17s., the price at which he contracted to buy, or a difference of 2s. 9d. If such contracts are made in a case like that, I shall be able

    2197
    to show that under the proposed Government Amendment, if they are left in this position, the bakers of bread will have to pay a price of 2s. 9d. more for their coal in order that the 2s. 9d. should go into the pockets of the coal owners and put those coal owners in a better posiiton than the House has intended all coal owners to be in under the present conditions of the War.
    The same thing applies to other classes of coal. I find in regard to kitchen coal he has contracted for a price of 6s. above the 1914 price, which is almost 7s. over the 1913 price, and in regard to large nuts he is contracting at a price of 5s. over the 1914 price, or 6s. more than the 1913 price. The question, therefore, is whether this House will consent to allow that profit to go to the coal owners. The President of the Board of Trade has argued that it is as fair to let that profit go to the coal owners as to let it go to a large manufacturer. He says that somebody is going to profit by it, and shall it be the large manufacturer who is to get it cheap, or shall it be the coal owner, who has managed to sell his coal at higher prices before the passing of this Bill? That may be the case with regard to large manufacturers, but my contention is that the nearer you get to the manufacturer the nearer you are to the consumer, and it is far more likely that the consumers will reap the benefit of the reduced price when it has come into the hands of the manufacturer than if it is left in the hands of the coal owner. Take, for instance, the case of the bakers, to which I have just referred. The bakers will profit by the reduced price of coal and it is almost undoubted that that would help in the direction of cheapening the supply of bread—a very important question at the present moment.
    I would point out to the House how the proposals in my Amendment differ from the proposals made by the Government in order to meet the wishes of the House. My Amendment excludes all contracts from the 24th March until the passing of this Bill. It excludes them with reference to all coal that is to be delivered after a notice that is to be given after the passing of this Bill. The Government Amendment approximates to that proposal. They take the time from the 1st April to the passing of this Bill as being the time during which contracts made are to be varied, but they add a period of three months for the delivery of the coal—that is
    2198
    to say, no one will get any advantage from that Amendment. The proposal is that the coal contracted for between April and July shall come under the lower price, unless delivery takes place approximately after the 1st November. So that all coal which is to be delivered during the next three months will still have to be paid for by the public and everybody at the higher price which is included in the contract. By that means the proposal of the Government will withdraw a very great deal of the relief which this House wishes to give to those persons who purchased under contract. My view is that the State is quite entitled to say, just as it said in regard to free coal, that the coal owners are not to make more than four shillings increase on the 1913 prices; and that the State is quite entitled to say, notwithstanding any of the contracts made during the last three months, that all coal delivered after the passing of this Bill should be benefited to that extent. The Amendment, in fact, goes further than this, because it not only gives a period of three months, but a further period to any extent if the Board of Trade think it is reasonable and proper that the period should be extended. That is one important point of difference.
    There is the second point, which is still more important. The Amendment I venture to put before the House provided for the sale of all coal—that is to say, that everybody who had made contracts for coal during the present summer should have the benefit of this Clause which is going to give them the reduced price. The Government propose to limit the operation to what is called in their Amendment "excepted coal." Excepted coal is the coal supplied for domestic and household purposes and also coal to be supplied for various purposes of public utility, such as gas works, public authorities, water works, and so on. It appears to me that this limitation is sure to be very much resented by a large number of persons who think they are entitled to relief, and will, in practice, be very unsatisfactory. Take, for instance, the bakers.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is really not discussing his Amendment. We have not heard a single word about the County Court judge. He is discussing, in anticipation, the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade. That is not fair. If he wishes to discuss that Amendment he ought to allow it to be moved properly and then discussed. If

    2199
    he wishes to discuss his own Amendment he should confine himself strictly to its terms.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I bow to your ruling, Sir. I can only in explanation say that I thought, perhaps wrongly, that it would be as well to explain the two Amendments, because the Government Amendment was put down as a suggestion meeting my Amendment. That was, as I understood it, the particular position that arose in Committee. I do not wish in the least degree either to offend against your ruling or to occupy the time of the House unnecessarily, and I suppose that some of these proposals I shall be able to move as Amendments to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which would give me the opportunity of dealing with these points. With reference to my own Amendment, I would say, first of all, that it includes all contracts from the passing of the Bill and, therefore, does not exclude those under which delivery does not take place until a certain time afterwards. Secondly, it includes contracts made by all kinds of merchants. The advantage of including all kinds of merchants is that it gives the benefit to the small manufacturers and small tradesmen. I was quoting the case in which the merchant has bought coal at a certain price at the pit's mouth and has contracted to sell it to bakers. I am particularly anxious that the fact of reducing the price of coal should operate to the advantage of people like bakers.
    Mr. BOOTH: Do we understand that my right hon. Friend intends to bring these points as Amendments to the Government Clause, and, if so, and if he now moves his own and it is negatived, will that entirely prohibit him from bringing these ideas of his into the Government Clause?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The House will then consider them as disposed of. We could not reconsider them.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I believe I have a right to withdraw the Clause, have I not? At any rate, I think I have said all I wish to say in regard to my own Clause, and, of course, if the House will not allow me to withdraw my Clause I shall be bound to have it put, and then the other question will arise how far these Amendments are precluded by anything that is said in this Amendment that I move. I bow entirely to your suggestion, and I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Then the right hon. Gentleman will not risk a refusal.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words:—
    "Provided that where any contract has been made on or after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen, and before the commencement of this Act, for the sale of coal by the owner thereof at the pit's mouth, coal delivered under that contract after the expiration of the period fixed under the provision, and shown to be excepted coal within the meaning of this provision, shall, if the other party to the contract within two months after the commencement of this Act gives notice in writing to that effect to the owner of the coal at the pit's mouth, be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be sold at the time of the delivery thereof.
    If in consequence of this provision the price to be paid by any person to whom coal is delivered is reduced by any amount, the price to be paid by any person to whom the coal is delivered in pursuance of any subsidiary contract shall be reduced by an equivalent amount.
    For the purposes of this provision 'excepted coal' means coal supplied for domestic or household purposes to any person and coal supplied for any purpose to any local authority, or to any undertakers supplying gas, water, or electricity in any locality in pursuance of authority given by an Act of Parliament, or by an Order confirmed by, or having the effect of, an Act
    The period fixed under this provision shall be a period of three months after the commencement of this Act, but the owner of the coal at the pit's mouth may apply to the Board of Trade for an extension of that period and the Board of Trade may, if they are satisfied that there are special reasons in the case in question for such an extension, extend the period for such time as they think just under the circumstances, and the period as so extended shall in such a case be the period fixed under this provision."
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: A verbal Amendment is necessary in the first paragraph. The word "the" ought to be "this."
    Mr. SPEAKER: That Amendment has already been made.
    Mr. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in the first paragraph of the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "and shown to be excepted coal within the meaning of this provision."
    The effect of having these words in the proposed Amendment is to limit the coal to which this exemption is given and thereby, of course, to limit the persons who will benefit by the provision. The phrase "excepted coal" is defined in these words:—
    "For the purpose of this provision 'excepted coal' means coal supplied for domestic or household purposes to any person and coal supplied for any purpose to any local authority, or to any undertakers supplying gas, water, or electricity in any locality in pursuance of authority given by an Act of Parliament, or by an Order confirmed by, or having the effect of, an Act."
    I submit that these words, if left in, will withdraw from a very large number of people the benefits which they would anticipate from the concession which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. It will prevent the small and indeed the large manufacturers from getting any advantage from this Clause, and I do not know why it is necessary to put this exception in. Moreover, I think it will bring about a considerable difficulty. It means coal supplied for domestic or household purposes to any person. If the coal is supplied at the pit's mouth, as it is very commonly under contracts for very large amounts to the ordinary coal factor, who then deals with it as he thinks best, I submit that a contract like that will not come under this Clause at all. The limitation is that the coal is supplied for domestic or household purposes, and the factor w-ho buys the coal will say, and I think will argue with some amount of success, that he is buying coal to sell to other people for all kinds of purposes, and you will not be able, therefore, to say that the contract is one which will get the benefit of this Act. These are my two points, and I trust my right hon. Friend will not limit the advantage which he has given by this Amendment to the enormous extent that it is limited by these words.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The point raised by my right hon. Friend is whether the benefit which is given under this Amendment should be extended to manufacturers of various kinds, using the words in its broadest possible sense, or whether it should be restricted to those who want
    2202
    coal for domestic or household purposes, and for the purposes of local authorities in the wider sense. My right hon. Friend said he did not know for what reason the manufacturer was left out. I believe he sat through the Debate on the Committee stage. He was seldom absent from the House, and if he had listened to what I said at the close of that Debate he would have seen at once how pernicious it would be to actually give a benefit to one set of business men under this Clause and to take it away from another without there being anything like the appeal made ad misericordiam for the household or domestic consumer, or made on the grounds of the services rendered by the local authority, especially in the case of such towns as Stoke, Glasgow, and so on. I hesitate to repeat what I said in Committee, but it must be perfectly obvious that if you are going to insert into this the manufacturers you are actually going to make a present to one set of business men at the expense of another set of business men. Let me take a very simple case. A steel manufacturer may have made his contract for coal on the 15th or 20th of April. He proceeds as soon as possible to cover his output on contracts for the sale of steel billets. Having done that, if he is now to get the benefit of this Amendment, provided the addition to his price was over 4s., he will have a reduction in his coal bill without there being any possibility of a guarantee that he will make any reduction whatever in what he gets for his steel. It simply means that you will be giving the steel manufacturer a present at the expense of the coal owner. It is not my business to plead the case of the coal owner here, but, if the House is to accept this Amendment on the grounds of expediency, I will not say of abstract justice, I fail to see where the expediency comes in of putting money into the steel manufacturer's pocket by taking it out of the coal owner's. So far as I know, the coal owner is no more culpable than the steel manufacturer.
    I have given only one simple case, but there are any number of cases, and in every case you take of a manufacturer receiving a benefit under this Amendment you cannot and you could not have any guarantee that he would make a corresponding reduction in the price of his commodity. Even if he were inclined to do so, it would be extremely difficult for him to say exactly how much coal has been an ingredient in the price he was charging

    2203
    under the contract. My right hon. Friend's object is to widen the Amendment as far as possible. Naturally he would very much prefer his own Clause. I have put this Amendment down as a compromise, and I can only recommend it to the House as a compromise. If there had been no possibility of arriving at a compromise when the Bill was taken on Thursday night, I should then have asked the House, as indeed I did, to negative the Amendment of the hon. Member below the Gangway, and make the Bill apply only to contracts made after this date. I believe it was scarcely justifiable to depart from that condition, but it was expedient to do so, and when the arrangement was made on Thursday night by which the Amendment of the hon. Member below the Gangway was negatived, it was on the distinct understanding that I was to propose something in the nature of a reasonable compromise. I have done my best. I have made a proposal which incorporates something of what I said in my speech on Thursday night last, I have provided for the ease of the local authority. I have gone further than I said on Thursday night, for I provide for the case of the domestic and household consumer, and I trust my right hon. Friend will accept this Amendment, as it has been put forward with the object of meeting the view's of the Committee as far as possible, and that he will not press the Amendment which he has now moved, simply for the reason that if he docs so he will not be doing any justice to any one class of the community, but will merely be making a transfer of a certain amount of profit out of one pocket into another without any public gain.
    Mr. BIGLAND: In this Amendment there is one Clause where the right hon. Gentleman says no good will happen. Let me put this case. I have a letter from my Constituency in which a co-operative society which acts in a dual capacity, both as small manufacturers and suppliers to the poor of coal, wants to know how it will stand in the contracts it has made at an excess price. It has to provide large quantities of coal for its bakeries and other businesses, and I should like to ask whether, if the Amendment is not accepted, it will come within this reduction or not?
    Sir D. GODDARD: I should like to ask what is really included in this Amendment? The expression used is "the sale of coal by the owner at the pit's mouth." I want
    2204
    to know, if a gas company enters into a contract with the owner of a colliery f.o.b., whether the contract comes within the other contracts which are mentioned here as being made at the pit's mouths? It is rather an important question, because there is a vast number of these contracts, especially by what are termed utility companies, which are made f.o.b., and not at the pit's mouth.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: As we have had a very strenuous fight in the Committee stage on this question of the supply of coal to the householder and the consumer at large, I wish to express to my right hon. Friend my thanks for the Amendment which he has placed on the Paper. I think he has met a difficult position in a generous way. Personally, I should have preferred that he had gone the whole hog, but he has produced an Amendment which I am sure will be of real benefit to the consumers at large during the coming winter. In the period of the next two or three months the merchant is buying his coal under summer prices at a reduced price compared with what he pays in the winter. My right hon. Friend has met us very fairly. We could not expect to get everything, but this Amendment as it now stands will, I think, make the Bill of real advantage, and my right hon. Friend deserves full credit for meeting what is a very difficult case, although we shall hear a great deal in the country about the sanctity of contracts—when the House yesterday dealt with the question of revising barristers my right hon. Friend equally had courage—and has dealt with one of the most complex trades, which is, after all, the largest industry of the country. I again thank him.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. WATT: I associate myself with the hon. Baronet who has just spoken in thanking the President of the Board of Trade for having met us in regard to this Clause. As the hon. Baronet has indicated, this is a compromise, and, therefore, if an individual who desires to have his own way does not get it, he must accept the best compromise under the circumstances. There are two points to which I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and in regard to which I would like an answer. They are points which are rather disturbing to corporations, who come under this Clause, and they would like to have them elucidated. The first difficulty is that of the purchaser from an agent or a factor, and it is the difficulty of forcing the original purchaser to give the required

    2205
    two months' notice under this Clause. It may be that the purchaser at the pit's mouth is not desirous for some reason or other of giving the notice, and under those circumstances those who have bought from him afterwards have no power to compel him. The second point is that some explanation is needed of the words "at the time of the delivery thereof." Suppose a contract spreads over six months, and deliveries are made of 2,000 tons per week. Is the price to vary with each delivery of 2,000 tons, or is there to be some arrangement whereby the price will be the price fixed for the whole run of the contract, and there is to be no variation in connection with each delivery?
    Mr. WARDLE: Like other hon. Members, I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having effected some kind of compromise, which I do not think he can say goes apart from justice. I believe it is both expedient and just that this compromise should have been made. There is one point in the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Watt) which I want to be quite sure is made clear, and that is, as I understand it, the question of co-operative societies or a workman's coal club or a large corporation, giving notice and having their contract revised. How can the consumers, and particularly the poor consumers, compel those factors who have arranged contracts with the colliery companies to revise their contract so that they can get the benefit of the lower prices? I feel there is a difficulty there. If there is some method by which they can bring pressure to bear so that the ordinary householder, and particularly the poor consumer, will have means at his disposal of compelling a revision of the contracts, then we shall be quite satisfied with this Clause.
    Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill with reference to the objections of coal owners. Undoubtedly they did feel that the Bill affected them prejudicially, and especially that if the question of contracts was entered into they would be somewhat hardly used. I think that the general body of coal owners would like to take this opportunity of saying that, they are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the great courtesy and attention he has given to the objections which they have raised on the Bill. They believe that he has honestly endeavoured to arrive at a settlement in the nature of a compromise
    2206
    which will give as much satisfaction as we can expect to get. I only rise to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has met this particular question, and I hope the House will accept this Amendment as an honest compromise.
    Mr. W. THORNE: It seems to me that the last seven lines of the Amendment are dangerous, because they give the coal owners the right to appeal to the Board of Trade. On that appeal to the Board of Trade, if the Board thinks that the coal owners have made out a very good case, they can extend the period, which would mean that the Board of Trade can extend the period to another three months. If that is so, it seems to me that the later part of the Amendment will nullify the early part, and I doubt very much whether the Amendment will confer the benefits intended by the Board of Trade. I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade what reason there is for these last seven lines being inserted, because they do give the Board power to extend the period, which may inflict hardships, especially upon the consumers who purchase coal day by day and week by week. There is another point to which I would draw attention. It is quite true that a very large number of local authorities are not in the habit of making contracts direct with the coal owners. They make contracts with coal merchants, like the hon. Member for St. Ives (Sir Clifford Cory).
    Sir C. CORY(was understood to say): I have nothing to do with it.
    Mr. W. THORNE: At any rate, there are a number of coal factors in London like Cory and Sons, and a large number of local authorities make contracts with that firm. There are other local authorities who make contracts with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Sir E. Cornwall). Where the local authorities are making contracts with the coal factors, I cannot see for the life of me how that will come under the definition of making contracts at the pit head. There is nothing to prevent colliery owners setting up dummy merchants, so that coal may be purchased from the dummy merchants, directly or indirectly. I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to give the House some reasons why the last seven lines have been inserted in this Amendment. Otherwise I agree with what has been said, that the early part of the Amendment is very reasonable and fair.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: I think the President of the Board of Trade may rightly feel gratified at the compliments paid to him from Members of the House on his having steered a very difficult Bill with so much success. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out when this Bill was introduced that it is not watertight legislation. I am afraid a good deal of the discussion we have had on the question of contracts, and on other questions raised by the Bill, has been on the assumption that this is ordinary legislation, and that it ought to be so framed as to go through the Courts of law, and stand the test of lawyers and judges, as though it were legislation in the ordinary course of the country's affairs. It is nothing of the kind, and the right hon. Gentleman never claimed that it was. It is emergency legislation, passed to deal with circumstances during the War, and six months afterwards. Therefore, I join with all those hon. Members who have congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on steering the Bill between the watertight lines and the emergency lines. I wish to express my pleasure in regard to the complimentary remarks that have fallen from the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy). I was very glad to hear him, from the coal owners' point of view, join in the thanks and the congratulations to the President of the Board of Trade.
    We must recognise that this Amendment which the President of the Board of Trade has put down does interfere with contracts. It interferes with contracts made by coal owners, and I have been wondering, as I listened to the Debate, how this Amendment would be received not only in the House, but also by the coal owners outside. It is no use passing these Bills into law if you do not have friendly co-operation between the people who are carrying on the business affected. You cannot carry on business by going to the County Court judges, and the Law Courts generally, and having controversies about your affairs. You can only carry on business at ordinary times with a good spirit on both sides. You do not conduct business like you conduct trench warfare, the parties being at a certain distance from each other and firing at each other all the time; therefore, if this Bill had passed against the views of the coal owners, and not accepted by them, we should only have got into a great deal of trouble, controversy, and difficulty. Now that the right hon. Member for Ashford,
    2208
    on behalf of the coal owners, has expressed his gratitude to the President of the Board of Trade, I take it that that means that the coal owners are going heartily to accept the measure, and that we shall not have any difficulties arising because of this legislation. If you get difficulties and you get into the Law Courts, neither this Bill nor any other emergency Bill will hold water. Take it to any Court, take it to any judge, and anyone who wants to drive through this Bill can do it. The coal owners, the coal merchants, could drive through this Bill. Anyone could get through a Bill of this kind. With the support of the right hon. Member opposite, and of the coal owners, I think we ought to be able to look forward to this measure being of great advantage to all concerned
    In regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. William Thorne) as to dummy merchants, I know that that has been very carefully considered by the Board of Trade. I have had conversations with the President and the officers of the Board, and it is understood that they are well within this Bill. Of course, I am not a lawyer and I cannot say whether that is so, but the belief is that they are inside this Bill. You cannot have a dummy or a bogey merchant coming in between the working of this Act and the pit-mouth prices. I hope that is so, because, if it is not, it will be a real danger. I am informed, however, that that point is safeguarded. Under those circumstances, perhaps the hon. Member will be satisfied. I had an Amendment, but after what has taken place I do not propose to move it, because I join with all the other hon. Members in the hope that we may get this Bill through and have the benefit of it as soon as possible.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I accept the Clause as it is now proposed with some satisfaction, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having yielded. I think we should also thank ourselves, for if we had not hammered the permanent officials thoroughly in Committee they would never have given way. They have given way, however, and they have yielded to what was practically the unanimous sense of the House. At the same time, I think the Minister who had the courage to give way deserves public recognition when he has given way and given way gracefully. I feel gratified that he has done so, and I feel that the country generally will thank him. In regard to what the hon. Member

    2209
    for West Ham has said, I had the same feeling of anxiety which he has expressed, but I do not really see how the Clause could otherwise have been drawn. If he reads Clause 1, Sub-section (1), he will see that the coal which is affected is defined thus:
    "Coal at the pit's mouth shall not be sold or offered for sale by the owner of the coal, etc."
    Therefore, we are only legislating for coal at the pit's mouth sold by the owner. Consequently, when you come to an Amendment dealing with that matter, it refers to the sale of coal by the owner at the pit's mouth.
    Mr. W. THORNE: The last seven lines are the most dangerous, because they give the Board of Trade power to extend the period.
    Mr. HEALY: I think the Board of Trade can be trusted in that matter. I have no suspicion whatever that they will discharge their duties otherwise than properly and satisfactorily. Of course, the Clause as it now stands makes it absolutely imperative that the ridiculous proposal with regard to Ireland shall be knocked out of the Bill. Unfortunately I was not here the other day when it was put in. A more absurd Amendment was never made in any Bill during all the time that I have been in this House, and I am sure that it will disappear when we come to it.
    Mr. ROCH: I will not repeat what was said by other hon. Members in thanking the right horn Gentleman for this Clause. Perhaps he will take all the pleasant things which they have said as being said by me also. I hope that he will not think that I am looking a gift-horse in the mouth if I ask him whether this Clause is really quite watertight as it stands. As I read the Clause the original person who contracts for the price of the coal at the pithead can get a revision of his contract, and then, in the event of his doing so, the Clause seems to contemplate subsidiary contractors also getting a, revision of their price. I do not know whether, in certain conceivable circumstances, the original holder of the contract may not, perhaps, wish to take the benefit of the revision, while the subsidiary people may. As I understand the Clause at present, if the original holder of the contract does not seek to get a revision, then the subsidiary people could not set the Clause into motion. That does seem to me to be a
    2210
    difficulty. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will give further consideration to this point, so that, perhaps, in another place he may have an opportunity of making a change if necessary.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: In the case of a large number of corporations and public bodies the people with whom they contract is not the owner of the coal when it is taken out of the pit, but the factor who deals in the coal with the pit owners, and I doubt whether the words "directly or indirectly" cover them. I understand that some assurance has been given that this case would be covered, but there can be no question that in the great majority of the contracts to which I have referred the corporation is dealing with, as principal, not the owner of the coal but the factor who sells the coal. That seems to be rather an important point. There might possibly be circumstances in which the factor might not wish to take advantage of this Clause, but the actual purchaser of the coal from him might. And from the point of view that the contract has been made with the factor and not with the owner, I think that there is in this point a matter for consideration by the right hon. Gentleman perhaps at a later stage.
    Amendment to proposed Amendment put, and negatived.
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to propose, in the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "two months," and to insert instead thereof the words "one month."
    As consequential to this Amendment I propose lower down to delete the words "three months," and insert instead thereof the words "two months." The object of those changes is to bring this provision into operation a little sooner than otherwise would be the case. As it stands it will come into operation after three months. That is, for practical purposes, not until the beginning of November, and the general plan of the scheme is that where the purchaser desires to take advantage of the provisions of this Clause he shall give notice within two months after the commencement of the Act, and the Clause shall come into operation within three months after the commencement of the Act. My suggestion is that those periods should be reduced to one month and two months respectively. It would seem to be an advantage that the benefit of this Clause should come into operation at the beginning of October instead of the

    2211
    beginning of November, and I feel sure that one month would give sufficient time to allow the parties to consider the matter.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend is meant to be taken in conjunction with the second Amendment in which he suggests to put in two months instead of three. I have no objection to one month being taken at the beginning, but I would point out that the period of three months lower down was inserted by way of compromise. I do not want to discuss the long negotiations which I have had since we discussed the thing in Committee, but the proposal was made that six months would be a fair period. I resisted that very strongly, and it was only after a very long discussion that we finally arrived at the period of three months. I hope, therefore, that the House will not wish to disturb that arrangement, but I shall be very glad to accept one month at the beginning.
    Mr. WHITE: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said I do not think that I should press this Amendment, because if the three months is to stand I certainly think that the two months should stand, in order that the people may have as long a time as possible to consider the situation. Therefore, I do not move the Amendment, but on behalf of the city of Glasgow I would like to join in the expressions of thanks which have been made to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to move, at the end of the second paragraph of the proposed Amendment to insert the words "and any purchaser under any such subsidiary contract shall have the same right to give notice to the owner of the coal at the pit's mouth as the person who has made the original contract with that owner, and any person who has sold the coal shall, if required, communicate to the purchaser the name of the person from whom the coal has been bought."
    In moving this Amendment, perhaps I may be allowed also on behalf of the city of Glasgow, which has been prominent in this Debate, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the consideration which he has given to a case which affects not only them but also other authorities. The point which I want to raise is this. The case of an agent standing between the purchaser
    2212
    for consumption and the coal owner at the pit's mouth has not been met, and it is quite conceivable that the interests of such an agent might be different from the interests of the ultimate purchaser. If he is an agent he is probably paid by a percentage, and obviously the amount of his remuneration will be greater if the price is kept high. Therefore it may well be that he might refuse to make a demand for readjustment of the price under this Act, and as the Clause now stands the ultimate purchaser would be helpless to enforce any revision of the contract. Therefore I propose to add these words.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know that in practice there is really much need for the Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. Gentleman, but, in case there is any doubt about it, there is no reason why these words should not be inserted. We naturally do not wish to leave the gap, pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Roch), which would allow the first purchaser practically to obliterate the benefits which would be given under this Amendment to those who are subsidiary purchasers. I therefore propose to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member, adopting some changes in drafting which have been suggested.
    Mr. HEALY: Might I ask whether it is quite clear that the words as to supplying electricity would apply to mere traction supply or whether they apply to private consumers?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have taken a broad definition, because I was unable to make use of a narrower one. It applies to any local authority which is supplying gas, water, or electricity under powers given by an Act of Parliament. I cannot take a narrower definition than that.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Words proposed, as amended, inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "to," to insert the words "coal raised in."
    I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. Otherwise it would be better to strike out the Sub-section altogether.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think that the best way out of it is to accept the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Before this Bill goes up to another place I desire to ask this question: Under the provisions of this Bill, if His Majesty's Government were included and were able to buy at the same price as the consumer, then they would be able to obtain coal at the increased price of 4s. over the price prevailing in the year 1913–14, and our Allies would also be able to obtain coal at the same price. We have been told that the Admiralty have no desire to benefit under the provisions of this Bill. I want to know why. The Admiralty to-day are paying for best Welsh coal 25s. a ton. They are paying in South Yorkshire prices which have varied very much from day to day. These prices depend entirely upon the action from day to day of the Export Committee. If the Export Committee are refusing licences the coal has to be put on the market. The only buyer then is the Admiralty who are able to get fairly cheap coal, and the Admiralty have used the provisions of this Export Committee very largely in obtaining coal at a reasonable rate. Still, even with the action of the Committee they would obtain coal considerably cheaper under the provisions of this Act than they would otherwise obtain it. I therefore want to know why the Government refuse to avail themselves of the provisions of this Act? What harm can it do to the Admiralty to come within the provisions of this Act with the certainty of getting coal cheaper? The right hon. Gentleman knows that the colliery owners have contracts with the Admiralty. There is nothing that he can tell me that I do not know; in fact, it is part of my business to know as much about it as the Admiralty. Why should the Government not have the benefit of this Act? The President of the Board of Trade is willing to give them the benefit of this Act if they will take it. He gave me that undertaking on the Committee stage. Perhaps he will tell me why they will not take it? The Bill as it has been changed now is a living real Bill. Previously it was a sham and a fraud. I think that was the word with which I branded it and which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Dickinson) also used. I am very glad now to be able to withdraw that word,
    2214
    and to say that in my humble judgment this Bill will be of real advantage to the consumer during the coming winter and next year, and I hope that the Government will now see that they also are going to get the benefit of its provisions.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): In respect to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, I understand that the reason why the Admiralty are not coming under the Bill is that it does not quite fit their particular case. Our pre-war contracts, as the hon. Baronet knows, vary, and to adjust them on the fixed basis of 4s. a ton—
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is not the Bill.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I know; but to apply the 4s. basis to pre-war contracts might mean, where we take largo quantities at the most favourable prices, a rather rigid obligation. The hon. Baronet must remember that we are taking, in many cases, perhaps the whole output of collieries producing the best class of coal, irrespective of pre-war contracts, and whether they are small or large quantities. Therefore, we are not quite in the position that the merchant occupies, and the Admiralty prefer, having regard to the general structure of the Bill, to conduct their business by negotiation on lines that suit the circumstances of each case. I can assure the hon. Baronet that if we find that we cannot obtain favourable terms for the Department and our Allies as well, then certainly—and I give the assurance on the behalf of the Board of Admiralty—we shall not hesitate to come to Parliament.
    Mr. BOOTH: I think the Admiralty are quite right in the conclusion to which they have come, and I am perfectly certain that a good many Members of this House who, in a superficial way, think they have done a very magnificent stroke to-day, by and by will come to consider the view of the Admiralty. You cannot, by passing bits of paper, dispose of a complex system connected with a large industry; if that were so, we might have merry meetings once a year to fix up the whole human family. You cannot interfere with such a complex industry as that of coal in this way; nor can it be thought that Members have solved a very intricate problem. I have not thought it advisable to interfere with the general view of the House, but in my

    2215
    opinion this Bill will not accomplish what the House thinks it will. So far as I am concerned, I do not want that there should be any misapprehension about the fact that in some cases the Bill is doing severe injustice. There is no doubt about that. I have a number of collieries in my mind that have not paid for the last twelve months, and this Bill hits them more severely still. They will endeavour to keep the pits going, but if the collieries are closed down it means a less output of coal. The hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) openly said in this House that he would like the smaller pits to be closed down. Is that what we are legislating for, that the smaller pits shall close down, and coal in the coming winter therefore be less available to the community? I could not help hearing the satisfaction expressed by hon. Members around me in regard to the Bill, and it is because of that I have ventured to intervene. I know that Members of the House like to go home thinking that they have solved a problem.
    Mr. HEALY: We do not think it.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not think that many people outside will be led to indulge false hopes about the Bill, which is such a feeble instrument, for when it conies to be in operation I fear that they will be very keenly and bitterly disappointed. I hope I shall turn out to be wrong; I hope that the Bill will do some good; but it does seem a somewhat hard case that because of the retail prices charged in the back streets of London you should immediately try to remedy it by going to the pit-head. There is dissatisfaction with the retail price of coal in the back streets of London, and the legislation brought in deals almost entirely with the price at the pit-mouth, and not with the retail price in London, from where the complaint comes, and where the difficulty arises. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill made a wise and moderate statement to-day, that, if the price was fixed at the pithead it would eventually, in a modified form, affect the retail price to the consumer. The right hon. Gentleman has not put it higher than that. There may be something in that. I hope it will be so. I do not think it will be very much, but it is probable that in some degree the legislation regarding the pit-head will reach the small consumer in some form even in London.
    2216
    Nobody hopes that more than I do, but I think from the amendments hon. Members have put into the Bill they will find not what they expect will be the effect, but an effect exactly the opposite to what they intended. This has been characteristic of all the emergency legislation passed by this House. Amendments have been introduced into these emergency Bills, as they have gone through the House, with the distinct object of benefiting the people, and it turns out that the introduction of those very Amendments has done harm. I do not want to be too dogmatic about this, and I hope that my own views will turn out to be wrong, but I have not much confidence in this Parliament, or any legislative body in the world, being able to interfere with well-known economic laws by legislation in a hostile spirit, which will work out in the manner expected. I need hardly remind the House that, in passing this Bill they are inflicting an injury upon many lawfully conducted businesses which the owners have the greatest difficulty to keep going at the present time, and, if Amendments are asked for at a later period, in case that harm is proved, but which is not now in the minds of Members, I hope the House will prove sympathetic towards any Amendment Bill brought forward to save some collieries from being closed down.
    Mr. HEALY: I heard the argument which the hon. Gentleman used in the year 1881 in connection with the Irish landlords. The main point is this—there was an evil, and we had to encourage the Government to deal with that evil. The public believe that the Government have tried to deal with that evil. If we pretend that that evil has not been dealt with by the Bill, of course the coal owner will go about to see how he can get out of it. There is always a psychological moment when the question of prices is raised. It is talking that sends up prices, but the thing the coal owner has got to understand is that they have got hold of the monopoly of a prime necessity of life, that we are at war, that ordinary competition has ceased, and that this House will somehow, by hook or by crook, prevent the faces of the poor being ground by the rich. The Government need not be ashamed if it has to amend this Bill later. There have been six Defences of the Realm Acts, and it would be no shame to the Government if they have to come in September to remedy some points in the measure The Government in time of war must have the confidence of this House,

    2217
    and even if they make mistakes in emergency legislation, it is not for us to complain that they are making mistakes, but to help them in getting out of the mistakes.
    Mr. RADFORD: I desire to say two or three words on the Third Reading of this Bill, notwithstanding the general chorus of applause, perhaps only tempered by the scepticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). The fact is that we have the evil of the far too terrible increase in the price of coal to the consumer, which will cause a tragedy in hundreds of thousands of homes in this country. The Government, in endeavouring to deal with that evil, are deserving of credit for the best intentions. They say that they will limit the price that can be charged at the pit-mouth The price at the pit's mouth is very different from the price to the consumer in the back streets of London, and if we had only to deal with the differences between the payment to the coal owner and the payment to the sleek and well-nourished middle man I think this House would be well advised to leave it alone; we should not trouble about it. But the Government have good intentions. They say very frankly, "We are going to limit the price at the pit's mouth, notwithstanding our belief in the sanctity of contract, and we hope that some of the benefits will trickle through and rejoice the consumer in his little home." I am not very sanguine about the realisation of that hope. "It is a long, long way to Tipperary," and it is a long way from the pit's mouth to the consumer's home, and, if you want to know how far it is, you can consider the difference in price as measured by distance. I do not think it at all likely that the poor will have much advantage by this Bill, and I wish the Government had had the courage to destroy sanctity of contract not only at the pit's mouth but in the back streets of London. A constituent writes to me saying, "God only knows what will be the price of coal in Holloway in the coming winter." I think my constituent is right; I certainly do not. The council of the Metropolitan Borough of Islington, with a population of 350,000, the largest Metropolitan borough in London, sent to me, through the town clerk, complaining of the Bill, and hoping that it would be dealt with so as to be actually useful to the public. The whole of the Metropolitan boroughs passed resolutions to that effect.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: They are in favour of it nor.
    Mr. RADFORD: No; that is a very shallow view. What these councils have tried to do is to alleviate the misery of the poor. It is not a question of the middlemen or the coal merchant, or the owner of the coal at the pit's mouth. They do not believe that this Bill will accomplish what the Government, with a degree of sanguineness on which I congratulate them, believe it will effect. All I can say is in the words of Dean Swift, "Blessed are they who expect little, for they shall not be disappointed."
    Mr. ANDERSON: I do not think that any Member, or very few Members, have any wild or extravagant hopes as to what is going to be accomplished by this Bill. What we have tried to do in the House is to make it a quite honest, workable measure, and we have all thrown our Amendments into the common stock from that point of view. I will, however, say this, that if this Bill does not effect any improvement in the situation, then I am quite sure that next winter the working people of this country are not going to allow themselves to be exploited by any powerful private interests. We have had far too much exploitation and far too much talk about economic laws and about inflicting injury on the coal owner while the prices have been going up. If this attempt to regulate prices does not have the effect of bringing cheaper coal into the homes of the poorest people, then we shall have to go further and take a much bigger and bolder step. We shall have to ask ourselves whether it is in the best interests of the nation at any time, and most of all at a time like this, that the coal mines of the country, and that a basic necessity like coal, should be in the hands of private people whose private purposes are against the common weal. Without doubt, if the measure breaks down, the whole question of the ownership and control of the mines will be raised, not as an abstract or theoretical issue, but as a practical issue for consideration and debate inside this House as it is already being debated outside. I believe that that will be one of the outcomes of this Bill. From that standpoint, if from no other, and also because I believe some good will be done, I welcome this Bill.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to refer to two points. The first relates to the position of the Admiralty. As I understand the

    2219
    explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary, it is that the Admiralty do not desire to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill, but if in practice they find that it will benefit them, then they will come and ask for powers by an Act of Parliament. Surely that is not a wise position for a great Department to take up. Would it not be better, and I put this for the consideration of the Admiralty, for the Admiralty to take the option now under this Bill not to come compulsorily under the Bill, but take power to come under it, which would save the necessity of any amending legislation? I think that is worthy of consideration, and if they should reconsider their decision this might be set right in another place. My second point has relation to what may be expected from this Bill. The few speeches we have had show great diversity of view as to the possible results of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Radford) has warned us to expect very little from it. I think that to some extent the President of the Board of Trade is at one with him, and he has discouraged the House and the country from expecting great things.
    What, after all, has brought this Bill into being? It was the panic prices for coal which prevailed last winter in London. I understand the Bill is designed to prevent the recurrence of those panic prices in the course of the coming winter. Why did those panic prices prevail last winter? There was either a shortage or the fear of a shortage of coal last winter in London, and undoubtedly on that account panic prices prevailed. But the more immediate cause was that the price of free coal, as apart from contract coal, was raised to an exorbitant extent. When the coal owners found that free coal was rising by leaps and bounds they said to the people with whom they contracted that they could not deliver up to contract, and they accordingly claimed that they were entitled in many cases only to deliver something like 70 per cent, of their contract. The remaining 30 per cent, of the output they were able to sell at the high prices which prevailed for free coal. It was the combination of those two things—namely, first of all the oxorbitant price for free coal and the refusal of the coal owners in many cases to carry out their contracts, and the selling of the balance as free coal, which sent up the prices. Under the Bill the price of free coal is limited at the pit's mouth to
    2220
    the figure mentioned, and by that limitation it will be impossible to raise the price of free coal, so that there will be no inducement to the contractor to break his contract. I think, therefore, that the Government have secured that during this winter the consumer in London and other large centres will be protected from panic prices.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to express my surprise at the attitude that has been taken up by the Admiralty on this question. They say that they prefer not to come under this measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) informs me that the price which the Admiralty is paying for coal in South Wales is 25s. per ton, and he informs me, further, that the corresponding price under similar conditions of similar quality coal last year was from 15s. to 18s. 6d. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] Thus you have 7s. of a difference, and if this measure were taken advantage of that would be limited to 4s. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty tells us he does not want to take advantage of this measure, as the Admiralty find that they can do better than the 4s. rise on the prices of last year. That is an extraordinary decision. Seven shillings and sixpence is being paid, and 4s. will be paid under this Bill. It is the taxpayer who pays the 7s. At a time when we are loudly calling out for economy it is an extraordinary thing that we have the Admiralty, through their representative, preferring to pay an advance of 7s. instead of 4s. provided under this Bill.
    Sir C. CORY: I think it is only fair to make a reference to the figures which have been mentioned by the hon. Member. If those prices prevail in the district of the hon. Member for Mansfield, his district is very fortunate. As far as South Wales is concerned, up to about two or three months ago the coal owners were receiving for Admiralty list coal 1s. less than what the current price was before the War broke out. The hon. Member (Mr. Watt) stated that the price before the War broke out for contractors on the Admiralty list was 15s. I wish to correct that statement. I say that the price they were receiving was going up to over 21s. per ton. Therefore, if you take the contracts under this Bill, the price that they could get would be very much more than what they are getting possibly. I think that the Admiralty list contractor is receiving a very moderate price. As I have stated, up

    2221
    to a few months ago they were receiving 1s. less than the prices before the War, and since that they are only getting about 2s. more, so that the price would be 23s. There is another thing to be considered, and that is that the Admiralty are taking practically the whole output of those collieries.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Hear, hear!
    Sir C. CORY: The hon. Member for Mansfield says "Hear, hear!" by which he seems to infer that it is a very good thing for those collieries. I take quite a different view, for these reasons: Those collieries are in this prejudicial position, that they are losing the whole of their customers and the people with whom they usually have contracts. Other people take their customers, and when the War is over how they are to keep going everybody is at a loss to know. There will then be a scramble for orders, and the position of those on the Admiralty list will be very bad. I thought it was only fair to make this statement in view of what has been said with regard to the South Wales colliery owner.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  COTTON ASSOCIATIONS (EMERGENCY ACTION) BILL.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir F. E. Smith): This is a Bill to deal with the crisis that was produced in reference to cotton associations on the outbreak of war. It will be within the recollection of the House that the Stock Exchanges, both in London and other parts of the country, found themselves confronted with a crisis of the greatest possible seriousness after the War broke out, and a crisis comparable in extent arose in certain cotton associations. After the War broke out the cotton market found itself, and within a few hours, in a condition of extreme financial crisis. Certain steps had to be taken at once with reference to three different cases. There was, first of all, the case of enemy customers and clients in whose case there had either been sales to or purchases from, and those transactions were on a very large scale. If I may take the case most familiar to myself, let me refer to
  2222
  Liverpool. An enormous business had been done with Bremen by the Liverpool Cotton Association, and a decision had to be taken at once with reference to those enemy contracts as to the proper steps to be taken. Whether or not legal power existed in all cases, that power undoubtedly exists in respect of all direct transactions, but in some cases where transactions were indirect the matter was more questionable.
  7.0 P.M.
  The course that was adopted, and beyond all question wisely adopted, was without regard to strict legal powers, because it would have been quite impossible to inquire separately into each case, to cancel all contracts which, directly or indirectly, had any association at all with the enemy or had any, even apparently, enemy destination. These were cancelled whether for spot or for future delivery. Great as the difficulty was in dealing with contracts which were suspected of enemy source, the cases where it was clear presented no difficulty. But in questionable cases a difficulty as great at least arose in dealing with contracts for future delivery with customers and clients other than enemies. In dealing with future contracts the course that was adopted was to clear away as many cross sales and purchases as possible so as to reduce the total number to be dealt with, and, unless complete chaos was to be avoided, people acquainted with the cotton market will see the reasonableness of the course the association took. In the second place, they postponed the time when the liabilities on those cross sales and purchases would have to be met, or, in other words, they introduced a moratorium which, in the unanimous opinion of those responsible for this particular association, was necessary to prevent complete chaos in the cotton world. They took all these courses, but since the time when the courses were taken various doubts have arisen as to whether the alterations in the contracts which they recommended and carried through were or were not beyond the powers conferred by the association's rules. I can only say, on behalf of those who have had to consider the question officially, that the most effective consideration has been given to the crisis with which the association was confronted and the steps which the association took to meet these difficulties; and I have no hesitation in saying that no other course

  2223
  would have saved the situation at the time or prevented widespread misfortune. There is some doubt as to whether the steps taken were justified by the powers which the association enjoy under their rules. The whole effect of this Bill is to make legal the course which the association took under these circumstances, and to make it certain that they will not be pursued by actions or litigation in which their powers would be called into question. I was not present at the time, but I think some discussion took place yesterday in regard to this Bill, and it was indicated that there had been some opposition from Manchester. It is perfectly true that at first some opposition was threatened by the responsible heads of the cotton industry in Manchester; but I am glad to say that at my invitation an influential and representative deputation from Manchester came to my room yesterday and met those responsible for the Cotton Association in Liverpool. As a result of the discussion all their difficulties were met, and the representative authorities for the two cities are in complete agreement on the Bill as it stands to-day with one or two very small Amendments. I warmly recommend the Bill to the House, with the assurance that it will meet a case which the House of Commons ought to meet without delay.
  Mr. DENNISS: The cotton trade was faced with something like a financial crisis at the outbreak of the War, and the measures then taken by the various cotton associations were such that the Government itself, if it had been asked to interfere, would have taken. If the Government would have taken them at that time, this Bill is simply doing what the Government would have done then. I do not speak for Liverpool so much as for Manchester. I believe that the practical side of the cotton trade in Manchester—that is, the spinners and weavers—are perfectly satisfied with the Bill as it stands, subject to the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman is going to incorporate. It has the approval of the whole cotton trade, and I hope it will have the approval of this House.
  Mr. BIGLAND: I should like to say a word on this subject, as I can speak with some knowledge of what took place in Liverpool during the crisis. There was a strong feeling there that the directors of the Liverpool Cotton Association met all objections and all criticisms in the very
  2224
  fairest way. They consider everybody's interests, and I believe that the action they took was of the very finest and patriotic nature. I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill, and I trust that it will meet with the acceptance of the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill."—[Mr Gulland.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee.
  SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions for Empowering Scottish Universities to Make Emergency Ordinances.)
    (1) It shall be lawful for the University Courts of the four Scottish Universities to submit to His Majesty in Council a joint representation showing that it is expedient that specified provisions of Ordinances applicable to one or more of the Universities, or to the Joint Board of Examiners, should be modified or suspended in their application to graduates, students, or intending students, who are, or have been, engaged in naval, military, or other public service connected with the present War.
    (2) It shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to refer such joint representation to the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council, who shall report to His Majesty thereon.
    (3) It shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to approve such joint representation or any part thereof; and by Order to confer, under such conditions and for such time as may in the said Order be prescribed, upon each University Court, and upon the Joint Board of Examiners, the power, after consultation with the Senatus Academicus concerned, to modify or suspend the application to such graduates, students, or intending students, of the specified provisions, or any of them.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. WATT: This is a measure in which my Constituents are interested, as I have

    2225
    the honour to represent a constituency in which one of these universities lies. I have no desire to oppose the Bill; I rise simply to ask a question. Under this Clause a joint representation of the four universities is required in order to modify or suspend an Ordinance. An Ordinance may apply to only one of the universities, and yet this Clause insists that the four universities should present a joint representation to His Majesty in Council. I wish to ask whether it is necessary that the four universities should act unitedly in this matter? The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that in many cases it is difficult to get unanimity of action. An evil may exist in only one university, and the others may not be sympathetic. I think that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is making a mistake in insisting on a joint representation in order to get a modification which applies to only one university.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): This is a proposal of the universities themselves. The object is that all the universities should deal with the matter in the same way, and that no university should deal with it in a manner which would give it any advantage over any other university. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that that is a desirable course, and will offer no further opposition.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported without Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Sir H. CRAIK: I am sure the House will allow me to pay to these Scottish universities, two of which I have the honour to represent, a tribute which I think the House will agree their conduct in this crisis fully deserves. If there is one thing more than another which distinguishes the Scottish universities, it is that they are rooted in the soil. They have traditions of 500 years, during which they have been linked with all the memories, with all the storm and stress of the history of their country; and I think that all who know what their conduct has been will agree that they have acted up to their traditions during the present crisis. These Scottish universities are, above all, popular institutions, not in the sense of being lower in their standard of education, but in the sense of being framed to meet the needs
    2226
    of the country which they have to serve. The students at these universities are drawn from every corner of the country, the remotest glens and the humblest purlieus of the city. They come as the result of hard toil, earnest thrift, and long years of self-sacrifice on the part of Scottish parents. So much the more does the breaking of their career, which the service of the Crown now demands, mean for these students. They have not come there merely to get a top-dressing of education; they have come as the result of toil and sacrifice to make their careers. So much the greater is the sacrifice they make in breaking those careers.
    I wish briefly to state the facts with regard to the two universities which I represent. From Glasgow University over 2,000 graduates and students are now serving with the Colours. In addition, there are a large number in the Royal Army Medical Corps, which is largely recruited from these Scottish students. Besides those, 250 Glasgow students have bound themselves to serve in munition works, not for a certain number of weeks or months, not merely during the holidays, but to the end of the War. They have paid their toll, and a very heavy toll it is. We have had more than 100 casualties. On the other hand, we are proud to have had one Victoria Cross, three Distinguished Service Orders, and three Military Medals. The students of St. Margaret's College have not been behind, more than 100 of them having given their services. From Aberdeen, the smaller university, 1,200 students are serving with the Colours, and more than 100 have given their lives for the country. I have only to quote two or three words uttered by the principals of these universities. The principal of Glasgow University, Sir Donald Mac-Alister, said:—
    "These sacrifices have been made by our students and graduates for the country and the university, which stands or falls with the country's cause."
    Principal George Adam Smith, of Aberdeen University, said:—
    "Dear and supreme is our duty to God, to the liberal institutions with the development of which He has entrusted us throughout the Empire, to our heroic neighbours of Belgium, and to the sacred cause of good faith among the peoples of Europe."
    The Scottish universities cannot perhaps claim the great endowments of the ancient seats of learning. They have traditions of which they are as proud, which have made them as great as these other seats of learning. I think the House will agree that they have not fallen short of these

    2227
    traditions in the great services that they are rendering to the country in this time of crisis.
    Mr. LYNCH: Before this Bill finally passes from this House I should like to say two or three words which I trust will have a salutary effect on education in Scotland. Whatever diffidence I might feel would be dispelled by the words of Burns himself:—
    At gath'rin' votes you were na slack;
    Now stand as tightly by your tack,
    Ne'er claw your lug, an' fidge your back An' hum an' haw,
    But raise your arm, an' tell your crack Before them a'.
    Mr. BOOTH: Will the hon. Member translate that?
    Mr. LYNCH: Burns is always in season. What I have to lay to the charge of the Scottish universities is that they have fallen away from the true spirit of Burns. They have lacked that inspiration. I speak in this way because no man more than myself has a greater admiration for Scottish genius—not only for the light and bright flashes of Scottish men, but also for their indomitable perseverance, persistence, and pertinacity. These qualities are not now rendering themselves full justice in this year of grace, 1915, and to this genius of Scotland; for, after all, those qualities have been famous in every walk of life throughout the world. The intellectual product of Scotland in these latter days is not a credit to Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] That would be brought home if one were to trace out the separate parts of great studies in which Scotland shone of yore. I refer to one, that of mathematics. Scotland as a nation has the great names of Napier, Maclauren, and many other great mathematicians, with many others of lesser rank. What is Scotland doing to-day in that field? I do not wish to discourage any activities, but the fact remains that the output of Scotland, in this branch in which Scotland of yore was distinguished, is small in comparison with Great Britain, and small in comparison with that of Europe.
    Take the case of Scottish thought. The great German philosopher Kant, after all, was of Scottish descent—of a very honoured descent. His grandfather was a Scottish saddler or shoemaker I believe. He is the great star of German philosophy. He is so, I believe, by virtue of true Scottish qualities, of a great desire
    2228
    for truth and by a true persistence in tracing out the lines of analysis in order to reach the foundation on which a great system of thought may be erected. I say this, although I believe the whole transcendental philosophy to be radically false. Then descending from, or rising to, Kant, we have others who perhaps even more reveal or show genuine Scottish genius—men of the Common-sense school—Reid, Brown, and Dugald Stewart, and Abercrombie—
    Mr. HEALY: And Pringle!
    An HON. MEMBER: Where is he?
    Mr. LYNCH: The name of an hon. Member held in honour in this House has been mentioned. I join in that honour, because I recognise that every time he speaks he does so, not only with shrewd common sense, but with that sparkle, wit, and humour which we delight to associate with the Scottish mind. I believe, however, that even in its best days true Scottish thought was clouded; and clouded by devotion to false traditions, by a certain conventional attitude toward great truths, and frequently towards minor truths as these affect society. It is because that tendency is becoming deepened that I rise to utter a protest which I hope may influence Scottish Members, and especially Scottish University Members, and will sink deep into the minds of young Scottish students, of whom I have the greatest hopes for the future. To go back to Burns again, who is always in order. He was a true Scottish saint—one of those for whose possession I envy Scotland. I should like to see arise in Ireland one similar, one not only endowed with the faculty of song, and wit, and humour, but inspired by that noble emotion which accompanies aspirations for the onward march of humanity itself. Scotland must return to the spirit of Burns. I doubt if there are many Scottish Members in this House who can quote Burns—at any rate, from beginning to end. [Laughter.] Yes, but that is not too great a desideratum, and I think it should be placed as a sort of sine qua non before Parliamentary candidates in Scotland. They have fallen away. They now worship false idols. In place of the pure breathing inspiration of Burns, we find a stuffy atmosphere of mid-Victorian furniture. Burns is so actual that one may quote him concerning the actual conditions prevailing to-day, even in the House of

    2229
    Commons. Let me quote again from the poem that I quoted from at the beginning:—
    "Yon mixtic-maxtie, queer hotch-potch, The Coalition!"
    [Laughter.] That is received with laughter. I much regret it. My purpose is serious. But I will not follow those arguments further. I hope that these few significant words will sink into the heart and mind of any Scottish Members and any Scottish students now growing up, for it is on them we must build—on the untrammelled, unsophisticated minds, is the hope for the future. I should like to say this to the universities of Scotland. Instead of following their routine derived in great part from England, they should become exemplars, marching in the foremost ranks of thought, capable of vying with the great universities—I will dare to say it—of Berlin and Paris. This is due to Scottish genius, Scottish thought, Scottish courage, to those qualities which throughout the ages have illuminated and honoured the Scottish race.
    Sir R. FINLAY: I do not rise to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken, and who, I gather from some of his remarks, is not altogether satisfied with the direction of thought and action in Scottish universities at the present time. I am perfectly certain, however, that there is one sphere with which even the martial ardour of the hon. Member who has just addressed the House will be satisfied in the Scottish universities, and that is the part they have taken in this War. But I really only rose to express on behalf of the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews, which I have the honour to represent, our great satisfaction at the passing of this. Act. It is a measure which has been introduced in deference to, first of all, the Scottish Members; and I desire also to express my acknowledgments to the Secretary for Scotland for having in this way, and having being permitted by the House, to give effect to the desire entertained by everyone of us.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AMENDMENT BILL.
  Lords Amendment considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  INDICTMENTS BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Mr. HEALY: If the Government are not going on with this Bill, is there any use in leaving it upon the Order Papers?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir E. Carson): The fact that this Bill is not to be taken before the Adjournment does not indicate that it is to be abandoned.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The Bill is one which requires a good deal of consideration. Some Members, I understand, propose to look carefully into it between now and September with a view to proposing Amendments, but it will not be worth their while doing so if the Government are going to drop the Bill.
  Sir E. CARSON: There is no intention of dropping it.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  EMPIRE BATTALION.

    MILITARY COURT OF INQUIRY (REPORT).
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Colonel BOWDEN: I regret exceedingly to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War is not in his place.
    Mr. GULLAND (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): He is coming.
    Colonel BOWDEN: I am glad to hear that. I regret also that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, who began the Debate on this matter, is also not in his place.
    Mr. BOOTH: He intends to be here.
    Colonel BOWDEN: I am also glad to hear that. Hon. Members will appreciate the difficulty I have in talking on this subject at all, because I am in personal association with it, and doubly so, because in this inquiry a report appears in this paper before it was properly issued. Having been dealt with, it is doubly

    2231
    difficult for me to deal with the matter, because I am in uniform. It makes it a very difficult thing for me to deal with, but it becomes a very great question of vindicating my honour. Hon. Members will appreciate that, and that I should wish to be more vehement than I may be. This Report which comes out to-day is incomplete. This is the Report which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh has been asking for for several days, and for which I have been waiting. This Report, I am sorry to say, is an incomplete one in one very serious respect. I have the Report here. A statement in the newspaper gives extracts from the Report, presumably complete, but the Report includes such statements as this which, with your permission, Sir, and distinctly in connection with this matter, I should like to read from the actual Report, the official document which I hold in my hand. It is omitted from the newspaper:—
    "In forwarding our Report on certain matters connected with the British Empire Committee, which have been referred to us for investigation; we wish in the first place to record our appreciation of the admirable work carried out by that committee. They have spared neither time nor trouble, with the result that a fine battalion has been added to the military resources of the country. We have felt it our duty to comment unfavourably on certain of their actions, but we recognise the great services they have rendered to the country, and we are careful to point out that these services were rendered at a time of great stress, and under conditions of extreme pressure. Our decisions where they are adverse to the committee are to be received with the above qualification."
    There is no word whatever of the qualification of this Report in this newspaper, which, without the knowledge or sanction of the Under-Secretary for War, has been quoted with the result that without that preamble it has quite a different construction. It is not fair. It is not a right way of guiding the public that to a body of men who have been prompted solely and simply throughout the whole of their work by patriotic action—
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): May I ask the hon. and gallant Member if he contends that this paragraph is not in the Report? He has just read out the Report on the point.
    Colonel BOWDEN: No; I complain that, by some extraordinary means, a Report has been published without that point.
    Mr. TENNANT: Where has it been published?
    Colonel BOWDEN: My complaint is that it has not been published, but that other
    2232
    things derogatory to the character of Sir Bindon Blood, my esteemed chairman, and myself, have been published. When this Report was published I was the only person, I believe, who was given a copy of that Report, because I am an officer on the strength. I wrote for the Report and got it. I was asked to make certain answers to questions of a purely military nature, which I answered. I submit that the Report in the form in which it has been published, whether by permission of the right hon Gentleman or not, should not have been published without my answer. It is not complete without that answer, because here is a statement made by the "Globe" correctly worded and quite in accordance with the copy I have in my possession, but in which the Court of Inquiry has itself unfortunately, using shorthand notes, made a distinct error. There is a sentence in the second column of the "Globe" with reference to an individual who called himself Major Bathurst, who had subscribed £100 to the committee in its earlier stages long before I had any connection with it, and the report says, and the "Globe" quotes:
    "The witnesses called before us disagree as to the use which was to be made of the £100 so subscribed, and Lieutenant-Colonel Bowden says it was 'In his hands, as commanding officer, for the use of the men.' Elsewhere he suggests that it was a loan direct to the agency."
    The House will, I think, appreciate my point. As soon as I read this Report I realised that a serious error had been made by the Court. A statement supposed to be contradictory made by myself did not exist, and I am compelled to read out the extract of my answer to the Army Council, which, I think, will convince the House that without that answer the Report itself is incomplete. I say in that answer:—
    "I observe in the Report (at page 9) the following statement:"
    That is the statement I have just read, in which I am supposed to say that this £100 was in my hands, as commanding officer, for the use of the men, and that elsewhere I suggested it was a loan direct to the agency. This is the answer I gave with regard to the question and answer, on page 46:—
    "Several of the counsel engaged in the case frequently mixed up the names of various persons mentioned on several occasions. The question to which the Report refers is as follows:—
    Question: What was done with the contribution of Major Bathurst?
    Answer: It was in my hands, as commanding officer, for the use of the men.
    This is an obvious mistake for 'What was done with, the contribution of Mr. Devereux'? (referring to the £400 contributed by him as representing 85 per cent.

    2233
    of the profits of the messing contract). All the immediately preceding and subsequent questions and answers referred to the contracts with Mr. Devereux and had nothing to do with Major Bathurst."
    It was a shorthand writer's error. The shorthand notes will show that for two or three pages before, and two or three after that question was asked. This paper is able to bring out, presumably, a contradictory statement made by myself. That statement has been made definitely clear in my answer to the Army Council, and it is not just that such a statement should reach, in any shape or form, the public Press, unless that answer had been published. That is one objection to the Report in that form having been allowed to come out. Hon. Members will be surprised to hear—I think it will be a matter of very much surprise to all to know—that included in other matters in that Court of Inquiry were suggestions of corruption against myself. Every effort had been made by myself to bring to the light of day the source from which they came, and the Court itself made every possible investigation to find any justification for it. On the fourth day of the proceedings the Court took upon itself immediately and unanimously to make a statement that there was not even a primâ facie case to justify my going into the witness-box to answer. Yet that Report contains not a word of that. I think, in asking the right hon. Gentleman to remedy that defect in the Report itself, which is now issued, I am putting it extremely mildly, but I do ask that. He will also appreciate that, having failed in that, a very favourite game of a certain class of individuals who want to attack public men is to attack their moral character. That also failed. The same paper, which had by some extraordinary means got hold of this, just because a witness said that he had heard a rumour that somebody had said this, or somebody had told him that, could bring out a bill with the words: "Grave charges against Colonel Bowden, M.P."
    Mr. PRINGLE: Why not take an action against them?
    Colonel BOWDEN: That is my business. The Report also was incomplete. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh asked a very pertinent question—quite correctly, so I think—when he brought up this whole matter in the House of Commons. I said at the time that he was perfectly justified in doing so. He has done so in a perfectly fair manner, and I
    2234
    think he is prepared to tell the House, as I am, that nobody was more surprised when that inquiry was found to be meant as an attack upon myself. In his speech he used these words, addressing the Under-Secretary of State for War:
    "I should like my right hon. Friend at the same time to tell me if he has looked into the price that was given for that particular hutting contract. If he does he will probably rind that no higher price was paid by the War Office for any huts that had been built than for the huts built in connection with this contract."—[OFFICIAL RUPOUT, 11th March, 1915, col. 1611, Vol. LXX.]
    That was a perfectly justifiable question, and no doubt the hon. Member had information to justify that question, though he has had no answer to it. I presume he wants that answer. I have in my possession now the official report of Brigadier-General Baker Brown, Chief Engineer of the Eastern Command. Am I in order in reading extracts from that in answer to that point? It was asked for in that Report, but was omitted in the Report. If I may read it, it w ill interest the hon. Member. It is complete. It points out that the total cost of £15,584 for the accommodation of thirty officers and 1,080 men
    "compares favourably with that of the larger hutments of the Eastern Command, and with that of several other special hutments which I have visited. The general arrangement and construction of the huts is good, but some of the details indicate a want of expert supervision."
    The House should realise, and the public should know, that there existed no other supervision than my own. I had no engineers there. I had not one to go down to supervise that camp. The alterations suggested concern joints of floor boards, position of stove pipes and other alterations, the cost of the whole of which the Chief Engineer suggests would be covered easily by an outlay of £40 or £50. I consider that absolutely satisfactory. He ends up his report by saying:—
    "The roads are made of old sleepers and are good, but considerable work is required on the surface drainage in order to get rid of storm water. This is a defect which is present in nearly every camp, and I do not think the Empire Committee could have been expected to do more than they have done."
    I want that sentence to attract the attention of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh. But I attach more importance to the letter from the General in charge of the administration of the Eastern Command when that report was sent to the War Office. He said:—
    "I would point out that the principal defects in this camp, the officers mess and the lighting, appear to be mainly due to the efforts of this committee to keep the total expense within the limits of the amount allowed by the War Office. Other committees who have I produced better results in these respects have generally spent more money."

    2235
    I have already made a claim in this House that we are, perhaps, the only committee which was able to keep its cost within the amount allowed by the War Office. Speaking from memory, the report justified the action of Mr. McCandlish by saying that the results of the contracts were such as to justify it. It has totally failed by the report of the Chief Engineer. The same applies to the catering. An endeavour was made to show that the men were not well fed. General Woollcombe, the General Officer Commanding the Eastern Command, visited the camp several days. He saw the men at many of their meals, and his opinion was that no battalion was ever better fed. I think his actual words were that it was the best fed battalion in the English Army, and that was confirmed by numbers of general officers, though General Landon said the food was only ordinary, though he refused to say it was bad. But the Report would seem to justify Mr. McCandlish's action on that very simple bit of evidence. There is one incident here that relates also to this paper, which has got this Report in some way earlier than it should have. Officers gave evidence also on the quality of food. They criticised the food. They could not say it was not good, but they could not say it was not sufficient; and one officer, who was asked why the men did not complain, said:—
    "Oh, if you had an old regiment where there were old soldiers you would have had plenty of complaints, hut these were young men and they were all keen."
    On the night of 9th or 10th June that was reported by this very paper, which said:—
    "Oh, the men would not complain because they were too desperately hungry."
    Do hon. Members appreciate the difference? That is a very fair sample of the kind of foundations which can be worked up, on which a rumour can be built. I am sorry to have to take part in this Debate at all. I had a discussion with the right hon. Gentleman, hoping that this paint of the absolute vindication of myself and Sir Bindon Blood as to the suggestion of corruption would be put clearly before the House, and had that been done there would have been nothing more for me to say. The courtesy of the Under-Secretary of State for War is well-known to hon. Members just as it is known to everybody outside the House who has had to come in contact with him, and I trust he will be able to assure me that he knows nothing of the incident which I am
    2236
    about to give. It will be incredible to hon. Members to realise that Sir Bindon Blood and myself, both personally affected by this Report, entered that Court without the slightest knowledge of the most serious suggestions that were going to be made against us. We had no knowledge of that at all. We asked for the names and the standing of the persons who were making these allegations against us, and what they were. I have in my possession the letter from the Army Council. In answer to our request to have that information, we were asked to sign a document which practically meant signing away the first rights of a British citizen to take action against those who dared to defame our honour. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the reference. Needless to say I refused to sign that document, with the result that Sir Bindon Blood and myself and other members of the Court entered the Court without the slightest knowledge on those points. I would like for a few moments to look at the broader side of the question. I was largely instrumental in raising this battalion, and I had little difficulty in finding recruits. I also took my share in the formation of two brigades of Artillery and a Signalling company, and I was solely responsible for the endeavour to bring them step by step under military discipline, which was not an enviable task. I was chiefly responsible for the feeding, clothing, housing, and equipment, and it has been given on high authority that this is one of the finest battalions in the Service, and I say to hon. Members, there is the result of my work.
    Mr. BOOTH: I have been listening very carefully to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks, because I have my own nephew in his battalion. We are listening carefully to him because we have a Report in our hands in which the findings of an Inquiry Court practically challenges the hon. and gallant Member's honour as to the way he gave his evidence and as to whether he was speaking the truth, and I may say we are listening to him with a great deal of concern.
    Colonel BOWDEN: I have already read out to the House the serious error and a contradiction, and I feel sure that the first to agree with my rendering of what occurred will be the gentlemen who formed that Court. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) must accept that from me here in this House. I have read

    2237
    the points on which the Court say it was contradictory, where it is purely an error in the reading of the shorthand notes. What I have read, shows that these points could not have applied because they come at different times and on different subjects. I hope the hon. Member opposite will appreciate that.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. and gallant Member.
    Colonel BOWDEN: Then I am sorry, but I cannot put my point any clearer. Let me read to the House what I would have liked to have been the final word on this matter, because the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) and others have been urging the taking over of this and other battalions, and this Report and leading article in the paper to-day talks about demanding the immediate dismissal of the committee. Let me read the letter from the Army Council dated the 15th July, which will have some bearing on the point raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract. Here is the letter:—
    "War Office,
    London, S.W.
    15th July, 1915.
    Sir,—I am commanded by the Army Council to offer you, and those associated with yon, their sincere thanks for having raised the 17th (Service) Battalion Royal Fusiliers (Empire), of which the administration has now been taken over by the military authorities.
    The Council much appreciate the spirit which prompted your offer of assistance, and they are gratified at the successful results of the time and labour devoted to this object, which has added to the armed forces of the Crown the services of a fine body of men.
    The Council will watch the future career of the battalion with interest, and they feel assured that when sent to the front it will maintain the high reputation of the distinguished regiment of which it forms part.
    I am to add that its success on active service will largely depend on the result of your efforts to keep the depot companies constantly up to establishment with men in every way fit for service in the field.
    I am, Sir,
    Your obedient Servant,
    (Signed) B. B. CUBITT.
    The Chairman,
    British Empire Committee,
    60, Victoria Street, S.W."
    I consider that that letter from the Army Council is absolutely in opposition to the garbled Report which has been allowed to come out to-day. I had hoped that the Report would have been accompanied by a statement from the Under-Secretary of State for War, and it should have been accompanied with a complete answer that I am sure would have satisfied hon. Gentlemen opposite. I should like to have some explanation as to why this Report was not accompanied by a statement from the right hon. Gentleman which would have saved altogether the necessity for
    2238
    any debate or discussion. The matters which have been raised are totally immature points, and have nothing to do with the inquiry. They are simply side issues solely between myself and the military superiors, which have been fully answered, and the hon. Member who put forward those points cannot understand them unless they are accompanied by my explanation.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I was born in the constituency which the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite represents, and I am associated with and was responsible in one way for the reason why the hon. Member came to this House by having a three-cornered contest. Like the hon. Member who has spoken, I have a nephew in this regiment, and so has another hon. Friend of mine. Therefore we can claim to have some interest in this particular regimental case. The hon. Member is aware that these are the findings of a judicial committee, the chairman of which was General Lyttelton, and the Solicitor-General was a legal member of the Court. Although we have only had this Report placed in our hands within the last three or four hours, the hon. and gallant Member is asking the House to go into all these details respecting this regiment. I am not going to deal with any of the arguments advanced by the hon. and gallant Member. We have got a Report from the Court of Inquiry which directly calls into question the honour of the hon. and gallant Member for Nort-East Derbyshire, and therefore it is altogether out of place to discuss in any shape or form a report of a judicial committee which the House of Commons can only—
    Colonel BOWDEN: That is entirely my point. The hon. Baronet has only got one side of the case, and I have in my possession a letter asking me to answer those points. The hon. Baronet cannot judge upon only one side of the question unless he considers my answer. My complaint is that this matter has been rushed prematurely before the House by getting into the hands of a newspaper before it could be put forward with my answer. The hon. Baronet cannot possibly judge without my answer, which is now in the hands of the War Office.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. and gallant Member does not seem to recognise that the Report contains the findings of a judicial inquiry, and it is not possible for me as a Member of the House of Commons

    2239
    to go behind those findings, which have been arrived at by a judicial committee which has heard all the witnesses and their evidence. It is quite impossible for us now to review in detail the findings of that committee. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is very ill-advised in dealing with this question at the present moment. We can only now consider the Report, and it remains for the hon. Member to take such steps as he thinks necessary to defend his own honour in the House of Commons. I want to deal with a wholly different point. At Question Time to-day the Prime Minister stated that it was not his intention to move to-morrow the Motion, "That the House do now adjourn." He did say, however, that if there is any desire on the part of hon. Members that the sitting of the House should continue after eleven o'clock he would move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, and that this desire could be ascertained through the ordinary channels. I understand that there are a large number of hon. Members who have signed a request to the Chief Whip, and I wish to know if the Government have decided to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-morrow?
    Mr. WALTER REA (Lord of the Treasury): Yes.
    8.0 P.M.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I want to give notice that I intend to call attention to one of the most extraordinary things the Government has ever done in the history of this Parliament. They have actually placed in the Vote of Credit the salary of the Second Whip without giving any information to the House of Commons that the Vote of Credit included that salary. Naturally this is a matter which, had it been known, would have caused some discussion, and for the Government to treat the House of Commons in this way, without giving any indication whatever that this salary was included, is, I think, one of the most monstrous things that has ever come before my attention during the time I have been a Member of this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract has discovered that the Vote includes payments to other Members of this House. I want to know if there are any other payments to Members of Parliament included in this Vote of Credit which we do not know of. My hon. Friend has found one. I want to know whether there are any more. I need not tell the Noble Lord (Lord E. Talbot) that there
    2240
    is not, of course, the slightest personal attack upon him in any shape or way. My complaint is that the Government have not had the common honesty and courage to come down to the House and say that they were going to have two Whips, and that they were going to pay both of them salaries. They are, of course, entitled to do it. I should not and none of us would complain about that, but we do complain that they should bury these salaries in this way as a war measure. As a matter of fact, one Whip would have been amply sufficient for all purposes with a servile majority sitting behind the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has decided to adjourn the House, but I think it is very unfortunate now that the Pensions Bill has been thrown out by another place. It seems to me very unfair that Parliament should leave these soldiers and sailors in this position. I myself had several Amendments which I had handed in and which I withdrew because we were asked to let the Bill go through as the Government were anxious to place it on the Statute Book. Now, having given up the time to get the measure through, the House of Lords has thrown it out, and the soldiers and sailors will have to wait till the Government come back to the House and tell us what they want us to do. It is not treating the House of Commons fairly. If the House of Lords by a snap majority choose to throw the Bill out, it is open to the Government to reintroduce it, and they would no doubt be able to carry it through.
    Take the Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill. That measure is going up to another place. We do not know what they are going to do with it. If they choose to amend it or to throw it out, there will be no opportunity to deal with it. I understand that there are certain Noble Lords, who formerly sat in this House, who are going to move very substantially to alter the Bill. If there is going to be any alteration it will be wholly impossible in the time we shall have at our disposal to-morrow to deal with any Lords Amendments. Therefore, I think it very improper, in view of the action of the House of Lords, that the House of Commons should adjourn to-morrow, and I think the Prime Minister ought to recognise that there is a very strong feeling on these benches, if not on the benches immediately behind him, that the House ought not to adjourn until we have got the Pensions Bill, not merely through this House, but placed upon the Statute Book
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend he Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) does not often give me the pleasure of agreeing with him, but I have listened to his remarks upon the British Empire Committee, and I can say that I endorse everything he has said upon that subject. I am really not quite certain with what purpose the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Bowden) has brought this matter before the notice of the House of Commons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield quite truly said, the Report of the Committee has only been in the hands of hon. Gentlemen for a very few hours. I got it expedited with every possible speed, and I had hoped that hon. Gentlemen would have thought that it had been rather quickly done. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite began by saying that a serious error had been made in the Report, but when he came to read out the paragraph in question I discovered that he was commenting, not upon some thing published in this Report, which is the document with which Parliament is concerned, but upon something in a report published by an evening newspaper. I do not really think that the House of Commons need take cognisance of what an evening newspaper chooses to publish, and I do not think that undue importance ought to be attached to it. I do not bring any charge against the newspaper in question. I have no doubt that it was in sufficiently informed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to ask me to remedy a defect in the Report. How can the hon. and gallant Gentleman expect me to introduce any matter of my own into the findings of a Military Court of Inquiry? No sane person would really—
    Colonel BOWDEN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to give proof to the House of my sanity on that point. I am asking him to confirm a letter which I have written. A point was made by the Court on the fourth day of the proceedings. It has been omitted for some reason from the Report, and it is a complete vindication on the charge of corruption. It is a just request, and it is not adding to the Report. The Court has already made that Report, but it is not contained in the document.
    Mr. TENNANT: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not expect me to insert my own matter into a Report which is the findings of a Military Court of Inquiry. The statement which he has placed before the Army Council will be
    2242
    considered, and carefully considered, by the Army Council. He stated in his speech that he regretted that this Report had not been issued with a statement from myself. I beg leave to think that the House would have thought it very improper if I had made any statement, and I must really decline with firmness to place myself in a judicial capacity upon this matter. I, in common with my colleagues on the Army Council, will have to consider the observations which have been asked for from the hon. Gentleman, and which he has rendered to the Army Council on such part of the Report as concerns him. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division that he was only considering one side of the matter, he was really not using a proper expression, the one side to which he referred being the findings of this body of competent gentlemen upon the whole of the evidence taken upon oath and subject to examination and cross-examination by counsel learned in the law. The hon and gallant Gentleman himself was represented by counsel no doubt very competent, who could have put before the Court the points which he desires to put to the House of Commons, and who, no doubt, did put those points before the Court when it was sitting. I can only, say that to ask a Minister to comment upon the findings of this Judicial Court of Inquiry is to ask him really to engage upon what would not be a proper proceeding, and I must respectfully ask him not to expect me to do so.
    Mr. BOOTH: I regret exceedingly to have to say in the presence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Bowden) that I think his speech this evening is trifling with the House. I hold in my hand a document. I do not apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because I hope that this House would be faithful with me if I were in a similar position. May I attempt to draw his attention to the seriousness of the position? A Report is presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of His Majesty. We, of course, should have taken it and read it very carefully, and I may say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we should have read it with the deepest pain, seeing that it reflects upon a Member of our own Assembly. We should have read it very carefully, and those of us who might have been inclined to make any suggestions would have taken a little time to

    2243
    consider it, and would probably have consulted some Minister in a responsible position, or some old Members of the House, or some of those serving in the Army, before we had dared to bring it up on the Motion for Adjournment. The hon. and gallant Member has himself rushed to the front and is inviting the opinion of the House upon something. I would ask him to remember what is on page 10 of the Report, because it is material to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman making any speech at all. It says:—
    "The Court is of opinion that the evidence of Lieut.-Colonel Bowden is neither clear nor consistent."
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman must excuse me. In these matters we must put all personalities on one side and be faithful to each other. This is the finding of a Court which, whatever the hon. and gallant Gentleman may say, I am sure has the entire confidence of this Assembly. I hope that he will recognise that fact. The four names mentioned upon the front page I venture to say are names of gentlemen of experience who have the confidence of Members of the House. That is the opinion of the Court. Yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman comes and make an ex-parte statement, and wants to influence the House by it in face of that remark. The hon. and gallant Gentleman denies that he used the word "fee." I only take this as an illustration to show him the seriousness of the position. The Court itself says this:—
    "There ram be little doubt that the word 'fee' was used by Lieut.-Colonel Bowden in his conversation with Captain Clark. Two officers heard it."
    Therefore, the finding is that the hon. and gallant Member was neither clear nor Consistent in his statement before the Court; and they further say on a definite point that they did not believe the hon. and gallant Member. They find, therefore, so far as I can see, that they cannot accept his word, and they find him guilty of not speaking the truth.
    Colonel BOWDEN: No, no!
    Mr. BOOTH: I only speak as a layman. I will read the words again:—
    "He denies that he used the word 'fee.'"
    The finding is:—
    "There can be little doubt that the word 'fee' was used by Lieut.-Colonel Bowden in his conversation."
    They find that he did use that word. In the face of that statement just put into our hands, the hon. and gallant Gentleman comes and makes a speech to the
    2244
    House. That is my complaint. I am not going into the merits of the case. I think that the right hon. Gentleman took exactly the right line. Why should any of us seek to add our own paragraph or interpolation to a document like this1? The document is exceedingly painful reading. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with all kindness, that any ex-parte statement of his cannot put the matter right in face of these findings.
    Colonel BOWDEN: The hon. Member is in error there; it is not an ex-parte statement. It is a statement which I have been asked to make, carefully drawn up by my counsel, and the hon. Member would speak entirely different had he that statement in his hands.
    Mr. BOOTH: I cannot accept that at all.
    Colonel BOWDEN: It is so.
    Mr. BOOTH: I put it in this way. The hon. and gallant Member is not treating the House with respect. We have here an official document and an official finding. One of the parties to the inquiry, who was severely examined, now informs the House that if we had before us some statement drawn up by his counsel we should hold a different view. If he wants to upset a finding of this character he must do it in a different way. If he is prepared to challenge the bona fides of the members of the Court, to say that it was not properly constituted, or that the members did not conduct themselves in a judicial manner then—
    Colonel BOWDEN: I do not say that, but I have quoted a case in which there is a distinct error.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am not wishing to reflect on this regiment. There are three of us sitting here who have relatives in it. I took the trouble to go down and make inquiries on the spot. I was very pleased with the men and with what I saw of the officers in an informal way. It was with my support and sanction that my nephew joined as a private. He is now a corporal. I wish the regiment every success. One paragraph in the Report pleases me. It is that in which the Court attempts, and rightfully attempts, to free the regiment from any stigma in consequence of the transactions of the hon. and gallant Member and his committee. I do not know what the intentions of the War Office are with regard to the Report. I am sure there will be no lack

    2245
    of sympathy with the officers and men because of the tragedy of this inquiry. I can only say if my name were concerned in a Report in this way I should immediately apply for the Chiltern Hundreds.
    Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): My hon. Friend opposite has been criticised for bringing on this matter to-night. I feel I am responsible. The hon. and gallant
    2246
    Member approached me as to the best time and opportunity for doing so. I told him that, in my opinion, provided the Report was in the Vote Office, he would be well advised if he did it to-night, as it was doubtful whether he would find time and opportunity to-morrow.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes after Eight o'clock.

WAR.
  WOMEN CLERKS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
  WOMEN CLERKS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).
  TOTAL CASUALTIES (BELLIGERENT COUNTRIES).
  TOTAL CASUALTIES (BELLIGERENT COUNTRIES).
  SURGEON D. VICKERY (INVALIDED FROM ROYAL NAVY).
  SURGEON D. VICKERY (INVALIDED FROM ROYAL NAVY).
  DARDANELLES OPERATIONS (HEALTH OF TROOPS).
  DARDANELLES OPERATIONS (HEALTH OF TROOPS).
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS (ROYAL ENGINEERS).
  POST OFFICE SERVANTS (ROYAL ENGINEERS).
  LIVE STOCK (BRITISH FARMS).
  LIVE STOCK (BRITISH FARMS).
  RECRUITING ADVERTISEMENTS.
  RECRUITING ADVERTISEMENTS.
  DEATH AFTER ENLISTMENT.
  DEATH AFTER ENLISTMENT.
  RECRUITS (DISCHARGE).
  RECRUITS (DISCHARGE).
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
  ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
  ARMY DEPOT, DUBLIN.
  ARMY DEPOT, DUBLIN.
  FACTORY INSPECTORS (HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES).
  FACTORY INSPECTORS (HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES).
  GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT INSURANCE.
  GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT INSURANCE.
  PRICE OF COAL (LIMITATION) BILL.
  PRICE OF COAL (LIMITATION) BILL.
  HOME FOOD PRODUCTION.
  HOME FOOD PRODUCTION.
  SOLDIER LABOUR ON FARMS.
  SOLDIER LABOUR ON FARMS.
  Pension Officers (Ireland).
  Pension Officers (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Vizagapatam (Harbour).
  Vizagapatam (Harbour).
  Live Stock (Through Transport).
  Live Stock (Through Transport).
  Out-door Relief (Scotland).
  Out-door Relief (Scotland).
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aTo-morrow (The Lord Hylton). (No. 149.)
ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aTo-morrow (The Lord Hylton). (No. 150.)
NAVAL DISCIPLINE (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aTo-morrow (The Duke of Devonshire). (No. 151.)
POLICE MAGISTRATES (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aTo-morrow (The Lord Privy Seal (E. Curzon of Kedleston)). (No. 152.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Treaty Series—
No. 5 (1915). Convention between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, renewing for a further period of five years the Arbitration Convention of 15th February 1905. Signed at London, 25th March 1915 (ratifications exchanged at London, 12th July 1915);
No. 6 (1915). Convention additional to the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Reciprocal Establishment between the United Kingdom and Switzerland, of 6th September 1855. Signed at London, 30th March 1914 (ratifications exchanged at London, 12th July 1915);
No. 7 (1915). Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United Kingdom and Honduras. Signed at Guatemala, 5th May 1910 (ratifications exchanged at Guatemala, 21st June 1915):
Local Government Board (Ireland)—Annual Report for the year ended 31st March 1915:
Army (Pensions)—Return for the year ended 31st March 1915 of pensions specially granted under Articles 777 and 1201 of the Pay Warrant:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Munitions (War Service Badges) Rules, 1915—Provisional Rules, dated 23rd July 1915, made under Section 8 of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, by the Minister of Munitions as to badges:
National Insurance Acts—The National Health Insurance (Exempt Persons) Consolidated Regulations (Wales), 1915, dated 15th July, 1915:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE RECESS.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House what proposal he has to make to your Lordships with regard to the adjournment of the House and its subsequent meeting.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I understand that the Prime Minister announced in another place that the adjournment of that House would take place, if possible, on Wednesday, and that the recess would continue until Tuesday, September 14. We propose that the same course should be followed in this House. There are reasons, upon which I need not dilate, which make it undesirable for either House to sit separately from the other, although circumstances are always, of course, liable to arise in which one House may be sitting when the other is not. In the particular circumstances and in the absence of any reason so far as we know to the contrary, we propose to pursue the course which has been indicated in another place.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Will there not be difficulties about adjourning to-morrow inasmuch as one rather important Bill has not yet come up to your Lordships' House?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. It is proposed to adjourn on Thursday.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The actual decision of the other House as to the adjournment has not yet been taken. May we assume, after what the Leader of the House has said as to both Houses having the same recess, that if any change is made by the other House in the duration of the vacation there will be a corresponding change affecting your Lordships' House?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite agree that if a change is made in the date affecting the other House we should be not merely entitled but compelled to reconsider the question.

CUSTOMS (WAR POWERS) (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

SPECIAL ACTS (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I would ask the noble Duke to be good enough to postpone this Bill for the present, as I wish to make a suggestion to His Majesty's Government connected with it on the statement which I think the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will make later to-day in regard to the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE indicated assent.
Third Reading put off till To-morrow.

EXECUTION OF TRUSTS (WAR FACILITIES) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

THE SONS OF FALLEN SOLDIERS.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether special steps are being taken to provide for the education of the sons of soldiers who have fallen in the war, and whether it is intended to add to the number of boys being educated in the Duke of York's Royal Military School, the Royal Hibernian School, and the Queen Victoria School; further, whether it is proposed to add to the number of this class of school in different parts of the country.
I hope your Lordships will agree that this is not only a most appropriate question at this time, but that it deals with a subject which demands immediate and sympathetic action. This terrible war
714
is leaving thousands of boys fatherless, and it is of the utmost importance that there should be no unnecessary delay in educating and training the rising generation whom we desire to see following in the footsteps of their fathers. None of us can doubt that for years to come after this great war we shall have to keep up a large and very efficient Army. My special object in asking this Question today is to draw the attention of your Lordships and of the Government, and I may say the attention of the country generally, to these schools, and to have it recorded in our Parliamentary Debates that these schools exist, for I believe there is great ignorance in the country with regard to some of these ancient institutions of ours, and I do not think I should be very far wrong in saying that not only are there many thousands of our fellow-countrymen who know nothing about these schools, but that there are even members of the Government who might very well receive a little instruction concerning them.
The work in connection with these schools is carried on quietly, modestly, and successfully, and little is heard of their doings. I recollect, when I was Paymaster-General and had the honour for five years of presiding over the governing body of the Duke of York's School, that surprise was expressed that I was seldom on my legs in reference to the work of my department, but the fact was that the work was carried on so successfully and so well that it did not lend itself to Parliamentary criticism, and therefore there was no occasion to deal with the subject. Having in my former capacity as Paymaster-General been chairman of the governing body of the Duke of York's School, I know pretty well everything in connection with that institution; but in my Question I refer also to the Royal Hibernian School, and to the Queen Victoria School which has been opened in the last few years at Dunblane. These schools are conducted on the same lines as the Duke of York's School, and are admirable institutions. The governing bodies are to be found in the Army List, and you have only to look at the names to ascertain that they are composed of the elements that make admirable governors and administrators. The commandants of the schools are very able men who carry on the work most efficiently under their respective governing bodies.

715
The education given in these schools is of an elementary and of a military character. The boys are trained to look after themselves almost in the same way that a Regular soldier is, having regard, of course, to the ages of the boys. As a result of the education, training, and discipline which they receive, the lads make perfect soldiers, most efficient noncommissioned officers, and often attain to the rank of commissioned officers. They are much sought after, as those connected with military circles know, by commanding officers. If asked, "Have you a Duke of York's School boy in your regiment?" the answer generally is, "Yes, and he is the best lad in the regiment." The number of boys being educated in these schools is as follows—in the Duke of York's Royal Military School, 510; in the Royal Hibernian Military School, 410; and in the Queen Victoria School, 275.
The boys enter these schools between the ages of nine and eleven; they are elected by the governing bodies and are all sons of old soldiers, those who have lost both parents being admitted without any competition. The leaving ages are fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen. Those who leave at the age of fourteen go straight into the Army and continue their elementary and military training, and in addition are taught tailoring and bootmaking. The boys in the band are allowed to continue in the school for another year; they leave at fifteen, and go straight into Army bands. The other set of boys, who remain until the age of sixteen, act as monitors, and when they reach sixteen they are entitled to enter an examination and become students in training for posts as Army schoolmasters, and if they succeed they are continued in the school and in a certain way act as schoolmasters. They assist in the education of the boys and at the same time get an efficient training themselves. The average number of boys who leave the Duke of York's School annually—and I suppose the same average would apply to the other schools—is about 120, and of these 90 per cent.—I believe that this year the figure was 94 per cent.—join the Army. There is no compulsion about it; they join of their own free will. The boys are all sons of old soldiers, but they are free to go into commercial life or any other branch they like. The enthusiasm, however, of these lads for the Service results in their joining the Army
716
to the extent, as I have said, of 90 per cent. At the present moment 67 old boys of the Duke of York's School are serving as commissioned officers, 35 having gained commissions since the beginning of the war, and 1,555 old boys are now serving either as non-commissioned officers, drummers, bandsmen, or privates; and in the past the Duke of York's School has produced at least two General officers.
My desire has always been to see the number of boys being educated in these schools increased. Unfortunately for over a year during the time I was Paymaster-General the number of boys in the Duke of York's School was diminished, I believe because of the opening of the new Royal Victoria School in Scotland, which now has 275 boys; but we pressed to have the number at the Duke of York's School increased, and before I left office an additional number had been taken in. The governing bodies of these schools elect the pupils from the lists sent to them, but they are only able to elect one out of every six eligible candidates. The officers of the Army and the Navy are trained at Sandhurst, Woolwich, and. Osborne, and I want to see the boys of our old soldiers trained in larger numbers at schools of the character to which I am referring and of which I should like to see an additional number in the country.
The old headquarters of the Duke of York's School were at Chelsea, but a few years ago the site or the building was considered unsatisfactory and the boys were removed to Dover, where splendid buildings have been erected with more than 130 acres of ground—indeed, every accommodation that any public school boy could wish to have. At the moment, unfortunately, in consequence of the war the school buildings are being occupied by Regular troops. The Duke of York's boys commandeered a school at Tonbridge about this time last year when they were turned out of their own, and the other day I was happy to see, when I was in Essex, that they have now found admirable quarters in school premises connected with Poplar. It is a school very much of the same character as the Duke of York's School. The Poplar authorities turned the girls out of their portion of the building so as to make room for the boys of the Duke of York's School. By the courtesy of the commandant, Major Dyke, I had the pleasure

717
the other day not only of seeing the boys but of saying a few words to them. I found at the school great sorrow at the death of their late commandant, General Nugent, who had been killed in the war; but I was pleased to find the boys in splendid health and condition. The school has been worked admirably under Major Dyke, who for the past twelve months has filled the post of commandant. He was at Chelsea when I was chairman of the governing body, and I know what a live interest he takes in the lads, and I was glad to find that everything was going on so well at the school.
What I am anxious about is that the House of Lords and the country generally should know that we have institutions of this sort. We were talking yesterday in this House about the Board of Chelsea Hospital. I will not say it was Greek—had it been so your Lordships would have understood it—but it certainly came as news to some members of your Lordships' House that there was such a body as the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, who have been looking after the pensioning of the troops and have done such admirable and successful work for so many years. I have taken this question up because I know the merits of these schools. You could not have a better training than that given in them for your non-commissioned officers, and I suggest that the number of boys trained in this way should be increased. Take the Duke of York's School at Dover. It was originally intended that there should be ten blocks to contain sixty boys each, making a total of 600; but as a matter of fact only eight blocks were erected, and the number in the school at the present moment is 510. By the erection of more blocks a large number of additional boys could be accommodated in that school with very little additional expense—in fact, hardly any—from the educational point of view.
What I suggest is that His Majesty's Government should give consideration to the question of what they are going to do for the sons of the soldiers who have fallen in this war. Some provision will have to be made for them. We know that some mothers are at the present moment in receipt of such large allowances that there is a tendency to be careless as to sending their boys to school, but I hope that will not be allowed to continue. There are certain other mothers who find, now that
718
the husbands are away at the war, that their sons are giving them trouble, and they would like to see them in some well-regulated school. These sons of soldiers have much of the fighting blood in them. We used to have lectures delivered at Chelsea, and the enthusiasm of the boys and the military spirit which they displayed would have gladdened your hearts; and you have the proof of the existence of this spirit in the fact that they voluntarily join the Army to the extent of 90 per cent. when they leave school.
We have now a school in England, one in Ireland, and one in Scotland. I suggest that we should have a school for Wales, and I also think it would be a great advantage if similar schools could be established in great counties like Lancashire and Yorkshire and in other great centres. I see in the House my noble and learned friend Lord Haldane. I had the pleasure of addressing him on more than one occasion in connection with the Duke of York's School when he was at the War Office. He knows my views, and he can ascertain from the military authorities what their views are with regard to the value of the Duke of York's School. But at that time, no one anticipating the present war, more attention was paid to the question of officers than to that of men. We have, however, discovered in recruiting these millions of men who have now been enrolled that the real deficiency has been in the matter of non-commissioned officers and sergeants to drill recruits. Whatever happens, we shall be compelled to maintain a much larger Army—I am sorry to say so—for years to come than we have maintained in the past. Therefore I say take this opportunity of making extra provision for the sons of our soldiers and sailors who lose their lives in this war, and I commend the matter to His Majesty's Government as one which should receive their immediate attention. I do not think any apology is necessary for having brought this question before the House this afternoon. It is not one of the questions that ought to be postponed, for the sooner we set to work in this direction the better. I understand that my noble friend the Paymaster-General is going to answer for the Government this afternoon. All I can say is that I hope my successor as Paymaster-General has more power than I had, and if he has the power of influencing the authorities in keeping such a question as this alive I hope he will do it.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, in reply to the Question put by the noble Lord behind me, it is scarcely necessary for me to assure him that I have no more power nor anything further in the way of emoluments than he enjoyed when he occupied the same position. The noble Lord speaks with authority upon this particular subject. He has enjoyed considerable experience with regard to these schools, and all who are acquainted with the working of them will concur in the encomiums which he passed upon them. I may say, parenthetically, that the observations which the noble Lord made were of so flattering a character to the War Office that they will come to that Department as a welcome variation of the ordinary criticism which is passed upon it.
I am afraid that I am unable to return the noble Lord as sympathetic an answer as possibly he expected. No steps hitherto have been taken to increase the provision of educational facilities for the sons of soldiers on the lines of those afforded by the Duke of York's Royal Military School, the Royal Hibernian School, and the Queen Victoria School. The subject has been considered, but it is felt that unless the Army is very considerably increased on the conclusion of hostilities the need for educational establishments of this kind would only exist for a period of fourteen years, and therefore the very large outlay contemplated would hardly be justified.
The noble Lord behind me—somewhat, I confess, to my surprise—appears to be a much more ardent militarist than I gave him credit for being. He seems to contemplate a very large and permanent addition to our Forces. I am not going to take upon myself to make any prophecy on the subject, but it is not at all events the view of the War Office at the present moment that a problematical increase of this kind would justify the expenditure involved; and I cannot help pointing out to the noble Lord that expenditure of this kind would meet with, unless I am much mistaken, considerable opposition from the rigid economist who sits beside him, and from many other noble Lords in this House and from other persons elsewhere. The Duke of York's School and the Royal Hibernian School were founded a long time ago; the Queen Victoria School was founded as a memorial to the Scottish soldiers who had fallen in the South
720
African War. The last-named school, unless I am mistaken, was built by public subscriptions, and had that not been the case I should think it is very doubtful whether it would ever have been established at all. The fact is that the country now provides elementary education for children in a way which was not contemplated when the Duke of York's School and the Royal Hibernian School were founded, and the circumstances attending the foundation of all three of the existing schools hardly seem to bear an analogy with the circumstances as they are at the present day.

THE ISLE OF SHEPPEY.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the injury done last year to the crops of certain occupiers in the Isle of Sheppey, and to ask His Majesty's Government what is preventing the grant of compensation. This is a very real grievance, though I am glad to say it is limited to a small number of people. I should not have made the matter public could I have got an answer to private inquiries, but after waiting three weeks, and knowing that Parliament was going to rise, I have thought it necessary to call attention to the matter in your Lordships' House. This being an agricultural matter I originally addressed the Minister for Agriculture, but as he is not here to-night I presume that the answer to my Question will come from the War Department, and as the injury was done by that Department I think that is quite natural.
The Isle of Sheppey is one of the outworks of our coast defences, and therefore it was quite natural that it should be overrun by armies quite early after mobilisation, and I have no doubt it was necessary to do a good deal of destruction. Whether it was all done with care I should from my own experience doubt. I believe that a great deal of waste occurred in that neighbourhood from the young Engineer officers disregarding the advice of the local experts on the geological character of the land. I believe that work done then has had to be done over again three times, and therefore there has been a great waste of money. But that is not the case which I am bringing before your Lordships.
I have here a list of some ten farmers—I think they are partly yeomen who also occupy land other than their own—whose crops and buildings were destroyed as long

721
ago as August of last year, and my information is that they have not yet received one penny of compensation. The War Department valuer was down there no earlier than December. The War Department allowed it to run until December, and then sent a valuer to meet the occupiers valuer, and they provisionally agreed that payment should be made by way of compensation in April. Subsequently a Commission was appointed, which I suppose again went into the whole matter. At any rate, one of the Commissioners went down and viewed the scene of the destruction, but with no result so far as the occupiers are concerned. The unfairness lies in this, that where the damage did not amount to more than £100 the compensation has been paid, whereas the people who have suffered very much heavier damage have not received, so I am told, one penny up till now.
These are not big people; they are small farmers, and your Lordships can understand the injury they have suffered in their business when I tell you that these amounts run from £73 up to £1,600. In the last case this unfortunate man has been out of £1,600 of his capital for a whole year. I cannot conceive, when the amount of damage was agreed between the War Department valuer and the occupiers' valuer as long ago as the beginning of this year, why there should have been this delay in compensating them. After the £73 claim the next lowest is £185; then they range from £300 to £600, £700, £800 and £1,600. I submit that this is a very real grievance, and that these men have been treated most unfairly. I said before that I should not have made this a public matter if I could have got a satisfactory reply to the private inquiries and remonstrances which I addressed to the Government more than three weeks ago.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the facts are substantially in accord with the statement made by my noble friend, and it is a matter of great regret to the War Office and to all concerned that there has been this delay in the settlement of these claims. The damage, I understand, took place in the autumn, and consisted largely of the cutting down of valuable trees and much destructive work of that kind. The War Office sent down their valuer in the winter, and, as the noble Lord has explained, admitted local claims up to £100 were
722
disposed of. This gentleman, Mr. Ewing, was at work there for a considerable time, and arrived at a provisional settlement with the claimants. Then it unfortunately happened that delay was caused in consequence of the extraordinary congestion in connection with the pay department of the Eastern Command, and in March of this year, as the noble Lord stated, a Commission was appointed under Mr. Duke, M.P. Here I may, perhaps, be permitted to observe that apparently the appointment of this Commission has resulted in great advantage to all the persons concerned. Up till then I understand the practice was for the War Office to make inquiries, to arrive at a settlement, and to send the claims in to the Treasury. Naturally that was a slow proceeding, because the Treasury, as in duty bound, were forced to investigate and in some cases to contest these claims. Under the Duke Commission I understand that everything now works not only satisfactorily but very rapidly, and the awards which are made by that Commission are final. The claims to which the noble Lord has drawn attention have been referred to the Commission, and I am happy to inform him that the Commission, which was about to adjourn, has postponed its adjournment for the express purpose of considering these claims. Therefore I have every reason to hope that the claims will be settled within a very short time, and that payment will be duly made.

THE ENLISTMENT OF MARRIED MEN.
LORD DEVONPORT: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Lord who represents the War Office to what date the statement made on July 21 of the number of married men enrolled in His Majesty's Army applies, and what is the actual or approximate amount of the separation allowance paid weekly since June 1 to wives and other dependants of married soldiers.
Last week I asked His Majesty's Government whether they could grant me a Return stating the number of married men enrolled in the Army since the outbreak of war in August last, and the amount of separation allowances paid to the wives and other dependants of these men. Lord Newton, who replied, was not able to grant the Return, but he gave me some figures. It is in relation to those figures that I have ventured to put this Question on the Paper, as I want, if possible, to

723
elicit further information which is essential to a proper appreciation of the situation as we find it. The first figure which the noble Lord gave me was in relation to the number of married men who had been enrolled since the outbreak of the war. All I now ask him in connection with that is this, whether he can inform me as to the date to which the numbers apply. The second point to which I refer in my Question is this. The noble Lord gave me a figure of the cost of these separation allowances to wives, but not to dependants. He gave it in the shape of an aggregation—that is to say, he aggregated the cost from the time of the outbreak of the war to the date that the figure had application to. What I venture to ask now is whether he can give me the weekly cost within a reasonable period—I suggest the weekly outgoings from June 1; but I do not wish to be difficult in my inquiry, and I would be quite satisfied if the noble Lord could give me a weekly figure of any reasonably recent date, but the aggregation of the cost does not convey the information which we desire to have. We want to know what is the vivid and real cost of those separation allowances week by week. Whatever they may be to-day, there is no doubt they will continue to grow. As the Army becomes larger, the numbers of married men will increase, though I hope not in such a large proportion. If the noble Lord can gratify me to the extent of giving me the information I seek, I shall be indebted to him.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the statement which I made on July 21 may be taken as applying to that date; and with regard to the payments at the present moment, they approximate to something like £750,000 a week. I am unable to give the exact figure, but I take it that that will be near enough to satisfy the noble Lord. I should like to assure him that as far as I am concerned I have not the least desire to minimise or to conceal the amount of the expenditure in this direction. On the contrary, it seems to me highly desirable that the public should have as much information as it is possible to give them in the circumstances. In that connection I would venture to submit that the attacks which have been made, not by the noble Lord, but in various quarters, upon the War Office in connection with this question are not only unjustifiable, but totally illogical. When
724
I made the statement last week upon this question I explained that the War Office was not in the same position as the War Offices of other countries to select whatever men they chose. The War Office has not, as appears to be imagined in some quarters, any predilection for married men. But the fact that Parliament has decided that the relatives of married men are to be treated with more than average generosity has resulted in the fact that special inducements are thereby held out to married men to join the Army. And it is not an exaggeration to say that the larger a man's family the greater are the inducements for him to join the Army, and not only are those inducements offered to men who are not in the Army in order to get them to enter the Army, but men who are in the Army now are to some extent induced to marry because they are soldiers. It is not surprising, in view of these facts, that the expenditure should be very large and should continue to increase. What is surprising is that the very people who urged and insisted upon this expenditure are now the very persons who turn round and denounce the War Office for extravagance. I venture to submit that the responsibility for this heavy expenditure is not with the War Office. The responsibility attaches to Parliament, which urged and insisted upon this generous treatment of dependants. It is altogether unfair and unjustifiable to make the War Office responsible for this expenditure, which, as will have been gathered from my remarks, amounts to something like £40,000,000 a year upon this branch alone.

THRRITORIAL MEDICAL OFFICERS.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is the case that any medical officers of the Territorial Force, commissioned since mobilisation, are receiving in pay higher remuneration than medical officers of the same rank serving in the Territorial Force before mobilisation are receiving in pay and allowances; if so, whether the inequality has existed since the date of mobilisation; what is the justification for such inequality, and whether it is intended to rectify the inequality, and if so, from what date.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the third time that this subject has been brought before the House, but it was

725
only informally raised on the two previous occasions. I have to apologise to my noble friend Lord Newton for indicating that I expected him to be able to answer this Question when he replied to one put by Lord Midleton last week. Lord midleton's Question did not really apply to this matter, and therefore it was not reasonable to have expected that the noble Lord would be able to answer it on that occasion. I can assure my noble friend that I have the utmost sympathy with him when he is not able to answer supplementary Questions. I have myself experienced the difficulty of having to respond for a Government Department without having a room in it or even a box there in which to keep papers, and I know how answers to Questions are thrown at the head of the unfortunate man who has to give the answers without any explanation as to how they are arrived at. The point which I am raising has already been brought to the notice of the House. If it is the case that there are these medical officers receiving lower pay than the men who came forward subsequent to mobilisation, then I submit that the more patriotic man is being penalised, and I cannot understand what justification there is for this treatment. This is not an isolated case. I am afraid there are other cases where men who came in after mobilisation are receiving very much better pay than men who were in the Force before.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I must express my gratitude for the consideration which my noble friend has shown me with regard to this Question. The position as between the Territorial Force medical officer and the civilian practitioner who has been granted a temporary commission since mobilisation is as follows. The Territorial Force officer is paid at the same rate as the Regular Royal Army Medical Corps officer, except that unembodied service does not count for increase of pay in the same rank. Both Territorial and Regular officers of junior rank are paid less than civilian surgeons commissioned as lieutenants, Royal Army Medical Corps, serving on a special war contract. This inequality—I am afraid it must be admitted that it is an inequality—has existed since the date of mobilisation, and I am afraid that it is inevitable in a case of war. When war breaks out, as I have had to point out on a previous occasion, the Government are
726
obliged to make concessions which are not necessary in other cases; and I may remind my noble friend of an analogous case which I replied upon the other day, the case of the outfit allowance to Territorial officers after the outbreak of war. I find it very difficult to see how this inequality, or injustice if you prefer so to call it, is to be rectified, but I should like to remind my noble friend that a concession of some value has been made to the Royal Army Medical Corps Territorial subalterns. In view of the admirable services which they have rendered lieutenants who have completed six months war service have been promoted to the rank of captain; and, as I informed my noble friend the other day, I believe I am correct in stating that the question is still under consideration with the Treasury. I am afraid I am unable to give any further information on the subject.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: There is one other question which I hope will also be considered. Surely the bonus which is to be given at the conclusion of the war to all officers who joined after war broke out will be awarded also to those medical officers serving side by side with them who had given their services in the Territorial Force before mobilisation?
LORD NEWTON: I shall be happy to bring that point before the proper authorities.

WELSH CHURCH (POSTPONEMENT) BILL.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, at the conclusion of the sitting yesterday the noble Earl opposite, Lord St. Aldwyn, asked me whether to-day I should be able to make any statement of a similar nature to that which was made by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister in another place with regard to the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill, and I am happy to meet the noble Earl by now saying a word on that subject. As the House will remember, the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill provided that Disestablishment of the Welsh Church should take place at a date not less than six months and not more than twelve months after the conclusion of the war—that somewhat indefinite period which appears in various Bills and Acts of

727
Parliament. To that provision exception was taken by some of those who represent the Welsh majority in Parliament on the ground that there was no guarantee, if the date were so long postponed after the conclusion of the war, that before the Act could come into any real kind of operation it might be repealed, and repealed not on its own merits but by a Parliamentary majority brought together on some entirely different issue, possibly connected with the conduct of the war or any other subject, and chancing to be in favour of the repeal but not consciously elected with that object. Therefore those who held that view considered that the date of Disestablishment ought to be a date not later than the actual conclusion of the war.
The House will remember that at the same time that the main Bill, the Established Church (Wales) Bill, became an Act—on September 18 of last year—a Suspensory Act was placed on the Statute Book providing that the date of Disestablishment should be deferred for a year—that is to say, until September 18 this year—or to such later date as might be provided by Order in Council. It became obvious on inquiry that the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill could not become law without arousing an acrimonious controversy in Parliament and out of it, of a kind which we are all, whatever our views may be, most anxious to avoid in the present circumstances. It was felt by all, and it was well expressed by more than one speaker in the debate in another place yesterday, that such a public contest of opinion could be nothing but an unmixed misfortune. It therefore has been arranged that recourse should be had to the expedient which was provided in the Suspensory Act of which I have already spoken—that is to say, that the further postponement of the date of Disestablishment should be provided by Order in Council, and that is the administrative step which it is proposed to take.
Those who look at the debate in the House of Commons yesterday will see that handsome acknowledgment was made, by more than one of those who were responsible for the passing of the original Act, of the attitude taken by those who are entitled to speak for the Welsh Church in this matter. It was agreed by us all—and I am happy to repeat in my own
728
words what was said by my right hon. friend in another place—that the action of those who represent the Welsh Church in this matter was both generous and public-spirited. They were entitled, as we all agree, to ask that we should proceed, as we said we would, with the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill, but they also realised that the consequence of so proceeding would be of the unhappy character which I have indicated. Therefore they agreed to accept the course of acting by Order in Council of which I have spoken. It is my belief that they and their interests will in no way suffer from the course which they have taken.
But in any case I desire to say a word almost of the nature of a personal explanation about a misapprehension or misrepresentation which has been made of certain words which I used in this House. It was stated by some that in having said that we should confine ourselves to legislation concerned with the prosecution of the war, we had thereby debarred ourselves from proceeding with the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill. I greatly prefer to think that this misapprehension was honestly entertained, although it evidently showed that the minds of those who entertained it were coloured by the prepossessions which existed in them. It is, I should have thought, perfectly evident that in confining ourselves for legislative purposes to measures concerned with the further prosecution of the war we had not in our minds those measures which have been spoken of as the Parliament Act Bills. If we had, it is quite evident that consequences would have followed which would have been in no way agreeable to those who criticised me for what I said and criticised the Government for the course we took in bringing in this Postponement Bill.
I merely, therefore, have to say in conclusion that, speaking as one who, as your Lordships very well know, has held the view for many years that the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales is an act of simple justice and would do no harm whatever to the cause of religion in Wales or to the Church itself, it is a source of great satisfaction to me that a provisional agreement on the question of the prosecution of this legislation has been arrived at in the manner which I have described. That fact, I think, shows the existence of a

729
temper, which, like some of those who spoke in another place last night, I should like to think would not die out with the conclusion of the war and when the main subject of date has to be reconsidered. We may fairly, I think, cherish the hope that in that reconsideration even though we shall continue to hold different views we shall hold them without acrimony, and that the result may be some closer approximation of mind to mind and a settlement which all parties will consider to be a fair one, although there are, of course, certain to be some elements in any settlement of the kind which cannot be approved by all parties.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am anxious to address to your Lordships a few observations on the statement we have just heard from the noble Marquess. I think it is felt by most people—by those who regard the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales as an act not, as the noble Marquess has described it, of "simple justice," but of "simple injustice" to Churchmen in Wales, and also by those who agree with the noble Marquess in desiring the accomplishment of this policy but who wish that it should be carried out with fairness and due consideration for the position of the Church—that the conclusion to withdraw this Postponement Bill is very regrettable.
What has been the history of this matter? Last autumn the Welsh Church Act became law under the provisions of the Parliament Act. It was felt at once, and universally felt, that owing to the state of war in which the country was involved it was necessary to make considerable modifications as to the date at which the Government of Ireland Act and the Welsh Church Act were to come into force. The operation of the Government of Ireland Act was postponed until a certain period after the end of the war. With regard to the Welsh Church Act much less liberal terms were accorded, and it fell to my lot, having taken much interest in this matter, to move an Amendment to the Suspensory Bill in your Lordships' House with a view to placing the Welsh Church Act precisely in the same position as the Government of Ireland Act. Your Lordships agreed to that proposal, but it was unfortunately rejected in another place.
730
Then at the commencement of the present year the Duke of Devonshire introduced a Bill into your Lordships' House precisely for the same effect. That drew the attention of the Government of the day to the matter and they themselves, after due consideration, introduced the Postponement Bill which they have now withdrawn. I do not gather from anything that the noble Marquess has said, or from anything that has been said by any of those who spoke on behalf of the Government in another place, that that Bill has been withdrawn because His Majesty's Government see anything in it to which reasonable objection can be taken. I believe we may take it that they adhere entirely to the reasons which induced them to bring it in—the desire to give justice and fair play to Churchmen in Wales in a position of very grave difficulty. The sole reason for which the Postponement Bill has been withdrawn is that in the opinion of those who are responsible for the Bill it would have been the subject of acute controversy in another place. I do not think that so long as Parliament exists it will be possible to avoid controversy. There was controversy lately in the House of Commons, very acute controversy, on the subject of the Registration Bill brought in by Mr. Walter Long. That Bill was fought by a noisy minority—numbering, I think, some thirty-two Members when they came to vote—but His Majesty's Government had not the slightest difficulty in dealing with that matter and in carrying their Bill, which they quite rightly did, through the House of Commons.
Now, would this Postponement Bill have been a matter of more acute controversy in the House of Commons than the Bill to which I have just referred? Those who objected to this Bill were few in number. They were not all the Welsh Members but the extremist Welsh Members, who desired, as far as I can judge, not merely the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales but to bring that Church into such a position that it might be impossible for her at any future time to fulfil her duties as a religious body. I think that view is shared by few persons in the House of Commons. It certainly is not shared by one who has been, both as a Minister and in Opposition, the principal promoter of this policy of Disestablishment and Disendowment in Wales—I mean Mr. Lloyd

731
George. In a debate on this matter, I think in March last, Mr. Lloyd George spoke his mind most courageously and with great force. He told those Welsh Members who were opposing this Postponement Bill that if they would not give six months respite to Welsh Churchmen, the leaders of whom, he reminded them, were fighting for their country at the Front and could not in such circumstances attend to what he called the gigantic work of reorganising their Church in Wales, then "it is not an honour to the race to which you and I belong, and it is not to the credit of our country." They did not mind that appeal; they went on with their opposition, with the result which the noble Marquess has told us.
It may be, of course, that the opposition to this Bill in the House of Commons was not confined to the Members to whom I have referred. It has been my experience to discover that even Welsh Nonconformists as a body do not entirely agree, on the Disendowment of the Church, with the small number of Members to whom I have alluded, and I believe the same generous feelings are shared by the great body of Nonconformists throughout the country. But, of course, it may be that the attempt to carry this Bill through would have provoked such widespread opposition from the ordinary supporters of the late Government in the House of Commons as to have made the case one of real and great controversy between Parties, which unquestionably we should all desire to avoid. I feel that I am not qualified to judge of such a matter as that. It is only a member of the House of Commons who can tell what view will be taken by Parties in that House on any particular measure. Therefore I am far from wishing to accuse His Majesty's Government of bad faith in this matter, or to use any hard words whatever with regard to their action. I have no doubt they acted as they believed for the best, and I am sure that those members of the Government who agree with the noble Marques in his view as to the general policy on this matter will act upon the words which he has used this evening, and will see to the best of their power that the Church in Wales does not suffer ultimately by what has been done.
But what is the position in which the withdrawal of the Postponement Bill leaves the Church in Wales? The main
732
proposal of the Bill was the postponement of the date of Disestablishment to six months after the end of the war. Under the Order in Council which His Majesty's Government intend to issue the date of Disestablishment will be coterminous with the conclusion of the war. Those six months will make a very great difference in the position of the Church. There can be no doubt of that fact. Grave decisions have to be taken with regard to the future constitution of the Church. If after the expiration of this war funds can be raised, it will be necessary to raise funds to enable the Church body in Wales to decide on the most important question whether it shall accept commutation or not—a decision which is of vital importance not merely to the future of the Church, but, I will add, also to those county councils who are to be the inheritors of so much of its means. It will be absolutely impossible immediately after the close of the war for the Church body in Wales to have any sound ground upon which to decide whether or not they can accept this policy of commutation.
There are other points in which the withdrawal of the Postponement Bill does an injustice to the Church. There were difficulties arising solely out of the fact that the country was at war which this Bill was intended to remedy, but all that has gone by the board. My right hon. friend Lord Robert Cecil the other day, who spoke I think only for himself, said that he was authorised by the leaders of the Unionist Party to say that in acquiescing in the course proposed it must be clearly understood that their views on the question of the Welsh Church had undergone no change and that the pledges they had given on the subject were still binding on them. I entirely accept that declaration and believe in it. It is, of course, necessary to avoid as far as we can controversy on domestic subjects during the progress of the war. That we all feel. But the avoidance of controversy must be a matter of mutual concession. We have had enough concession on one side and very little on the other. What was the position? All the Unionist Party in the House of Commons agreed with the Government in desiring the passage of the Bill. So far as we can judge here, the only real opponents were the Welsh extremists. There can be no doubt, from what Mr. Lloyd George said on the subject and the course which he himself took that very many supporters

733
of the late Government who were as keen as he was for the policy of Disestablishment and Disendowment would have supported the Government against these Welsh extremists. I do not think that anybody can question that the great majority of the House of Commons were in favour of this Bill. Yet by whom is the concession made? Not by the minority, but by the majority to the minority. I do hope that in future those who represent the Unionist Party in the Coalition Government will endeavour to secure that their views and their principles shall receive more attention than to my mind they have received in this matter.
Is it suggested that when the war ends, a time which no Act of Parliament has yet clearly defined—I suppose it means when a treaty of peace is ratified—is it suggested that when that happy event occurs nothing more shall be done to postpone the date of Disestablishment and Disendowment? Or have His Majesty's Government in their minds that they may then take some steps with the view to carrying out the intention of the Postponement Bill? I hope they may have such an idea in their minds. But as the law now stands they cannot carry it nut. They cannot by Order in Council postpone the date of Disestablishment after the conclusion of the war.
Now, I venture to make a suggestion for their serious consideration. There is a Bill now passing through your Lordships' House entitled the Special Acts (Extension of Time) Bill. Its object is to give temporary power to Government Departments to extend the time limited for the performance of duties or the exercise of powers under Special Acts. It relates only, as I was informed last night, to what are called Special Acts, which are local or private Acts but include any public Act of a local or private nature. Would His Majesty's Government and especially the Unionist members of His Majesty's Government, postpone this Special Acts Bill for a few days and consider whether they could not extend its provisions to the Welsh Suspensory Act? Could any reasonable person object to their taking power now from Parliament to extend the postponement of the date of Dis-
734
establishment, if circumstances should in their opinion require it, at the end of the war for some future period, a period which I may say is strictly limited by the provisions of this Bill to a certain period after the conclusion of the war? I believe that it would be perfectly possible, by some not very large amendment of the Special Acts (Extension of Time) Bill, to include within its scope the Welsh Suspensory Act; and if this could be done at any rate it would be an earnest that the Government did see the difficulties of the position in which they have placed the Welsh Church, and were anxious to obtain the necessary Parliamentary powers which would enable them, when the moment for their exercise arrived, to remedy the injustice and hardship which, by the withdrawal of the Postponement Bill, they have inflicted upon the Church in Wales.
I hope that some consideration will be given to the suggestion I have ventured to make, because I give the members of His Majesty's Government, whether Unionists or Liberals, credit for a desire to carry out the policy which was embodied in the Postponement Bill which has been withdrawn, and I cannot see how any reasonable person can object to their taking the powers which I have suggested.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, in view of the statement which has been made tonight by the noble Marquess who leads the House on behalf of His Majesty's Government I should have personally preferred to keep silence but, the subject having been mooted, complete silence on the part of the Episcopal Bench might perhaps be misinterpreted. What is put before us to-day is not a request for our opinion. That opinion we expressed unhesitatingly when the late Government's Bill, now dropped, passed through this House last March. What has been put before us is simply a statement of what has happened since and of the Government's grave sense that, if they were to do now what last March they meant to do, controversy would arise and that controversy would do harm at home and abroad. That is a very grave statement and, having listened to it, I prefer simply to express what I am certain is the opinion of every

735
impartial man—the opinion has already found endorsement from the noble Marquess himself—that the members and friends of the Welsh Church are acting with public spirit and with patriotism in not pressing, in face of that grave warning, for the fulfilment of the Government's promise. The result is this. On that day—God grant it may be an early day!—when the war ends, the blow falls in Wales and the operative action of Disestablishment and Disendowment begins. We face that fact. We realise what it means for those who believe in the importance of their great trust. Some of us—I am one of them myself—are sanguine enough to cherish the hope that, if the country in these intervening months will give itself time to face quietly and fairly what that all means, what is the issue involved, a new and a deeper view of its significance may come home to some of those who have perhaps regarded it lightly in days gone by. The words used by the noble Marquess to-night at the conclusion of his speech seemed to me to justify perhaps that hope, and to give encouragement to us who entertain it. I do not go into the question which was raised just now by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, and which is new to me. But I desire most emphatically to endorse what has been said in both Houses of Parliament as to the tribute which ought now to be paid to the public spirit of those who have refrained from pressing for the fulfilment of a definite promise.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, we are all of us, I am afraid, out of order, but perhaps the noble Earl opposite will expect me to say a word in response to the suggestion which fell from him—and, of course, any suggestion coming from him is bound to receive the most cordial consideration of His Majesty's Government, however composed. Assuming for the moment that the Government would desire to take powers to extend the time under the Order in Council, at first sight it seems to me doubtful whether it would be generally supposed that the proper way to take that course is to make this particular insertion in a Bill dealing with altogether different subjects. I state that only as a prima facie view, and I should prefer to consult my colleagues before stating any kind of definite opinion on the subject. The Special Acts (Extension of Time) Bill will be before us to-morrow, and then we
736
shall be able, I have no doubt, to express an opinion on the point.
The only other observation I desire to make is rather in the nature of a question to the noble Earl—although I do not expect him to answer it—than of an assertion of my own. The noble Earl quoted a speech made by my right hon. friend Mr. Lloyd George in another place, and the appeal which he addressed to his Welsh colleagues to agree to the Postponement Bill. Unless I am mistaken Mr. Lloyd George, and certainly other speakers in that debate, on the Liberal side—then the Government side—in politics, mooted the possibility that it would be reasonable, if a further extension of time were conceded, that some guarantee should in turn be given by the supporters of the Welsh Church that the Act would not be repealed should a majority be returned to power at the next General Election who might be willing to carry out such a repeal. It was not thought possible, as I understand, to give any such guarantee, and it was, I believe, largely upon that fact that the opposition which has been spoken of to further proceeding with the Postponement Bill turned. I only mention that by way of caution, because the noble Earl did not allude to that side of the matter. Unless I am greatly mistaken, in the debate in another place that particular point was prominently brought forward.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it is not possible for me to answer the question of the noble Marquess, as I think he allowed. But there was a guarantee given to a certain extent. To my recollection it amounted to this, that those who gave it would not raise the question of the repeal of the Act within the six months for which the date of Disestablishment was proposed to be postponed. That surely was a fair bargain. May I add a special reason for the suggestion I made? Parliament might not be sitting when peace was signed and the war brought to a conclusion. It would not be possible, if that were the case, for the Government to extend the period, because they would not be able to obtain the authority of Parliament to do so.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed by the DUKE of DEVONSHIRE.

PRICE OF COAL (LIMITATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aTo-morrow (The Duke of Devonshire). (No. 153.)
COTTON ASSOCIATIONS (EMERGENCY ACTION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2aTo-morrow (The Lord Chancellor). (No. 154.)
SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES (EXERGENCY POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AMENDMENT BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past Eleven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.