Sitting of 22 June 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
London Electric Railway Companies' Facilities Bill.
Bill committed.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Plymouth Corporation Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a second time.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Marriages Provisional Order Bill.
Bill to be read a second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders
1030
which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Bill to be read a second time To-morrow.
Sheffield Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Lincoln Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill, Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill, Land Drainage (Ouse) Provisional Order Bill, Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill, Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No.3) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Message from the Lords,—That they have agreed to,—
Methodist Church in Ireland Bill,
Ammanford Urban District Council Bill,
Friends' Provident Institution Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Kilmarnock Gas." [Kilmarnock Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Irvine and District Water Board (Emergency Powers)." [Irvine and District Water Board (Emergency Powers) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Port-Glasgow Gas and Burgh Extension." [Port-Glasgow Gas and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Port of London Act, 1908, in reference to the election of elected members of the Port of London Authority." [Port of London Authority Bill [Lords.]
Kilmarnock Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]
Irvine and District Water Board (Emergency Powers) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the first time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]
Port-Glasgow Gas and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.
Port of London Authority Bill [Lords],
Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Second Report, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report No. 843 (Zanzibar, Annual Report for 1914) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
Copy presented of Supplemental Charter to the British South Africa Company, dated 13th March, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DOCKYARD PORTS REGULATION ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 16th June, 1915, relating to the Dockyard Ports of Chatham and Sheer-ness [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ALIENS ACT, 1905.
Copy presented of Statement with regard to the Expulsion of Aliens, Part I. Ninth Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector under the Act for the year 1914, Part II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    MISSING BRITISH SUBJECT (CHARLES W. FULLER).
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet been able to gather any information with respect to Charles William Fuller, who resided in Mulheim, Ruhr, Germany, and who has not been heard of since the 30th July, 1914?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I regret very much that so far we have not received any information on this subject. The United States Ambassador has been requested to ask the United States Ambassador at Berlin to endeavour to obtain information about Mr. Fuller, and if any information be obtained, I will not fail to communicate it to the hon. Member without delay.

    SCARCITY OF FAT STOCK.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the President of the Board has received a copy of a resolution passed by the committee of the City of Sheffield Butchers' Association, calling attention to the scarcity of fat stock and consequent high prices to the civil population, and suggesting the desirability of giving facilities for shipping cargoes of fat cattle from Canada, and also from South America, to be killed at the port of landing; and whether he is prepared to take any steps in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): Yes, Sir, and the Board are already trying to organise schemes of this

    1033
    nature, and are quite prepared to consider any definite proposal which may be made to them by persons desiring to be allowed to import live animals for food, subject, of course, to the necessity of preventing the risk of the introduction of disease.

  ALIEN ENEMIES.

    DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to a recent judicial decision to the effect that goods belonging to a company registered in the United Kingdom whose shareholders were alien enemies, and whose directors were alien enemies residing in an enemy State, were not liable to capture as enemy goods; and whether the Government propose to introduce any new legislation to ensure that such a company shall not have, for the future, the status of a British company, and also to provide that the subjects of an enemy State be declared enemies wherever they may reside and their property deemed enemy property wherever it may be?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir E. Carson): The case to which I presume my hon. Friend refers is that of the cargo of the "Poona," in which the President of the Prize Court decided as stated. I am asking the Board of Trade to make inquiry as to whether the ship in question is rightly registered as a British ship, having regard to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, and I shall further consider the whole matter.

    POWER TO SUE AND RECOVER DEBTS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the case of the Continental Tyre Company v. Daimler (reported in 1915, 1 K.B. 893); whether the effect of such decision is that a company registered in England under the Companies Acts may, although all its shareholders and directors are German alien enemies, sue for and recover debts due to them in the Courts of this country; and whether, in view of the fact that in the opinion of such eminent authorities on company law as Lord Lindley and Lord Wrenbury this decision is wrong, he will, at an early date, introduce legislation to place the law on the subject on a sound and rational basis?
    Sir E. CARSON: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the
    1034
    affirmative. I am aware that some eminent judges have differed from the view taken by the majority of the Court of Appeal in the case referred to. Personally I should be glad if the law on the subject could be placed on some more satisfactory basis, but the matter is one of considerable complication, and I shall be glad to receive and consider any suggestions from my hon. and learned Friend.

    FAILURE TO NOTIFY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Roper, of Seaford, Sussex, who was fined £25 by the county bench for having failed to notify to the police that a Dutch tutor taught in his school; whether he is aware that the offence was of a technical nature and that Mr. Roper has two sons serving in the Army; and whether he will secure some mitigation of Mr. Roper's fine?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Simon): I have made inquiry into this case, and wish to make it plain that there is no question of Mr. Roper's loyalty and good faith; but it is necessary to enforce strictly the law as to aliens, especially in sea coast towns, and I regret that I can find no sufficient ground for recommending any interference with the sentence.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many people, even of high intelligence, fail to see that aliens are not necessarily enemy aliens, and that this distinction is not generally understood, even by people of high education?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am aware that many in the past have not realised that idea, but I hope that this will help them to do so in the future.

  MUNITIONS.

    AEROPLANE MANUFACTURE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Minister of Munitions whether there exists any mechanical difficulty in fabricating in this country 3,000 aeroplanes of the latest models and best quality in six months; and, if so, whether he will have the question submitted to study without delay

    1035
    as to the most expeditious means of designing and setting up the necessary plant for the purpose?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): No good purpose would be served by giving orders on so large a scale for the production of aeroplanes at present. This is not a service which can be improvised in a hurry. Steady development has been in progress since the beginning of the War, and this development will continue as rapidly as possible. The training of pilots requires both time and care, and the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the output both of machines and pilots is engaging constant attention. As the hon. Member is aware, the development of this area of the Service is a legitimate source of gratification to the country.
    Mr. LYNCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether by co-ordinating even now the efforts of private firms it would be possible without any additional plant to produce the number set forth in the question?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not really think it would, but it is one of those questions which will have to be very carefully gone into, and I think the Minister of Munitions will be the proper person to give the reply.
    Mr. LYNCH: I propose to raise this question later on.
    Mr. WILKIE: Is it not possible, as Zeppelin raids are becoming so frequent, especially on the North-East coast, to send by wireless to France a message that they are there, so that aeroplanes could come over to meet them on the way home?
    Mr. TENNANT: That, of course, would be an admirable thing to do.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received from the Leeds Trades and Labour Council a protest against the action of employers in ammunition factories keeping women and girls working seventy to eighty hours per week; whether in such protest mention is made of the action of Deputy Stipendiary Magistrate Mr. Horace Mershall refusing to convict in the case brought against Messrs. Greenwood and Batley, Limited, engineers, who admitted having contravened the Factory
    1036
    and Workshops Act by having in two cases kept girls working longer hours than were legally permissible, in one case a girl under eighteen years of age working from 6 a.m. on a Friday till 7 a.m. on a Saturday, when she met with an accident, in the other case allowing a woman to work from 6 a.m. on a Friday till 11 a.m. on a Saturday; whether, in view of the danger arising from such long hours of continuous labour, instructions will be issued that where and if it is necessary that day and night work shall continue the time worked shall be in two periods of twelve hours, inclusive of meal hours?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): My right hon. Friend has received from the Leeds Trades Council a resolution referring to the case of Messrs. Greenwood and Batley. The circumstances of that case have already been dealt with in previous answers in this House. The hours worked by this firm were such as to be injurious alike to the health of the women and to the output of the necessary supplies; but these hours have been stopped, and I have no reason to think that such excessive hours have been worked by other employers in munition factories. I may add with reference to the last part of the question that where employment of women and girls on emergency work in night and day shifts is authorised by the Home Office, it is the practice to divide the time into two periods of twelve hours or three of eight hours, subject to any small adjustments that may be desired by the workers or required by the nature of the work.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Will that be issued as a general instruction in the case of the employment of girls who are engaged on double turns?
    Mr. BRACE: Yes; a Regulation is laid down by the Home Office where there is any departure from the ordinary Factory Acts.

    ORDERS OF ALLIES IN UNITED KINGDOM.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Minister of Munitions whether he will state what arrangements have been made for the co-ordination of his efforts with those of the representatives of the Allies who are now placing orders in this country; whether all such orders must first have his sanction; and whether the conditions under which this work is carried out

    1037
    will be precisely the same as those governing the execution of orders from the War Office and the Admiralty?
    The PARLIAMENTARY (MILITARY) SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (General Ivor Philipps): A representative of the Ministry of Munitions has been placed on the International Commission, which regulates and to a large extent actually negotiates purchases made by the Allied Governments in this country. No order for munitions of war will be placed without his consent. As far as circumstances allow the conditions attached to such orders will be in accord with those governing War Office and Admiralty orders.

    FUEL SUPPLY (IRISH BOGS).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if, in connection with the present problem of the supply of fuel, he will ascertain and state the area and situation of tracts of bog in Ireland now unused except occasionally for sport; the prices, where known, at which they can be purchased; and the prices, estimated on that basis, of the tracts not yet offered for sale?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I am not prepared to sanction the expenditure of the time and labour involved in collecting the particulars asked for by the hon. Member, which would be disproportionate to the value of the information obtained.

  DAMAGE BY ENEMY AIR RAIDS.

    LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANIES.
    Mr. WATTasked the Prime Minister whether, when the Government adopts a scheme of insurance against the damages of air raids, provision will be carefully made that insurance companies that have accepted premiums against such risks are not relieved of their liability by the action of the Government, especially in view of the fact that insurance companies, and in particular a company having its headquarters in Perth, in Scotland, have a clause in their policies which, by permitting them to appoint an arbiter in any claim which they dispute, enables them to defer payment of damages by procrastination sometimes for several years?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer my hon. Friend's question. I can assure him that the question as to the liability of insurance companies under policies already issued will be one of those which will be carefully considered in connection with the formulation of any Government scheme.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how long the consideration is to go on?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I told the House yesterday, we hope to announce the decision very shortly.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is at present a free market for buildings up to the value of £200,000 on any one policy?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware that there is any free market. My information is that there is a limited market and that the insurance covers not only buildings but also goods.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the market is free up to the amount of £200,000?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, my information is that many lines of £200,000 could not be covered, and the cost of property in this country to be insured against aircraft dangers is often very much larger than £200,000.
    Mr. WATT: Will my right hon. Friend take care that the insurance companies will not take the benefit of this scheme?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can assure my hon. Friend that the object of the scheme is not to benefit the insurance companies, but to benefit the insured.

    TRADE DISPUTES (COMPULSORY ARBITRATION).
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation, similar to that passed by the Labour Governments of Australia and New Zealand, providing for compulsory arbitration in all trade disputes and rendering illegal any lock-out or strike of workmen, such legislation to be for the period of the I War only?
    General IVOR PHILIPPS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. A statement on this matter will be made to-morrow by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions in introducing the Bill dealing with questions affecting the supply of munitions of war.

    INTEMPERANCE (RECRUITS IN TRAINING).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the complaints of parents that their sons, total abstainers until they enlisted for the present War, are now confirmed drunkards, he will say what practical measures, if any, have been taken in accordance with the wish of the Secretary of State for War to prevent intemperance among recruits while training; why young men of the class described are, while in the United Kingdom, forced to take intoxicants by the absence of other drinks; whether this form of compulsion is more exigent at the seat of war; and if he will state the total quantity of each of the different kinds of intoxicating drinks supplied to the Expeditionary Force since the beginning of the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: I should be sorry to believe that the first part of the hon. Member's question is anything but an exaggeration. No complaints have reached the War Office of youths who were total abstainers having become confirmed drunkards since enlistment, and I am sorry that anyone in a responsible position should make a suggestion so devoid of foundation. As the hon. Member must be fully aware, stringent measures have been taken to limit the consumption of drink, and it is a perversion of facts to state that any British soldiers while in the United Kingdom or anywhere else are forced to take intoxicants by the absence of other drinks. Such intoxicating liquors as have been sent to the Expeditionary Force have been for the exclusive use of the sick and wounded, except in the case of rum, the conditions of the issue of which I have often stated in this House.
    Mr. GINNELL: May we take it then that the complaints in the "British Weekly" are without foundation?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have not seen the complaints to which the hon. Member
    1040
    refers. If they are at all in accordance with the statements made in the question, the hon. Member may take it that that is so.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the "British Weekly" is the organ of the Minister of Munitions?
    Mr. WING: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen any of the letters which have been published during the last few weeks from mothers who state that their sons have been ruined by the extensive sale of intoxicating liquors?
    Mr. TENNANT: My information is not in accordance with what the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I have other things to do than to read letters of that kind.

  DISABLED PRISONERS OF WAR:

    EXCHANGE WITH GERMANY.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has information that there has been arranged, through the good offices of the Swedish Government, an exchange of disabled Russian and German prisoners; and whether there is a prospect that a similar arrangement may be made by which disabled British and German prisoners may be exchanged?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him by the Under-Secretary of State for War on the 15th of April last. With regard to the second part of the question, an exchange both of sanitary personnel and of incapacitated prisoners of war has just been finally arranged with the German Government through the United States Embassies at Berlin and in London, and will be carried out early next week.

    TERRITORIAL FORCES (TRANSFERS).
    Mr. WATSONasked under what conditions it is proposed to make transfers of members of the Territorial Forces who have signed the general service paper; what will be the minimum units of Yeomanry and Infantry, respectively, in which such transfers will be made; and by whose authority and under what conditions transfers will be made from mounted regiments to foot regiments?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is only intended to make use of these powers in exceptional circumstances. I cannot state the minimum numbers who may be transferred at one time. There is, however, no intention of transferring individuals, but transfers may be expected to consist of considerable bodies, such as a company. Transfers will be made under the authority of the Army Council.
    Colonel YATE: Will the men transferred from Cavalry to Infantry be transferred with their own officers, or will they have to serve under strange officers?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think that in all human reasonable probability every transfer will be made under the officers of the regiment and not to strangers.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the transfers from Cavalry regiments to Infantry battalions will be limited in number as far as possible?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of course there is no intention of utilising these powers except in exceptional circumstances, as I have stated, and where an emergency has shown the necessity for them.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that men who joined the Royal Army Medical Corps have been transferred against their will to Infantry regiments; if he will say under whose directions this has been done; and whether there is any Act of Parliament which authorises it to be done?
    Mr. TENNANT: Transfers such as that in question have been made under the authority of the Army Amendment Act (No. 2), 1915.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that members of the Society of Friends, and others who have a conscientious objection to joining fighting units, have joined the Royal Army Medical Corps in order to serve their country in that way, and will he give effect to their convictions?
    Mr. TENNANT: That will be all taken into consideration. It is very difficult to give effect to everyone's conscientious objections in a time of war.

    BRITISH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (COMPLETION OF SERVICE).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that certain officers in command of batteries at the front have informed men who are approaching the end of their term of service, including the extra twelve months required from them owing to the country being in a state of war, that they must not expect to be discharged when the term of their service has been completed; and whether, having regard to the provisions of Section 87 of the Army Act, 1911, he will make it clear, by means of a statement in this House or in some other way, that soldiers who have completed their period of service in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Parliament referred to will be granted their discharge without question, leaving it to the soldier, in all cases, to re-enlist if he thinks fit?
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend may rest assured that the provisions of Section 87 of the Army Act will be observed in all respects. I am sure that any commanding officer who may have mentioned this matter to his men will not have done more than make an appeal to their patriotism, and I think we may have no doubt that such an appeal, if made, will not fall on deaf ears.

    INVENTIONS.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, since the beginning of the War, any inventions useful to the conduct of the War have emanated from the War Office; whether any body exists at the War Office whose duty it is to examine, report upon, and, if necessary, take steps to foster inventions or promising suggestions of inventions; whether, since the beginning of the War, the War Office has at any time discouraged inventors or placed insurmountable obstacles in their way; and whether he can state what steps the War Office will take to make available, as far as possible, the inventive talent even of civilians who have made a study of implements or machines capable of being advantageously used in the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the third part is that considering the multitude of suggestions, some of which are ingenious but many

    1043
    of which are wholly valueless, this Department has displayed an amazing and praiseworthy patience. The desirability of extending and co-ordinating the organisation at present available for considering and dealing with inventions is now being considered.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he will treat an inventor who has a valuable idea but has not the necessary mechanical skill to bring it into effect? Would the War Office encourage him?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think I can promise the hon. Gentleman that if an invention has any possibility at all of being useful to the War Office it will certainly be encouraged.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, apart from the good offices of the Royal Society, there is any institution under Governmental control, or acting in co-operation with any department of State, whose duty it is to examine not merely completed inventions but promising suggestions which, by the application of trained electrical, chemical, or mechanical skill, could be made effective; whether any serviceable invention whatever has emanated from the Royal Society since the beginning of the War; and, if not, whether he will cause attention to be directed to the system established in France for fostering inventions and will, without undue delay, set up a similar system in this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The technical branches of the Admiralty and the War Office have very complete facilities for carrying out the duties referred to in the first part of the question, and in many cases the staffs of these Departments have been very considerably increased to enable them to deal effectively with the flood of inventions received during the War. With regard to the second part of the question, the Government are glad of this opportunity to acknowledge publicly the very valuable assistance received from the Royal Society, which has contributed several valuable inventions, the nature of which it would not be in the public interest to disclose. The Government are well aware of the importance of this matter, and the present system is now under review. The French system is receiving consideration.

    RECRUITING (FALSE DECLARATION OF AGE).
    Mr. KENYONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that numbers of lads between the ages of fifteen and seventeen have for patriotic reasons enlisted in the New Armies, making a false declaration of their ages; whether, seeing this is well known to the responsible authorities, he will say why the War Office permits lads of these ages to be recruited; whether he will instruct the recruiting officers to call for birth certificates in the cases of all young lads who desire to enlist; and will he dismiss any recruiting officer who enlists lads under the age laid down by the Regulations?
    Mr. TENNANT: The lowest age at which a man may be accepted for the Regular Army is nineteen. If any doubt exists as to the age of a recruit when he presents himself, the examining medical officer is referred to. If the medical officer is in doubt, the recruiting officer is required to make full inquiries before finally approving the recruit. I am afraid that the suggestion that every recruit-should produce his birth certificate is impracticable. The Regulations give the parents of any lad below seventeen who has enlisted a right to claim his discharge.

    REGIMENTAL INSTITUTES.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the fact that in some cases regimental institutes are charging prices largely exceeding, and in some cases exceeding by at least 20 per cent., the prices at which the same articles could be procured from local tradesmen, and that even if on application to the Board of Control such prices are lowered, yet that this course is accompanied by much delay, and that in the meantime the excessive prices are charged to the soldiers; and whether, with the view of effectively dealing with such cases, steps will be taken to give the commanding officers of the various units power to purchase articles for the use of their men from local sources in cases where the prices charged at the regimental institutes for such articles are too high?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): No, Sir, my attention has not been drawn to the

    1045
    alleged facts, but if my hon. and learned Friend will kindly furnish me with sufficient particulars of any case I shall be glad to have the matter inquired into. The maximum prices are at present fixed by the Board of Control, with the advice of special trade experts. As regards local produce, the fixing of the prices is entirely in the hands of the commanding officer.

    TEMPORARY POSTMEN (MILITARY AGE).
    General Sir IVOR HERBERTasked the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of young men of military age who have been appointed as postmen to replace Reservists called up on mobilisation; and whether he will consider the propriety of revising such appointments and of employing women as letter carriers, as is being done in France?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The total number of men acting as temporary postmen is approximately 16,000. Of these about 9,000 are of military age, but a considerable proportion of them are unfit for military service. A number of women have already been engaged to act as letter carriers. I have the whole matter under consideration and hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

    CONVICTION OF SCHOOL TEACHER (COUNTY OF DURHAM).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of William Walker, a school teacher, aged twenty-six, who was, on Saturday, 12th June, convicted at Castle Eden, county Durham, of being in possession of wireless apparatus; and whether, in view of the statements made by the chairman to the effect that the defendant seemed to have been led into his position by the Post Office and that there was no suggestion of any wish to communicate with the enemy, he will advise a mitigation of the fine of five guineas imposed by the Court?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have made inquiry into the case, but have found no sufficient ground for recommending any reduction of the penalty.

    WAR COLLECTIONS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the number of the collections and entertainments purporting to be connected with the War, or with sufferers from the War, that are found to have been organised for personal or even criminal purposes, whether he will adopt measures to prohibit any such collection or entertainment without a licence or some official guarantee of genuineness upon which the public can rely, and to co-ordinate the operations of all so permitted?
    Sir J. SIMON: The question whether any steps can be taken in the direction indicated by the hon. Member is receiving attention.

    STEEL MANUFACTURE.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board has ever tested or watched a test of the process invented and patented by Sir Edward Zohrab, Bart., for the utilisation of peat, especially the production of charcoal; and, having regard to the price of charcoal at present and the impossibility of producing high-class steel without it, whether he will institute a special examination of the process in question?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I have no reason to believe that the manufacture of steel in this country has been restricted by difficulties in obtaining supplies of charcoal or by the present price of charcoal, and I cannot in any case undertake to arrange for the examination on behalf of the Board of Trade of patent processes which claim to be of industrial advantage.

    SICK WORKERS (RAILWAY FARES).
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will use his influence with such railway companies as have revoked them to restore the reduced fares hitherto allowed to sick workmen and workwomen travelling to and from convalescent homes?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Railway Executive Committee have recently agreed that cheap travelling facilities to and from convalescent homes should be continued as far as possible, having regard to the military and naval demands for rolling stock in the present emergency.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the hardships and privations suffered by large numbers of old age pensioners by reason of the increased cost of living; whether he is aware that under the present Old Age Pensions Act and regulations these pensioners cannot receive any assistance from their late employers, from relief funds, or from any other source without a corresponding reduction in their old age pensions; and whether, in view of the gravity of these cases, the Government will, by legislation or otherwise, modify the administration of old age pensions during the War so as to enable pensioners to receive additional assistance from outside sources without having their present old age pensions diminished?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The view of His Majesty's Government in regard to the effect of the War on old age pensions was stated in the reply which was given by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division on the 20th April. Administrative arrangements have been made whereby temporary increases of the means of old age pensioners in certain circumstances are not allowed to interfere with the due receipt of their pensions, and my right hon. Friend is considering whether these can be extended. But he fears he cannot undertake to introduce legislation in regard to old age pensions which would throw additional burdens in existing circumstances either on the taxpayer or the ratepayer.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay a copy of these Regulations on the Table of the House?
    Mr. MONTAGU: Regulations have already been made with regard to separation allowances, which are not to affect existing pensions, and with regard to temporary increases due to re-employment on account of shortage of labour owing to war.

    NATIONAL REGISTER.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if he will state whether the Government contemplate any collateral measure in connection with the proposed
    1048
    formation of a register of the male population; whether those measures will be attempted without fresh legislation and without taking the opinion of this House; and, if so, will he say under what Statute?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of what the hon. Member has in mind. If it is decided to create a national register, the hon. Member will have an opportunity of raising any point he may wish to make during the necessary discussion in this House.

    Procurator Fiscal (Western Perthshire).
    Mr. MORTONasked the Lord Advocate whether the post of procurator fiscal for Western Perthshire is now vacant; if so, will he consider the advisability of abolishing the office; whether he is aware that a Commission in 1875 advised that, on a vacancy occurring, the office should not be re-filled; and whether, if an appointment is made, he will see that private practice is not allowed?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): This question and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member of the College Division of Glasgow may conveniently be answered together. The post referred to is at present vacant. I propose to combine it with the post of procurator fiscal at Perth.

  POST OFFICE.

    ACCOMMODATION AT COLLINSTOWN, WESTMEATH.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to the public for five years by the refusal of Mr. W. L. Smythe to sell or let a proper house for the sub-post office in the village of Collinstown, Westmeath; whether he is aware that, when at length the most suitable house in the village was obtained and approved by the Dublin postal authorities, Mr. Smythe succeeded in having that approval withdrawn and an unsuitable house unsuitably situated adopted in its stead, in which the post and telegraph mistress is required to work in an office seven feet six inches by four feet six inches, height of ceiling six feet four inches, and to live in a garret with ceiling only three feet high at the walls and six feet in the middle; whether the department allows premises of these dimensions to be used as a post office; whether he is aware that

    1049
    this house has been condemned by the district council on behalf of the public on account of its inconvenience, and by the post and telegraph mistress on account of her health, and that Mr. Smythe's reply to the latter is an order to adjust the house to its new purposes at her own expense; and whether the matter will be re-considered and the post office established in either of two suitable houses now available in the centre of the village?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware of the circumstances, and as explained to the hon. Member by letter in April last, the sub-postmistress of Collinstown is unable to secure more suitable premises than those in which the post office is now being conducted. I am assured that the premises, which are of larger dimensions than those stated by the hon. Member, afford sufficient accommodation for the email amount of post office business transacted in the village. I understand that the landlord is undertaking the necessary repairs to the premises.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are two houses available in the village at the present moment? Is it usual to use as a post office a house let on a caretaker's tenancy?
    Mr. SAMUEL: There may be other houses possibly in the village, but this sub-postmistress is unable to obtain them. On my information, I should not feel disposed to dismiss the sub-postmistress.

    ENGINEERING CLERKS (PROVINCIAL).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he intends to adopt the recommendations of the Holt Committee respecting the provincial engineering third class clerks; and, if so, when does he propose to put them in operation?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The matter is still under consideration. I regret I am not in a position to make a statement on the subject at present.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a statement?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, I am afraid I cannot.

    CLEANERS' WAGES AND COST OF LIVING.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Postmaster-General if he can see his way to advance
    1050
    the wages of Post Office cleaners and others on the staff of his Department who, being adult men, in most cases married with children dependent upon them, are employed at weekly wages as low as 22s. and 24s. per week, having regard to the fact that it is now clearly impossible to provide food, clothing, fuel, and shelter for the smallest of families even on the meanest fare and in the poorest of homes with the wages referred to in any industrial town in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am considering this matter, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

    Peat Fuel (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) what steps the Department has taken in connection with the problem of the supply of fuel to have due consideration given to the peat resources of Ireland equally with the coal resources of Britain for both State and private purposes; whether the Department has supplied the Board of Trade with particulars of the extent of the Irish peat deposits, where situated, and the prices at which any of the tracts of bog can be obtained; and whether he will state those particulars in order to make them available for private enterprise?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I would refer him to the answer which the Chief Secretary gave him on the 9th instant, and to my reply to the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division of Dublin on the 15th instant. Particulars of the areas of turf bog and marsh in the several Poor Law unions in Ireland are contained in the Agricultural Statistics for 1913, published by the Department, but the Department have no information as to the price at which any of the areas in question could at present be purchased.
    Mr. GINNELL: Cannot the Department take any action at all in this important matter?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I am not very sure that the action suggested by the hon. Member would be for the benefit of the Irish people.

    Sale of Liquor (India).
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Secretary for India whether he is aware that the Deputy-Commissioner of Amritsar, in consultation with the municipal committee, recommended the removal of all the liquor shops of Amritsar to sites outside the city boundaries and that this proposal was approved by the Commissioner of the Lahore division; whether he is aware that the recommendation has been vetoed by the Financial Commissioner of the Punjab; and whether, in view of paragraph 6 of the Secretary of State's dispatch of 29th May, 1914, as to the treatment of special cases in town or country in which it might seem desirable and likely to be in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants that the ward or special area should be kept altogether immune from the sale of intoxicants, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The Government of India have informed me that the Deputy-Commissioner's recommendation has not been vetoed by the Financial Commissioner. It is at present under his consideration.
    Sir H. ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Hon. Mr. R. P. Paranjpye gave notice of his intention to move a resolution at the meeting of the Bombay Legislative Council on the 13th March with reference to the opening of a liquor shop at Ghoda, near Poona, in opposition to the wishes of the inhabitants; whether this resolution was disallowed because it related to a merely local matter; and whether, in view of the interest taken in Excise questions through out the Bombay Presidency, he will give the grounds upon which this decision was arrived at?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen a statement in the Indian Press to the effect mentioned by the hon. Baronet. As resolutions disallowed by the President of the Bombay Legislative Council are not entered in the Council proceedings, I have no official information as to the circumstances of the case, but presume that the proposed resolution was held by the President not to comply with the rules of business, which restrict the moving of resolutions to matters of general public interest. The restriction would not have been applicable had a question been put.

    Insurance Stamps (Cancellation).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that some employers are still pursuing the practice of irregular cancellation of unemployment insurance stamps; and whether, in view of the fact that each case has to be brought to the attention of the Board, who always allow the irregularity to pass when the individual employer proffers an apology, he will consider the desirability of issuing a rule or instruction, to apply generally, warning employers that penalties will be imposed in future when such irregularities are brought to the notice of the Board?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Cases of this kind occasionally come to the knowledge of the Board, but they are not aware that the practice is at all widespread. Suitable action is taken in each case in order to prevent a recurrence of the irregularity, and in one case of failing to cancel a conviction has been obtained. The regulation on the subject is a general one, and is printed on the unemployment books, which also contain a notice that stamps are to be cancelled with the date only. The Board are prepared to institute proceedings in proper cases, but they cannot undertake to do so in every case irrespective of the circumstances.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Would the fact that the employer offered an apology get him out of the difficulty?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know that it would get him out of the difficulty; he must abide by the regulations.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Is it not the fact that an apology has been offered to the Board of Trade and the Department have overlooked the act of an employer?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not answer that question without notice.

    Higher Education.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state his intention with regard to the wide educational scheme outlined by his predecessor in office by which it was intended to co-ordinate higher education, and especially higher technical education, with the means of developing industries in this country?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Arthur Henderson): As I indicated in a reply to a question by

    1053
    my right hon. predecessor on 15th June, I have no intention of departing from the general policy in this matter initiated by him, and I hope to make an announcement on the subject shortly.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in taking up this scheme of his predecessor, to have care that it shall not be diminished in scope, but, rather, gain in practical effect?
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman make his statement in such a way that a discussion on the subject can follow if?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid that the question of a discussion rests not with myself, but with the Prime Minister. I hope to circulate a Paper on the subject.

    Lord Chancellorship.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether he can state what sum the office of Lord Chancellor is now annually costing the country by reason of the salary of the present occupant and the pensions paid to his predecessors; and whether, in the interests of economy, he will consider the merging this office into some other less expensive, less political, but more judicial Department of State?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The total of the sums paid to the Lord Chancellor as salary and as pensions to his three predecessors in office amounts to £25,000 per annum. The country has the benefit of the judicial services of the latter, who sit regularly as Lords of Appeal and as members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I am not prepared at the present time to consider any change.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed of late that this Lord Chancellorship has been dealt with less as a great judicial office than as a caravanserai for retiring politicians?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

    House of Commons (Payment of Members).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing the necessity for economy and retrenchment in all branches of the public service, he will ask this House to set the example by passing a Resolution to discontinue the payment of salaries of Members, providing at the same time where a Member is in receipt from private sources of an income not exceeding £400
    1054
    per annum and makes a declaration to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax to this effect the salary of £400 to continue to be payable in addition to such Member; and whether he has any information that many men and women are willingly devoting far more time to public work and service at the present time without any payment or remuneration than are Members of Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a question for the House to decide, but I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PRIZE COURTS (SALARIES AND REMUNERATION).
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of money to be provided by Parliament, of any salaries and remuneration which may become payable under any Act of the present Session, and to amend the enactments relating to Prize Courts. King's Recommendation signified To-morrow.—[The Attorney-General.]
  PRIZE COURTS BILL.
  "To amend the enactments relating to Prize Courts." Presented by the Attorney-General, supported by the Solicitor-General; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Wednesday).

  WAR LOAN EXTENSION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Sir JOSEPH WALTON: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the most able statement he made in his speech yesterday. One cannot but regard the whole scheme, which is of a most comprehensive character and which he, with such admirable lucidity, expounded to the House yesterday, as one which reflects the highest credit upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not only upon him, but also upon his advisers, whether in the Treasury or out of the Treasury, who have assisted in placing before the country this most admirable scheme of finance. There is no question that the huge Loan which it is contemplated to raise under that scheme will very seriously depreciate the ordinary investor's securities, but, having regard to the financial needs of the country arising from the enormous expenditure which must necessarily be made in the prosecution of the War, the reduction in value of securities we must submit to with as good grace as possible. The terms of the new Loan are certainly
  1066
  generous, but in my judgment not too generous when we know that it is absolutely necessary that this huge sum of money should be raised. To give liberal terms in connection with this Loan is much better than to have had a forced Loan. The cost of the conversion of Consols and of the old War Loan into the new Loan means, of course, a substantial charge in the shape of extra interest paid by the National Exchequer, and that was estimated by the hon. Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) yesterday, to amount to 3½ millions. Therefore, we must bear in mind that we are going to have to pay for the fresh money got for this Loan not 4½ per cent., but something nearer 5 per cent. But in my opinion it was necessary that this Loan should be placed on lines so as to give a higher return to investors than was given in the old War Loan, as otherwise there would clearly have been no inducement whatever to the holders of the old War Loan to double their subscription by taking an equal amount of the new War Loan.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent facilities which he gives in connection with this great National Loan to small investors. I believe that those provisions will be much appreciated, and I trust that there will be an astonishingly good response on the part of small investors, and that they will in large numbers and to large amounts take advantage of the facilities offered for obtaining 4½ per cent. for their money instead of 2½ per cent. in the Post Office Savings Bank. Personally I feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has need to very seriously consider the question of raising more money from taxation. There is one sort of revenue which I hope he will not fail to tax to the very fullest extent. Personally I hold that no one in any trade or business in this Kingdom ought to make increased profits owing to the War—
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no question of taxation in this Loan, and the hon. Member must reserve his remarks till we get to the Finance Bill.
  Sir J. WALTON: I apologise. I was misled by references on this subject in the course of yesterday's Debate which appeared to be admissible on the First Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Would it not be in order to point out that taxation would be a preferable way of meeting the deficit than the methods proposed in this Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would be in order to point out that it is desirable to levy the money which is required by taxation rather than by borrowing; but it would not be in order to select particular subjects for taxation and say, "Why do you not tax this," or "Why do you not tax the other?" The proper time to do that is when we reach a taxing Bill.
  Sir J. WALTON: I do not know whether I shall be in order in saying how much I appreciated the strong references made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the necessity for national economy and thrift. The whole country ought to turn its attention to the necessity of leading the simple life, of cutting down household expenditure, and of avoiding all waste in food and otherwise, in order to strengthen our financial resources and enable us to meet the enormous expenditure on the War.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That would be in order in every discussion.
  Sir J. WALTON: I am glad to know that on the saving side I shall always be in order. I am never intentionally out of order. All that I can say in conclusion, as other questions are not admissible, is that we do congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his very strong references to the need of economy and thrift, and I trust that His Majesty's Government will continue to press that necessity strongly upon the attention of the country.
  Mr. GODFREY COLLINS: We are asked this afternoon to discuss the terms of the new War Loan, and to consider whether those terms meet with the approval of the House. But in the daily Press this morning the terms of the Loan have already been made public, and the War Loan is now being offered to the public. Therefore, it seems to me unnecessary for this House to consider the terms of the Loan this afternoon. We are, however, asked to consider the terms of the War Loan. Personally, I should have preferred the Government to have brought in a Revenue Bill to increase the revenue, and then later to have brought in a War Loan Bill. By that time the country would have realised exactly what it would be required to pay in taxation, and then, perhaps, it might more readily have scrutinised the details of the War Loan. The Chancellor of the Exchequer argued yesterday afternoon that this War Loan would have a tendency—he did not put it higher than that—to reduce expenditure.
  1068
  I think it might well be argued that if men invest their money in this War Loan and get this high rate of interest it might be an inducement to them, not to economise, but to continue their expenditure on a high level. I desire to refer again to the powers to convert Consols and the War Loan issued in November last. I pointed out yesterday afternoon that every holder of £75 of Consols, if he subscribed £100 to the new War Loan, would get, instead of his £75 stock, £50 new War Loan Stock. In other words, if he puts down £100 tomorrow, the Government will pay the fortunate holder of Consols interest on that £100 not at the rate of 4½ per cent., which other persons will receive, but at the rate of £4 17s. 6d. per cent. Take, again, the case of a man who subscribed to the War Loan in November last. That Loan was issued at the rate of £95 at 3½ per cent. It was practically a 4 per cent. Loan. If a man who owns £100 of that stock puts down £100 for this new War Loan and an additional £5, the Government will hand him instead scrip to the value of £200 in the new War Loan. In other words, for the extra £105 which he is asked to find to-day, the Government will give him, in effect, interest at the rate of over 5 per cent. per annum.
  If these figures are correct—and I shall be glad to be interrupted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer if I am wrong—it seems to me uncalled-for generosity by the State. The State borrows the money from men and comes under an obligation to pay them a yearly interest—nothing more, nothing less. When Consols stood at over £100 the State of that day did not step in and ask the fortunate holders of Consols to hand back to the Treasury the premium at which Consols then stood. These powers to convert the old stock are extremely favourable to the financial interest. But take the case of the small investor who invested, say, £500 in the War Loan last November—all his savings Unless he can find more money to-day he cannot get that stock converted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated yesterday that the policy of the Government was to remember the interest of the people who lent money in the past. I am bound to say, if my figures are correct, and I believe they are, that the Government by this War Loan are remembering the rich who lent money in other days and are able to lend money to-day, but they are forgetting the poor who lent money in November last and are unable to find

  1069
  further money to take up new stock to-day. Not only that, but by the issue of this Loan at 4½ per cent. the Government are depreciating the value of the stock held by these people. I can well imagine the intense opposition which, under different conditions in this House, would be raised to such a proposal if brought forward by the Government of the day. I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer two questions. The first is, Does he intend to raise the rate of interest allowed to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank? They are getting only 2½ per cent. interest, and unless the rate is raised I think they will be very quick to take their money out of the Post Office Savings Bank and put it into the new War Loan. The other questions is, Docs he intend to take steps to restrict the present method of buying and selling Consols? Men who live in the North and many stockbrokers in Glasgow have often spoken to me on this subject. They have considerable difficulty under the present arrangement in buying and selling Consols. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take steps to remove those restrictions, and to put provincial centres on the same level as the London Stock Exchange.
  Mr. RUSSELL REA: My hon. Friend who has just sat down, as well as many of those who spoke yesterday, criticised adversely the terms upon which this Loan is to be issued because of their generosity. They imagine that too much consideration has been shown to the lenders and too little to the public. I do not think that they have really adequately estimated the stupendous character of this transaction. It is absolutely unexampled. All our old maxims, and all our old rules fail to apply a guide to the issue of a Loan upon this scale. What would apply to a £50,000,000 Loan will not apply to a £500,000,000 Loan, and the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are added to by the condition of the markets of the world. He is appealing, first of all, to an investment market already depleted. It has been drained and drained to a great extent by the former Loan, which was of no small dimensions. He is appealing to a depleted money market, which is a different market. It has been half-drained, at any rate, by the large issue of Treasury Bills. Of course, the Money Market is not the market to which he is appealing at present to any great extent. The Money Market is a market like any other market—the boot or the cotton market, say; it has a stock-in-trade; and the stock-in-trade of the
  1070
  Money Market is the loose, free money which the bankers, for the most part, control.
  He has already taken in the form of Treasury Bills at least half of that portion of the stock of the Money Market which is usually employed in financing trade—that is, the trade of the world. The loans given to the London Stock Exchange must also be added. So that my right hon. Friend has a task of stupendous magnitude before him. The questions he has to ask himself are: Where is the money? Where does it exist? Who has got it? He cannot appeal to the accumulated wealth of the country—to the capital of, say, £15,000,000,000 or £18,000,000,000. People cannot bring houses, ships, mines, farms, mills, and fling them against the enemy. The capital of the country is almost useless for the purpose needed. People cannot sell and liquefy their assets. They cannot borrow. There are neither purchasers nor lenders in the world to-day, because all the markets are closed. [An HON. MEMBER: "The United States."] For this purpose the United States cannot be taken into very much consideration. There is only one way in which this money can be got in a liquid form, and in which it must be got, and that is out of the income of the country—I mean the actual year's income of this country. If you consider the War expenditure, it comes out of the year's production of this country. Everything which is expended for the War, the time of the men at the front, and the time of those working behind—it is this year's time; the munitions, the food, the transport, and everything else has, for the most part, to be produced this year, and it is only this year's resources which are available at once and in the first instance.
  It follows, therefore, that if half the production of this year is to be absorbed by the War we have almost to live upon the other half. Instead of saving one-sixth of our annual income we shall have to save three-sixths, or near it, in one form or another, but it does not follow from what I say that capital should not in the end—though it cannot in the beginning—be made to pay. The burden can be made to fall upon it, but it can only be made to fall upon it later. The only liquid available sources for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get his money from at first is as I have stated. For this reason I am rather averse to proposals to get too much by present taxation upon revenue, because it would be upon this year's income. It

  1071
  would be futile, it would be unfair, and I think it would be almost suicidal. But, after all, the question of raising the money by taxes or by loan is something of a bookkeeping question; indeed, very much of a book-keeping question. It is something like the question which comes before the limited company which has made a loss: whether they shall cut the loss and reduce their capital, or whether the capital shall remain as it is—for the most part watered. If the money is raised by loan instead of taxes, the expenses and the weight of that Loan may be made to fall upon the people upon whom it should fall. It may then be made to fall upon property and upon the owners of property, if this House and if the Government of the day think that is the proper form.
  How must he tap the resources of this year? That is the great question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has offered terms which are good, but not too good, to attract the thrifty—that is to say, the people who do save, who know how to save, are habituated to saving. Perhaps it will attract them to save more, to economise more. In my opinion, however, the right hon. Gentleman will have to go a little further. He must tap the resources of the incomes of the unthrifty, of the non-investing classes, of the people who never think of saving, but who always spend. Therefore, as taxation is always compulsory, and as the resources of taxation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are limited, I think he will in the end have to make his thrift compulsory. People must be made to subscribe to the War Loan as they are made to pay their taxes. A week ago I ventured to foreshadow some little scheme, and made some little suggestion, with that object. I will not repeat them now. I am very glad to see in the proposals made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that though he does not adopt either of the suggestions, or even the principle, he does not exclude them. In fact, I see with some satisfaction that his scheme admits of a perfectly convenient method of applying this principle of raising money in this great national emergency.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I regret that I have again to trouble the House on this Bill. I But one or two points have been brought to my notice which I think are worthy of the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first is a point which concerns the friendly societies. Some years
  1072
  ago the principal of them invested part of their funds in Consols. Some of the societies have also invested a part of their money in the old War Loan. When it comes to inviting these societies now to contribute additional sums they are faced immediately with a great difficulty. Take a society which has £10,000 invested in Consols. If I understand the Bill correctly, before that society can take advantage of the option to convert £100 of Consols it must find another £133⅓ in cash. The House will see the difficulty of the friendly societies and the trade unions, being unable at the moment to find so large a sum to convert from Consols. Therefore I want to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer an easier way of converting Consols which would not create such a grave difficulty for friendly societies and similar bodies. The suggestion I have to make is that those holding Consols shall be allowed to bring, say, £100 of stock, to be counted as equivalent to £66⅔ in cash, and to find £33⅓, and then be allowed to take £100 of the new War Loan to the extent of £100 of Consols, and £33⅓ of cash. If in addition they were allowed a little longer time in which to exercise their option, they would be able, with the funds which are coming in by weekly and monthly instalments, to contribute a considerable amount to the War Loan which at present they are not in a position to do. That is the point of view of those who hold Consols, so far as some of the friendly societies are concerned. That is the point of view, too, of the small investor mentioned by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason). There I do think that the persons who invested in Consols to a small amount some time ago are not being treated in quite the same satisfactory way as the persons who are in a considerable position financially to convert their Consols.
  Take the case of the person who by saving, through the Post Office it may be, has been able to accumulate a small amount of Consols by a display of thrift. He is not in the position at all of being able to find £100 or £200 immediately to take advantage of this option, and, therefore, I say that the people who will benefit under this scheme of option are the people in a large way of business; but the small investor, the person, who has used the Post Office, is absolutely put out of it altogether, and will not be—cannot be—in a position to take

  1073
  advantage of this option. Therefore, I think the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. G. Collins) is altogether sound, that the larger financial interests are better served under this system of option than the small investor or the friendly societies or trade unions, who might be able to take advantage of conversion if given a little longer time, and if the terms were made a little more favourable.
  There is one other point I want to bring to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a difficulty with regard to some of the friendly societies who have the money of their members in the form of deposits. Some of them in their provident branches have deposits held on behalf of their members. The friendly society I have in my mind would be very glad to have the opportunity of putting £20,000 into this War Loan, but it is in the difficult position of not knowing, and it cannot know, until 31st October how many of its members will come along and take their small deposits, and thus deplete the available and liquid assets of the trade union for the moment, thus preventing them putting their money in the War Loan. 10th July is the last date on which they could take up a lump sum, but by 10th July they will not know, and they cannot know in many cases until towards the end of October, how much their funds are to be depleted by the withdrawal of the small amounts of their members.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: They will be able to buy in the market.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: They will be able to buy in the market, it is true, but for the moment, at least, the Treasury will be in the difficulty of not knowing how much it will be able to get from the Loan, and the Treasury are shutting out the opportunity of easily getting lump sums from societies which have them in liquid form, because their members may be withdrawing small amounts of £5, £10, or £15 from their deposit accounts. I nope the Treasury will consider this point, and also whether it would not be possible to extend the date of 10th July, and whether, again, 31st October is absolutely the final date they have in mind for the conversion.
  Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: I should like to join in the congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the bold scheme which he has put forward, and the fair manner in which it was introduced yesterday. There is one point to which
  1074
  reference has already been made, which I think should rather be pressed. That is the extent to which this House really has any control over a big transaction of this kind. This, I suppose, is the largest financial transaction the world has ever known. I do not say there is no precedent, but here is the simple fact that we were told yesterday what was going to be done, and before this House rose the prospectuses were issued in the City, and practically our discussion of it was a dry formality. We had no voice—no control whatever over what was being done. It may be customary, but it does seem to indicate to me that this Assembly, which desires to have, and io supposed to have, supreme and complete control of the financial proceedings of this country, has practically no voice whatever in the decision of the terms under which the largest transaction the world has ever known should be undertaken. It does seem to indicate somewhat a weak place. Sometimes, no doubt, it is desirable that an issue of this kind should be made immediately, but I do not think there is any immediate need, say, for two or three days, in this particuar instance. I do not think three or four days would have made any difference whatever to the reception of this Loan. I do not think there was any room for much speculation after the announcement was made, and, after the announcement of what was contemplated, without making it binding, I think it would have been an advantage if this House had had an opportunity of discussing the matter rather more fully.
  I ventured yesterday to put to my right hon. Friend, as did also the hon. Member for Windsor, a question as to the Treasury Bills. I hope to-day he may be able to say something on that matter. I do think it would be an advantage to the nation to secure as much of that money as it could as a permanent Loan. These bills are payable six, nine, or twelve months from the time they were issued. Some are payable in October. Under the conditions which will prevail under this Loan the holders will desire to have that money back. So much of that money as belongs to the bankers and others, and is used in the Money Market, might not I think be used in the War Loan; but I do know as a matter of fact that very considerable sums of money have been put by for other people into Treasury Bills, and they would put that money into the War Loan if they could do so. It may be said they can buy the War Loan afterwards.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They will be paid 4½ per cent.
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: That is so for a few months, but what would the Government get in return? They would get that money for at least ten years, and now they will have to pay it back. It may be said that when the bills run out the holders can invest their money in the War Loan, but the issue of the War Loan will have been closed, and they will only buy in the market from somebody else, and that will not be an addition to the War Loan. If you can get it in now it is additional money, and, therefore, I suggest that the Government should get as much as they can now. They must not ask them to double the subscription; if they do that, they cannot get the money. I suggest that they should accept these Treasury Bills on terms as subscriptions to the War Loan. With regard to the remarks which have been made about Consols, I cannot get the impression out of my mind that the transaction is rather too generous for the holders of Consols. We have committed ourselves, and it is all in the prospectus; but I hope it will not go any further than is absolutely necessary. At the time of the issue of this War Loan £100 of Consols were quoted at 66½, at 2½ per cent., and that meant a yield of £3 15s. per cent. They are to convert those and get £4 10s., and that means a gain of 15s. per cent. Those are better conditions than they are giving to the holders of what we call the old War Loan issued last year. The holders of that Loan have no such offer. They have a security, which, taking into account the redemption of the old War Loan, would yield them 4 per cent., and they now get 4½ per cent., which is a ½ per cent. more for ten years certain, but they have to pay £5 to get it, and £5 for ten years is just a ½ per cent.
  Sir F. BANBURY: But they get their £5 back.
  Mr. D. MASON: They only pay it originally.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: They are entitled to their £5 on redemption, but they are going to lose that. (HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] They were to get £5 as a bonus, so to speak, on redemption, and they are not going to get that now. I think the terms are better for the holders of Consols than to the holders of the old War Loan. I would like to suggest that the reason
  1076
  which is given for this transaction should not be that there is any moral obligation or moral right about it. It is suggested that the Government cannot leave British creditors in the lurch, but they are not doing that if they are paying them all the interest they have promised to pay. It was said that we must give the investor an opportunity to retrieve his position, but the opportunity of doing that is only given to the man who can double his investment, and that means that the weakest and the smaller people, to whom it was most necessary that they should have an opportunity of retrieving their position, are not able to do it. As a matter of fact they cannot do it, and therefore it must not be put on the ground of a moral obligation, because it is not being carried out with regard to those who cannot find the additional money. If it is to be put on the ground of moral obligation, and if it is suggested that if the Government did not give to the old holders of the bonds this privilege they would be leaving them in the lurch, that seems to me that it is a very far-reaching doctrine. If it is a moral obligation, it does not apply only to Governments. What about municipalities? They borrowed money at 2½ per cent. I know they have recently borrowed and have since had to pay a much higher rate, but is it to be a moral obligation on them that they are to put their old borrowings in the same position as the new ones? If not, why is it a moral obligation on the Government? This kind of thing will not end with the municipalities. Moral obligations apply to railway companies and to everybody else, and if this is to be the doctrine it means a complete revolution. Therefore I suggest that it should not be put on any ground suggestive of a moral obligation.
  If it is done at all, it should be done on the grounds of expediency, and as a matter of business. That is the only ground, and not because you will not leave your creditors in the lurch. It is suggested (hat it is expedient to reduce your capital account, and that is a very substantial reason. By converting your Consols, you will reduce your capital account to one-third, and in years to come, when it will be easier to repay, you will have one-third less to repay, and that is a very substantial reason. A second substantial reason is that it will make it a condition that you are to subscribe for an equal amount of the Loan. You are going to get a very considerable amount of subscriptions that

  1077
  you would not otherwise have got, because you give them this inducement. You are also going to get the opportunity of paying all these Loans off at a much earlier date. Those are substantial businesslike reasons, although I am not so sure that they quite justify such generous terms. I think they are more generous than they need have been, but they justify some scheme of conversion, and they offer an inducement to convert. We should not admit, or even suggest, that there is any moral obligation about it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Russell Rea) suggested that we can only provide this Loan out of the year's income, but he did not define what he meant by income. We could provide a good deal of it out of the year's production, if production is to be counted income, and that is getting nearer the mark. If the right hon. Gentleman means by income—wages, salaries, profits, and interests, it is not quite correct. We can provide some of this money out of the production of the year. Further, you can provide it by selling securities abroad.
  Sir J. WALTON: At what price?
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: That does not matter, but securities can be sold abroad, and thereby you can get money out of capital in this country to put into the Loan.
  Sir J. WALTON: To what extent?
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: It is not coming out of income. Part of this Loan will be expended in paying for imports, and you can pay for some of those imports by the export of securities from this country, The United States are making large profits out of the business done in this War, and their willingness to invest will increase, and some part of this demand can be met out of capital. It was suggested that taxes and loans are practically merely a matter of book-keeping. That is not so, because you pay interest on loans and you do not pay interest on taxes, and that is a very substantial difference. When you raise money by taxes you have got it once and for all, and you have no more to pay for it; therefore it is somthing more than a mere matter of book-keeping. It is suggested that you may raise too much by taxes. That is quite true; but the point really is, what is too much? I am not sure that we have got to that point. It was suggested that thrift should be made compulsory, and that we should compel
  1078
  subscriptions to the War Loan. Possibly the time may come when it will be necessary to do that, but you will not be able to compel subscriptions to the War Loan from the same class of people that you could obtain money from by taxation. Taxation will compel thrift, because you are bound to save to pay the taxes. You not only compel thrift, but you get for the nation the money that is saved by taxation. You cannot otherwise compel subscriptions to loans, and you cannot compel people of the smaller class to subscribe to loans. It is not possible to get the money from them in that way, although you can get it by taxation. I think you will have to tax all classes of the community more. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday, it will never do for us to borrow money to pay interest.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken began by saying that he regretted very much that this House had such little control over the financial affairs of the country. The right hon. Gentleman has, during the last few days, taken the opportunity of addressing us, sometimes from the Government side of the House and sometimes from the Opposition side. Now he has gone back again behind the Treasury Bench, and there he has discovered that this House at the present moment has very little control over the financial affairs of the country, and he wants to know what to do. I will give him a word of advice, and it is, trust the Government. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he saw no hurry for the issue of the prospectus, and he thought after the Resolution was passed it would have been better for the House to have considered for three or four days the actual terms of the prospectus. The right hon. Gentleman has had considerable experience in financial matters in the City, but I think, on reflection, he will see that in every Loan that I have ever heard of during the last forty years the terms have been discussed in private, and not in public until the day the prospectus has been issued. If that very wise principle is departed from, there would be tremendous speculation in the Loan, and it might be a failure, because all sorts of people would come up and discover little defects here and there, and all that would be discounted before the Loan would be issued.
  It is evident, if you are going to have a Loan, you must allow a small number of experts to make up their mind what is the right thing, and then issue it to the public.

  1079
  If later on it turns out that it has been done in a bad way, then the right hon. Gentleman can come down and criticise the Minister. I think he will agree with me, on reflection, that he really must support the Government. The prospectus has been issued. I have spent twenty-three years in this House, generally in promoting discussion and opposing legislation. I am going to take a new rôle this afternoon. I want to ask the House what they think they really gain by discussing all sorts of small details and small points after the issue of a prospectus which cannot possibly be altered. I would venture to suggest, until we see what the actual result has been, that we all say that we trust the Government and that we pass the Second Reading of the Bill without any further delay. I am sure that is best in the interests of the nation which everybody on whatever side of the House he sits really desires.
  Mr. HOGGE: I should have thought that the problem which the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) put to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir T. Whittaker) could have been solved in this way. We all of us sit on both sides of the House at the present time. [Laughter.] I do not mean at one and the same time, but every Member of the House is ubiquitous so far as sitting accommodation is concerned. I must confess that I have in my mind the same point as my right hon. Friend made with regard to the Loan. I could not understand personally what was the use of this House discussing these points which were beyond our control. I can understand the point made by the hon. Baronet opposite that we should not discuss the larger parts of the Loan, but surely there are small details on which the opinion of this House ought to be considered. I want to deal with the small investor and with the patriotic investor who put his money into the first War Loan. The right hon. Gentleman who sits for South Shields (Mr. Russell Rea) said that the Money Market was drained by the first Loan, and that we therefore required to offer better terms to get money now. I do not believe that. I do not believe that the Money Market was drained, and I do not believe that the facts bear out that conclusion. I believe that a great many people were waiting for better terms, and the proof of that is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put no limit to the amount of this Loan. He is going to take all the money he can get
  1080
  at 4½ per cent. in order possibly to try to prevent the necessity of coming again to the public and asking for money at a higher percentage. I do not agree with that point of view, and therefore, I think, that it is harder upon the poor investor and the patriotic investor who put in all the loose money he had into the first Loan, because mark what that investor has got to do now if he wants to secure equal terms with those investing in this new Loan. He has got to put up fresh money.
  I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the small investor who put all the loose money he had into the first Loan should be disentitled to the advantages of this new Loan unless he puts up sufficient capital. Why should he not get that advantage if he makes up the difference between his original subscription and the subscription required for this Loan? Take, for instance, a man who put in a few hundred pounds. That man would require to bring the equivalent of that subscription in order to get the benefits of the new Loan. Why should he not get the benefits of the nen Loan if he brings the marginal difference required to bring it up to that limit? Surely that is fair to a very large number of people who are not in the City. I believe I was guilty of the indiscretion myself of putting a small sum into the first Loan, and of being in the position now of not being able to put down any fresh cash for the new Loan. Why should I be put to a disability because I lent the State all the money I had?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): You are not.
  Mr. HOGGE: I would point out that I must bring fresh capital before I can get the advantages. I am suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have entitled us to make up the difference in the subscription between the first Loan and the second Loan to get the advantages of the terms of the second Loan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) shakes his head, but he shakes the head of a big insurance company. I am pleading now for the small investor, and this Loan has been so constructed as to reach the smallest investor. You want the patriotic help of every man who has money in the Kingdom, and I am suggesting a way in which you will help yourself to get the money.
  I should like to hear further reasons why the principle is laid down that it is to be

  1081
  possible at any future time to convert holdings in Consols and Annuities and War Loan into fresh Loan at what may be a higher rate of interest. We are paying 4½ per cent. for the money for which we are now asking. I do not know what the success of the Loan will be, and I suppose that nobody knows how long the War may last. It is conceivable that some time the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have to offer better terms than 4½ per cent. If everybody is going to have the right to convert, that saddles the burden of providing the interest on the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country. It is throwing the whole burden upon the community to the advantage of the financial interests. That does not seem to me to be quite fair, and I should like to know the reasons of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the step he has taken. Supposing the War stops very much sooner than any of us anticipate—every one of us would be very glad to see it—and supposing we complete the task we have set out upon and achieve victory before we have spent all this money, then you are saddling the community for the next thirty years with a fixed charge which I do not think you have any right to do. I do not think that it is fair to throw that burden upon the backs of the community.
  Of course, I may be wrong—I am not a financial expert—but these things have occurred to me as an ordinary Member of the House, and an explanation of them would help one to understand why the Loan is put in this way. Does not this fixing of a rate of interest at 4½ per cent. penalise industrial capital in this country? I have been reading the financial papers—I read them very closely, but I do not know that I always understand them, though I try to do so—and I notice that our export trade is declining. So far as I can gather, the balance of trade in this country is putting us into the position of a debtor nation. It may not be serious at the present moment, but we are approaching the stage at which we are becoming a debtor nation. One thing that would prevent us becoming a debtor nation sooner than we otherwise might is surely the maintenance of our export trade and the maintenance of our industrial activity in this country, and the maintenance of our industrial activity depends upon the capital that can be attracted to industry. If capital can find a better return in Government Stock at 4½ per cent., it will not go to our industries, and our industries
  1082
  will be to that extent stopped. It seems to me that is a point worth considering, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with it.
  Mr. McKENNA: I would like to deal quite briefly with the objection which was taken by my right hon. Friend (Sir T. Wnittaker), that by this procedure of producing the Loan after the Resolution and before the Bill we are depriving the House of any opportunity of criticising the Bill itself. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend and to the House that white it is unavoidable, as was explained so admirably by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury), in the case of the issue of a Loan that the prospectus should come out immediately after the announcement of the terms, yet, notwithstanding, the Debate in the House, subsequent enough it may be, is not wasted. I would remind my right hon. Friend of what has already taken place in the course of the last few months in this House with regard to a Loan. Last November my predecessor asked the consent of the House to a Loan which had been issued as soon as the terms were published, and the House debated it. What did the House complain of? What was the whole course of the Debate? I remember the hon. Baronet opposite objected to the issue of a Loan below par. He said that he thought 3½ per cent. at £95 would not take with the public as well as a 4 per cent. Loan at par. That was the general view of the House. What has happened? The new Loan is issued at par. The Debate was not wasted. It is quite true that it cannot take place in relation to this particular Loan, which must be issued as soon as the terms are published, but the Debate is not wasted.
  There was one other topic which was very fully discussed, and great emphasis was laid upon it, on the occasion of the last Loan. It was that the next Loan should not be limited to the minimum, amount of £100, but that opportunity should be given to the small investor. What have we done? We have endeavoured to meet that point and give an opportunity to the small investor. If this Debate discloses any new principle on which a Loan should be issued to the public the House may be quite confident that in the next Loan we shall learn wisdom from the advice which we receive now. I cannot say more than that, because it is perfectly apparent to anyone who really

  1083
  considers the business proceedings that once the terms are published the Loan must be issued.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: No, no!
  Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend asks, What would it matter if you had two or three days' debate and deferred the issue? What does he mean by that? Does he mean that in the course of these two or three days' debate the terms may be varied and that the speculator is to watch the course of the Debate in the House of Commons and see whether A's arguments are more successful than B's and operate according to the success of a speech? My right hon. Friend knows that could not be, and he knows that once the terms are announced there can be no alteration. All that it would mean would be that we should be merely pretending, while the whole world would know that the terms were definite as soon as they were published. With regard to the actual issue last night, I would like to remind my right hon. Friend that no prospectus was issued until the Vote was taken in this House. It is true that the terms were announced by me before four o'clock, but the prospectus was not issued until the Resolution has been accepted by the House and the Bill had been introduced, and in following that procedure we were following the procedure which is time-honoured in the case of all taxes and loans. Questions have been put to me as to whether we are not treating rather hardly the investor who put up all the money he had in the old War Loan. Of course he is in exactly the same position as anyone else; he has to invest more money. He is neither better off nor worse off. Supposing a man has subscribed £100 of old War Loan, for which he paid £95. He must invest more money. My hon. Friend asks wiry not give him the benefit of conversion. Of course he can have it. He only has to sell half of his existing holding.
  Mr. GODFREY COLLINS: At a discount.
  Mr. McKENNA: And with the proceeds of the sale he buys new stock, while the unsold portion is converted. The effect of the issue of this Loan has already been to send up the prices of the old War Loan Stock, and therefore, so far as selling a part of the stock is concerned, he is better off than before. With the money he gets
  1084
  from the sale of the War Stock he can apply for the new War Loan, and he can also convert the other half of his holding into new War Loan Stock. It is quite true at the end of the proceeding he will only have £100 of stock as before, but it will be in the new War Loan instead of the old War Loan. He will have had to pay an additional £5 in cash, because for every £100 of stock in the open market cash was subscribed, whereas for the old War Loan he only subscribed £95 for each £100. All he has to do is to sell a proportionate amount of Consols or War Loan Stock and to invest the amount in the new War loan, while the remainder of the stock can be converted as well.
  Mr. HOGGE: But would that be possible for the small investor?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should think it would be well worth his while to write a letter—it would only take him three minutes—to someone who would do the whole business for him at a small remuneration, and then he will have the advantage of a 4½ per cent. stock, instead of 4 per cent. I do not think there is the slightest doubt about that. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley thinks that in this conversion the holder of Consols is treated better than the holder of old War Loan Stock. It is impossible to do mental arithmetic standing at this box, to the satisfaction of those that are listening, but I can assure my right hon. Friend if he will take a pencil and piece of paper and work the figures out for himself he will find that the rate of interest which the holder of old War Loan Stock gets upon the money which he has put up for the purposes of conversion is precisely the same as the rate of interest which the holder of Consols has to pay for the purpose of converting a like amount. The advantages to the two classes of holders are identical. I do not think it will be found that the rate of interest varies a sixpence; at any rate, what difference there is merely arises from the difficulty of getting an exact sum. The intention has been to treat both holders, so far as advantage is concerned, in exactly the same way.
  My right hon. Friend objected to the use by me of the phrase that the British Government would not leave its creditors in the lurch. He argued that I had implied there was a moral obligation on the part of the Government to convert all stock whenever a new issue is made. No

  1085
  such argument should be deduced from the words I used. There is no moral obligation on a debtor who wants to borrow a second time to renew the old Loan at the rate he has to pay for the new Loan. There is no moral obligation of any sort or kind. But I am now wanting to borrow money, and the State, in borrowing, has to offer terms which will be acceptable to the new creditor. There can be nothing so acceptable, either now or at any time, to a new creditor as the knowledge that the money advanced to the British Government will be money invested in a good security, and the knowledge that considerations of this kind are borne in mind has a very favourable effect when we have to go into the Money Market to borrow afresh. I do not put it any higher than that. Subscribers are much more likely to lend their money with the knowledge that they will not be left in the lurch. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has put three questions to me. He said he did not like our proposal to exchange, in the event of any future Loan, the stock issued under this Loan at par for the new stock. He thinks that is a benefit which should not be offered to the investor. A little earlier in his speech—
  Mr. HOGGE: I agree I was inconsistent.
  Mr. McKENNA: There is the difference between us. My hon. Friend in the course of Debate scores a point, and when it is shown to him that he is inconsistent he shakes his head and says, "I was inconsistent." But suppose in the issue of the Loan the Government made a mistake. It is no good nodding its head and saying it has made a mistake. What we have to do is to get the money. What does my hon. Friend say? He says, "Think of the position of those War Loan holders who were so patriotic as to invest all their money, while other people waited to invest their money until there should be better terms." It is true a great many did so. But I want to tell people it is no good waiting; there are no better terms available. There never can be better terms. I want the money. My hon. Friend may make a mistake. It does not matter in his case; he does not want the money. The Government do. They want it, and must have it, and this is one of their ways of getting it. Then my hon. Friend asks, "Why not allow the holder to convert by merely putting up the stock? He paid £95 for £100; why not let him convert on payment of the other £5?"
  1086
  But we are not converting for the sake of converting. We are converting because we want to make the person who converts subscribe.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Not a moral obligation.
  Mr. McKENNA: Of course not. But I look upon it as an asset that the British Government will consider its debtors. It is an asset that the people should know that when they lend to the British Government they are lending on a security which is very favourable. Now that we want more money we offer conversion terms which are favourable to both the holder of the old stock and of Consols. They are also favourable to us, because they cannot convert without subscribing more money. That is why we will not take the other £5 to make up the £100, or £33 in order to make up the Consols. If a man wants to convert his Consols he must pay up £100 for every £75. It is no good offering to pay £33 for every £66; we want much more than that, and the only terms on which conversion can be made is that we get a very large public subscription. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that on easier terms the money could be got, then we have made a mistake. It would always be a mistake to issue a loan on more favourable terms than you need issue it. If an hon. Member has sufficient confidence in his opinion to be satisfied that we could have raised the money at once—if he thinks so without having made much more inquiry—if he thinks we could have done it on less favourable terms as to interest, or without including the right of conversion, all I can say is that I congratulate him upon being able to form a competent opinion upon very little data. The amount that we require is very large. There is no experience to guide us. All we can do is to form the best opinion possible in the circumstances and to use such inducements as we have, I will not say to compel but, to drive people to invest all their available money in the new Loan.
  My hon. Friend also asks whether we are not penalising industrial capital. How can we help it? If we are not to penalise what he describes as industrial capital, how can we get the money that we require? Of course, the issue of any large Loan at a higher rate of interest forces up the general rate of interest, and the question obviously is, could we get the money at a less rate of interest? As I said yesterday, the investor in old War Loan Stock

  1087
  gets 4¼ per cent. How could we hope to get a large new issue floated at a less rate of interest? Then my hon. Friend says, "Suppose the War ended sooner than appears to be probable, shall we not be saddling the interest of this huge debt upon the country for thirty years?" No, we shall be entitled to repay this Loan at the end of ten years. But there is no reasonable prospect of that. We have already incurred very heavy liabilities on Treasury Bills. We have other liabilities which I mentioned yesterday, and to-day the excess of expenditure over revenue is such that it cannot be a very long while before we exhaust this Loan. For these reasons I do not think we have taken any imprudent step.
  I trust I have answered all the points put to me. I sympathise with the House. If I had been sitting opposite I should have felt very strongly, as the House must feel, that a Debate of this kind, so far as it affects this Loan, must be to a considerable extent barren. I personally welcome the opportunity of being able to answer any questions that may be put with regard to the issue I was asked about Treasury Bills, and whether they will be taken in exchange for the War Loan. The Bank of England will be prepared, if the holder cannot do better in the market, to rediscount Treasury Bills at 4½ per cent. for the purpose of paying up calls, or full subscriptions to the War Loan, and the holder of Treasury Bills will be put in the position of exchanging his Bills subject to that discount for the War Loan. He will get 4½ per cent. on the War Loan, and therefore he will have to pay 4½ per cent. discount on the Treasury Bill. Only for that purpose will the Bank of England be willing to discount the Bill.
  Mr. MOLTENO: As I did not catch the eye of the Chairman yesterday, I should like to put one or two questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for repudiating the suggestion that we should say nothing in this matter. I can quite understand the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) being desirous that little discussion should take place, on the principle of not looking a gift horse in the mouth because he, representing the City of London, no doubt represents some hundreds of millions of Consols, and as these Consol holders are to receive a free gift of
  1088
  £100,000,000, I can quite understand that he should not be anxious to discuss the matter fully or that it should be looked into too closely.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not represent any Consols, I represent thirty thousand most intelligent people.
  Mr. MOLTENO: They must include a large number of holders of Consols, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that £400,000,000 Consols are held by Government Departments, therefore £400,000,000 are free, and no doubt the hon. Baronet represents a great portion of the £400,000,000 which is held in the City of London. I felt yesterday and feel today, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not made it quite clear why this provision has been extended to Consols holders. The right hon. Gentleman told us to-day that there was no moral obligation, but I do not understand the principle of selection. Consols, after all, were introduced many years ago, before most of us were born; but there are other obligations about which the same things might be said as are said about Consols and which have more or less a guarantee of the State, but which have not been selected. Some of them have been created in recent years. I refer in particular to Irish Land Stock. I cannot understand why Irish Land Stock is left out. If this is a great refunding measure, I do not see why Irish Land Stock, which has been issued since 1902–3, should not come within the purview of the same arrangement. Inasmuch as what is said to-day is going to be borne in mind in future, from that point of view I think it would be very dangerous if we are going to have other stocks included in this system of moral obligation. To what does it amount? Really to this: That the country is making a free gift of, or at any rate that the country will lose £100,000,000 on a transaction in regard to Consols. Let me make that perfectly clear. Every £75 of Consols may be exchanged for £50 of the new Loan. The revenue from that £50 of the new Loan will be 7s. 6d. more than from the old £75 of Consols; therefore, if we take £100 Consols, the revenue will be increased by 10s. by this transaction. If you capitalise this 10s. at twenty-five years, that is £12 10s., which is a free gift to the holders of Consols. There are £800,000,000 of Consols.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, no!
  Mr. MOLTENO: Every Member can calculate the matter for himself. If my figures are correct there is a free gift of £100,000,000 to Consol holders.
  Mr. McKENNA: I think my hon. Friend ought to correct one point. He must not take it that the gift is by the State. So far as the State is the holder of Consols it is only making a gift to itself. £300,000,000 is practically all that is left to convert.
  Mr. MOLTENO: Whether the balance held by the Government is £300,000,000 or £400,000,000, as I said at the outset, it is a present which will cost the State £100,000,000. Let me make that good. Say, for the sake of simplicity, that the public holds half, and on that 12½ per cent. is paid. On that basis 12½ per cent. of £400,000,000 is £50,000,000. What about the rest? If the Government Departments do not convert the Consols which they hold, is the value of the Consols which they hold going to be what it is to-day—£66? Nothing of the kind. The value of the Consols is going to fall to something like £55, or from 10 to 12 per cent. There, again you have a loss of between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000, and if you add that to the £50,000,000 which is a present, you get the cost to the State of £100,000,000. I do not agree with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should get no reward for his generosity. The hon. Member suggested that the amount might be made up and that you should get conversion by repaying the balance that is due. I do not agree with that at all. If the Chancellor is so generous he should get something for his generosity. But I do sympathise with the hon. Member when he suggests that he would like a subscriber to this Loan to get the benefit of this vast gift by the State. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer not included Consols he would not have had to pay this vast sum of £100,000,000, and he could have used the £100,000,000 to make terms with the subscribers to the new Loan which would be more favourable than they are to-day. I may be mistaken, but that is the way the thing represents itself to me. It was quite wise for the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London not to go too closely into details of a transaction of this kind. I may be mistaken. I was very anxious to put the point yesterday, but I had not the opportunity, and I put it now only because the
  1090
  Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself encouraged us to bring out points which may be of service in the future. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) that there is no moral obligation whatever to make these payments, that the cost to the state of £100,000,000 is a very serious one, and that the £100,000,000 might have been used in making the terms to the present subscribers more favourable.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question. It is highly desirable that he should get all the industrial capital he can at the present time. There are many companies and corporations who will give him all the available cash they have for the purposes of this Loan. Can he give an assurance to those companies that they will not be called upon to subscribe to any forced Loan for at least twelvemonths if they subscribe a fixed proportion of their assets? The reason why I ask that question is that many of us have seen that the War is going to last a very considerable time and have accumulated large balances in the companies with which we are associated. We want to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer all those balances. If we give him all our money now, and if we are called upon at a later date to subscribe to a forced Loan, we shall have no money to meet the forced Loan.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: We have had some very interesting speeches from highly qualified financial authorities this afternoon. I have no claim to follow them, but I would ask the House to listen for a few minutes to a view of the matter as it strikes an ordinary Member who knows little indeed about high finance. The first thing that occurs to my mind is that we are to appeal to the country to join in this Loan for patriotic reasons. I do not think it is a very patriotic thing to lend money on the very best security in the whole world at a good rate of interest. I do not want investors in this Loan pharisaically to lay credit to themselves for any undue patriotism. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) made two or three points which impressed me a good deal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has no doubt replied to them, but he has not satisfied me that there is nothing in the argument as to the Consols holder getting better terms than the old War Loan holder. However, I will leave that case. The

  1091
  other point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley was that the House of Commons has had nothing whatever to do with this Loan. We have not been consulted about it at all, and it was arranged over our heads. I know that that point was met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it is nevertheless true that the whole thing has been done by the Government. The fact is that the ordinary Member of this House now might almost as well be eliminated. Everything is done by the Government. We have all the wisdom of both sides of the House now concentrated on the Treasury Bench, and the ordinary Member of the House of Commons has nothing to do with it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it could not be helped and that it was necessary. No doubt it is, but the fact is there all the same.
  I was told that the moment this Loan came out all ordinary securities would fall. I do not know whether or not they have; probably they have. Therefore the Government, by its proposal, has actually had the opportunity of making us all poorer than before their proposals came out, and we have no possible chance of hindering them except by voting against the Second Reading of this Bill, which I, for one, shall not do. It is the growing habit of the Government—indeed, of all Governments—to push out the House of Commons and to let them have less and less control over what they are doing. If this were the proper time I could easily argue that the War itself has been brought about without any individual Member of the House of Commons having any influence whatever over it. The point as to whether taxation is preferable for us is one which I should like to hear discussed by competent people. It seems to me to have great advantages. I know that it is possible to overtax the community, and I am afraid we shall get pretty near the border line before we are very much older. But taxation is really shouldering the burden, and it brings home to the nation the gravity of the situation in which we find ourselves. What are we actually doing now? We are only imposing the duty of paying for this War upon unborn generations.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: We are paying 5s. in the £ Income Tax.
  Sir W. BYLES: I meant by this Loan. I do not say there will be no new taxes.
  1092
  By this Loan we are really handing over the responsibility of paying millions of debt to posterity. I remember that the Prime Minister used to boast very justly that during the time of his Government they had paid off £100,000,000 of debt, and we were all very proud of the fact, but now we are going to put £1,000,000,000 on to the National Debt, and I dare say there will be more. I am wondering what posterity will say to us. I have seen it argued by a very eminent writer, one who used to be called an economist, that if the National Debt gets too big or too old the population may some day rise against it and say, "We had nothing to do with contracting this debt; it was done ages ago by people to whom we owe nothing—our very distant ancestors—and we repudiate it and decline to pay the interest." If you make the Debt big enough that is a likely enough thing to occur some day. [Laughter.] Oh, it is, indeed! So far as possible I want this generation to bear the burden which this generation has brought upon the nation.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I wish to offer a few words of congratulation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the reception of his proposal. No doubt the statement yesterday relieved a great many heavy hearts and dispelled some very serious doubts. We are spending about £3,000,000 per day in defence of the broad acres of this country, its City gold-mines, its coal-mines, and all its natural wealth, and there was great fear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might come to those who have these vast possessions and say, "As a matter of insurance I am going to tax you to the bone, so that the fate of those who have to go to the soup kitchen or the bread line in Belgium shall not be yours." He has dispelled that fear. He has found a better way. He is going to the man of great possessions and he says, "I am going to take nothing from him; I am going to borrow something, and every penny piece of what I borrow I am going to restore, and meanwhile I am going to pay you an unprecedented rate of interest for such a security. Out of the War you are going to make increased riches; you are going to suffer not at all." That is the position that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting before the man of wealth. He says, "I will not take your wealth by taxation in order to save it from possible taking by invasion. I am going to borrow your wealth and I am

  1093
  going to pay you an unprecedented rate of interest for it." That is the position which has been created by the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am going by way of loan, he says. He is taking not at all from the rich, but he is making the rich richer than before. He is giving by way of bonus to Consol holders, my hon. Friend (Mr. Molteno) says, £100,000,000 or £50,000,000, but I want to know the exact amount. A vast bonus is going in that direction, and for that reason I think the House should have had more opportunities to discuss this question, because it appears to me that if this huge bonus is going to the City and to Consol holders, the suspicion arises that the Consol holders in the City have blackmailed the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to this Loan. They are in a position to say, "If you do not give us this bonus we can make your Loan a failure." I want to know, further, whether it was good business. I cannot see where the good business comes in in the grant of this vast sum to placate Consol holders and induce them to re-subscribe. I merely make these few remarks in order to place on record my views of the significance of these Loan proposals in so far as they obviate as far as possible taxation when taxation should be paid.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: I think my hon. Friend can hardly remember that rich men are paying 5s. Income Tax on every sovereign they receive. Rich men have been taxed to a very considerable extent so far. They are paying 5s. in the £, instead of 1s. 2d. I do not know of any great tax upon any article of consumption by which the poor are paying anything like that proportion of taxation. The hon. Member when he gets up to speak always says that the War expenditure is for the benefit of those people who have large estates and large property. The hon. Member, like other good Radicals, has always advocated One Man One Vote, the great argument for which was that the poor man has his all at stake and the rich man cannot have more, and the poor man has a stake in the country as much as the rich man. I have used the argument myself many a time. I think it is a good argument that the poor man has his all at stake and therefore ought to be called upon to pay a fair share of taxation for the benefit of the country. As far as the Loan itself is concerned, I have no data to go upon, but I think myself that with a 4½ per cent. Loan the right
  1094
  hon. Gentleman would have got all the money he required without any of these helps to Consol holders or those who took the old Loan up. The old Loan was issued on fair terms at the time, and I do not see that there is any obligation to help those people who subscribed to it. Most financial people, no doubt, would desire to lend money at a fair quid pro quo, and I think a plain and simple 4½ per cent. Loan without any conditions whatever would have been quite sufficient.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—[Mr. McKenna.]
  Mr. McKENNA: Will the House allow me to take the Committee stage to-day?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not wish to stand in the way of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he will remember that he had a special Motion yesterday to allow two stages of the Bill to be taken in one day.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Wednesday).

  CUSTOMS (EXPORTATION RESTRICTION) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I beg to move, "That the Bill be read a second time."
  This Bill, which I commend to the House, deals with a very difficult and complicated side of our difficulties, namely, the question of trade passing through neutral countries which may eventually reach an enemy destination, and it is quite obvious from questions which have been put by hon. Members on both sides of the House that they are very well aware that, notwithstanding all that has been hitherto done and the measures which have been taken, there still are a certain number of consignments exported from this country to neutral countries, and particularly those neutral countries which are in contact with enemy countries, which do in one form or another find their way through the neutral country and so reach the enemy. The object we have is to prevent that in every possible way that we can. The whole subject of legislation in regard

  1095
  to trade in war divides itself under two contradictory principles. The first is that we desire, as far as possible, to prevent any goods from reaching the enemy, and the second is that we desire to maintain our own trade as far as possible, but I think the House will agree that during the War the first consideration must over-ride the second, and it is our first business to prevent any goods from reaching the enemy. But I think the House will also agree, subject to that, that we desire to interfere as little as possible, and to extend as much as possible our own trade to all neutral countries. In order to give effect to these principles, the War Trade Department, under Lord Emmott's presidency, has been created, and the method in which that Department works is that under the Acts passed by this House prior to and since the commencement of the War a very large number of articles have been prohibited from being exported, in some cases to any country, and in some cases to particular countries, and particularly the countries which border on Germany or on Austria.
  Those articles under the prohibited list can only be exported to those countries under a licence granted by the War Trade Department. I have here a list of twenty-four pages long, showing what a very large number of articles have already been included in the prohibited list, and that involves the issue of licences in respect of all these articles, and the consequence of that is that there is some considerable delay in the exportation of goods, and further than that, the delay involves congestion at the ports, which is a great difficulty at the present time. Therefore it is desirable as far as possible to simplify this trade and at the same time it is necessary to extend this prohibition because we find that even now, with all this list, there are still articles going through neutral countries which eventually find their way into Germany and which it is desirable to prevent. But if we indefinitely add to the prohibited list, it will increase the congestion at the ports, and also overload the Committee which is charged with the issue of licences. The real difficulty comes when these articles have reached the neutral country. It is impossible for us here to control the final destination of these articles when they have once reached the neutral country, and all that the War Trade Department can do is, in regard to each consignment in respect of which they
  1096
  issue a licence, to investigate as far as they possibly can the character and standing of the consignee in the neutral country. That, of course, is a very difficult thing when you come to investigate each individual application for a licence. If we practically add everything to the prohibited list and throw upon the Committee the burden of having to make this investigation in every case, that must cause delay. There has been the development recently that not only have British traders been inconvenienced by this procedure, but the traders in neutral countries are also inconvenienced, and in Holland this inconvenience was particularly felt, and certain merchants and traders in Holland formed themselves into an association which is called the Netherlands Oversea Trust, and that association undertook that they would be responsible to see that neither goods delivered to them under licence by the War Trade Committee, nor any product manufactured from them should reach an enemy destination. That system has been in operation for some considerable time, and has been found so far to work satisfactorily. The whole operations of the Netherlands Oversea Trust are subject to the examination and supervision of the British Consul in Holland. Of course, as the House will understand, it is absolutely impossible for me to stand here and say that even such an arrangement as that is absolutely watertight. I should not make such a claim, that it is necessarily watertight, but from what we know of the character of the Netherlands Oversea Trust, and from the investigations which have been made by the British Consul and the reports which we have had from him, we believe that they have hitherto kept their obligations. What we now desire to do, is to extend this system beyond the prohibited licensed goods, and to extend it to all goods which go to Holland. With that object in view, the Netherlands Oversea Trust were approached and asked whether they would undertake to be responsible for all goods sent to Holland, if they were consigned to them, and they have given the undertaking that they are prepared to accept consignments to them of all goods exported from this country to Holland, and be responsible for seeing that they do not reach an enemy destination.
  Therefore, what we do under this Bill is to extend the powers which have already been given by the House, and which, first

  1097
  of all, will enable us to prohibit the export of any goods; and which, secondly, entitle us to confine that prohibition to one or other particular country. We desire to extend that to a third point, namely, that we may not only prohibit any goods going to any particular country, but that we may prohibit them going to any particular country except to a particular consignee. That is really the whole point of the Bill. What we propose to do if the House will assent to pass this Bill is, in regard to Holland, to immediately issue a Proclamation prohibiting the export from this country of any goods to Holland, except such as are consigned to the Netherlands Oversea Trust. When that is done it will mean that no export trade can be carried on from this country to Holland, except under consignment to the Netherlands Oversea Trust, who, under the system which I have already described, will be responsible that that consignment does not, either in the form in which they import it or in any other subsequent form, reach the enemy. The Bill does not deal with the one particular country of Holland, because it must be obvious to the House that the same considerations which apply in the case of Holland apply to other neutral countries. It may be that the importers in other neutral countries will see the advantage of this system and will desire to form similar associations. If that be so, without coming to the House for further authority, we shall be able to make the same kind of arrangement with those associations in other neutral countries that we now have been able to make with the Netherlands Oversea Trust in Holland. It is very desirable, if possible, to issue the Proclamation at the earliest possible date. The Proclamation is ready. I do not know whether it will be the wish of the House to pass the Bill through all its stages to-day, but if they realise the necessity for immediate legislation, perhaps they might give us the Bill in all its stages to-day, and we should be able to get the Royal Assent with a batch of Bills on Thursday, and the Proclamation could be immediately issued. We should then be in a position to stop trade which is now passing through Holland into Germany, and the sooner that is put an end to the better.
  The Bill deals only with export trade from this country, and has nothing to do with contraband. The question of contraband, as the House knows, is the question of goods exported from one neutral
  1098
  country to another, which may reach an enemy country. This Bill does not deal with that special case at all. It deals only with the question of exports from this country to a neutral country, which may reach an enemy country. The House will notice that in the Bill there is a heavy penalty imposed. In a former Bill, passed at the end of last Session, dealing with a similar question, the penalty on anybody who infringed the Act and exported goods to an enemy country was as low as £100. I am sure hon. Members will agree as regards a penalty of £100—or, indeed, any purely money penalty—in dealing with such matters where the price in Germany of certain articles, such as rubber, for instance, may be ten or twelve times, or five or six times what they are here, that the amount of money that could be made on a cargo would make such a fine quite ridiculous. Therefore it is proposed in this Bill that the penalty should be a money penalty of £500, with an alternative at the discretion of the Court, of imprisonment up to two years. I hope that that will be sanctioned. There is a further point, and that is: that there is a penalty imposed by this Bill, not only upon the exporter, the consignor, or shipper of the goods, but upon the shipowner, who knowingly carries any such consignment. That is necessary for reasons which I do not need to go into, and which are rather complicated.
  That brings me to the last point, namely, that the machiney of this Bill will be worked through the Customs and Excise. The Customs Department has been very fully consulted about the Bill, and as every consignment of goods that leaves this country has to pass through the Customs, it is best that the machinery of the Bill should be carried out by that Department. It would not be wise to discuss the question of that machinery, but it has been fully considered, and as soon as the Proclamation is issued that machinery, under the Customs Department, will be immediately set in operation, and every consignment which goes to Holland and passes through the Customs will, without any delay, be dealt with by the Customs officials. As under existing Acts penalties against shipowners who infringe the Customs regulations, by shipping prohibited goods, are levied under the authority of the Customs, and the prosecution is inaugurated by the Customs authorities, that procedure will be followed under this Bill. That is why the

  1099
  two Clauses are separate. Proceedings against a shipowner will be carried out by the Customs officials, and proceedings against a shipper or consignor will be carried on in the ordinary Court. I believe that if this system is put into operation it will have a very considerable effect in the prevention of trade which is how, I suppose, in nearly all the cases, without the knowledge of the shipper or the desire of the shipper in this country, going through neutral countries into Germany. If the House is good enough to accept the Second Reading of the Bill now, and, I hope, to give the remaining stages to-day, we shall be able to issue the Proclamation on Thursday, when the Royal Assent has been received, and put the machinery into motion at once.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the fact that the first speech he has made from that Bench is in introducing a Bill dealing with a matter of such urgent importance as that which he has brought to our notice. He has told us that the Government are now satisfied that we are supplying the enemy, and that it is necessary to provide measures to stop the enemy being supplied; and so urgent is it, that all the stages of this Bill are asked for to-day. As far as I am concerned, I heartily support the Bill, and I am glad that the Government have brought it in. I need hardly say that it would have been more welcome if it had been brought in a long time ago. I am a little doubtful whether the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has in view will be fully accomplished by the Bill as it stands. In effect, the Bill really does one thing, and one thing only: it simply says that the goods that are to be exported in future are to be exported to an approved consignee. That is, instead of each individual merchant being allowed to make his own separate transaction in regard to exports from this country, the Government will have an approved list, and only the consignees on that approved list will be allowed to receive the goods that are so exported. That, in my opinion, does not completely deal with the difficulty. We practically have that in existence at the present time. In regard to the exports that have been sent to neutral countries—finally going into Germany, as it is now admitted by the Government, although we were told in March last that the whole question had been successfully grappled
  1100
  with—the consignors have, up to the present day, taken upon themselves the responsible obligation which the right hon. Gentleman provides for in this Bill; because they have undertaken that if they are allowed certain cargoes, so far as they are concerned, they will not dispose of them outside the neutral country to which they are sent. How has that been got over? Simply by the person who is getting the goods selling them to another merchant in that particular country, who is in no way under the obligation which the original merchant was under. That is why the whole machinery has been absolutely futile. The thing has been going on openly, and the Germans, to a large extent, have been laughing at us for the statements that have been made over here that practically nothing is going into Germany.
  There are many matters which will be covered by this Bill. There is the question of coal, there is the question of sugar, and there is the question of tea. Sugar, I suppose, will not be so much affected, but tea and cocoa will be affected, because, as I have time after time demonstrated in the House, tea and cocoa was going into Germany. I hope something will be done as a result of this Bill to make that impossible. One very important question to which I wish to draw attention is how far this Bill will affect cotton cargoes going to the enemy. I put before the House the other day exports of cotton to neutral countries, which undoubtedly, and it is practically admitted, finds its way into Germany. Not less than threefold in every case has been the increase in the exports. This Bill may do something to deal with that matter. I think there is only one way of dealing with it, and that is to prohibit the export of cotton altogether. I do not think the Government have seriously up to the present time realised the very urgent importance of this matter. Cotton, as the House knows, is the raw material for ammunition, and Germany is supposed at the present time to be using not less than 1,000 tons a day. At the beginning of the War her stock of cotton was estimated at 250,000 tons. Two hundred and fifty thousand tons would practically have been exhausted by this time, but enormous imports of cotton have been allowed to go into Germany, and that has enabled her to make all the ammunition she requires. I am bound to say that the Government have been very slow to

  1101
  deal with this matter. I know there were difficulties; I know the replies we have had from time to time. We have been told Germany had enough cotton, and that therefore we need not interfere. I think that that was a most extraordinary statement, because it presupposed the length of the War, and practically said she could have as much as she required. Then we were told that she would be able to get a substitute for cotton. That has not been proved up to the present time in the making of ammunition. The importance of cotton is its regularity and you cannot get a substitute for it, so far as I know, up to the present time. Why have not the Government stopped the export of cotton, as I hope they will do as a result of this Bill, once for all? It is a matter affecting the position of the enemy, and may have involved thousands of our brave men's lives. I know that probably there are diplomatic considerations in the eyes of the Noble Lord who represents the Foreign Office here, and no doubt he ran tell us that in matters of this kind we are to consider other countries besides the particular countries who are importing the cotton.
  What were the imports of cotton into Austria and Germany before the War? Probably about £30,000,000 a year—certainly not more than £40,000,000. What is that in a great war of this kind? Suppose that we have to consider the American cotton grower. All he was concerned with was to get the best price in any possible market. Would the country have refused to pay £30,000,000 to buy up the whole stock which Germany and Austria would take? Nothing of the kind. It would practically represent one week's expense of the War and have prevented any cotton at all from going into Austria or Germany. I believe that if the Government had taken up a very strong course months ago the whole position of the War at this moment would have been entirely changed. That is the opinion not only of myself, but of experts of the highest standing. At the present time, practically, I am told that there are not enough of warehouses in Copenhagen to provide for the bales of cotton there, and that whole streets are filled with bales of cotton on their way to Germany. That is a very serious state of affairs. I would ask the Government to consider with regard to this Bill whether the whole question should not be dealt with by complete prohibition. I believe that American views on the matter could
  1102
  now be reconciled very easily. I think that they could have been reconciled at the beginning of the War simply by the purchase of the whole output, and I would appeal to the Noble Lord who represents the Foreign Office as to whether he cannot give us some assurance to-day that the Government may be willing to go much further even than this Bill in order that they may practically stop the supply of all ammunition to the enemy.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I would like to say that I am in entire agreement with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as I generally have found myself during the discussions on various matters arising out of the War. I do feel, and I believe that the country feels, extremely strongly about this matter of cotton. I do not believe that I am going the least bit too far in saying that the neglect of the British Government on this matter of cotton has been directly responsible for a prolongation of the War which cannot be measured, and for a loss of life on the part of the Allies which never can be measured, and it is continuing the neglect, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, and I hope very much, now that we have a new Government and also perhaps that experience has taught us all that some definite strong action in this respect will be taken, that some Member of the Government will take the opportunity in the Debate on this comparatively small Bill to give us an assurance on the subject which will quiet the apprehensions that are felt both in this House and in the country. When my hon. Friend opened the Debate on the Second Reading he left one matter in considerable doubt in my mind, and perhaps in the minds of others who heard his speech. I understood him to say at the outset of his remarks that the machinery for carrying out this Bill would be in the hands of the War Trade Department. Towards the end of his speech he told us that the machinery would be in the hands of the Customs authority. I hope that whoever speaks at a later stage for the Government will explain to the House exactly the functions of the Customs Department and of the War Trade Department, and how they dovetail into each other, because it seems to me that there is some danger of the various authorities which are being set up, and the various wheels of the great machine which is working these various provisions, lacking in efficiency owing to

  1103
  overlapping or to deficiency in marking out the functions which each has to perform.
  My hon. Friend began by saying that the War Trade Department was to be used for the purposes of this Bill. The War Trade Department appears to be a rather mysterious body. I had some curiosity with regard to this Department and its personnel, and some days ago I put down a question on the subject, addressed to the President of the Board of Trade. I received an intimation that my question should have been addressed not to the Board of Trade but to the Secretary to the Treasury. Thereupon I addressed my question to the Secretary to the Treasury and put it down for yesterday. The question was to relieve my curiosity on this point: who were the persons in charge of the duties of this Department? What were their ages, and what were their business qualifications? The reply I got from the Secretary to the Treasury was:
  "I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the notice issued to the Press on the formation of the Department."
  Of course, when I got that reply, knowing nothing as to what the notice to the Press was, I had no opportunity of seeing how far it was an answer to my question, but I have now got the notice to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and it is no reply whatever to the main part of the question which I addressed to him. I hope in the course of this Debate that as this Department is involved we shall be told who are the persons who are carrying out these very onerous and very important duties in connection with this subject, and what are their qualifications.
  The notice which the Secretary to the Treasury sent to me as an answer to my question begins by saying that the Treasury announce—not the Board of Trade—that in view of the complexity and volume of work involved in dealing with export and import licences, and so on, showing that they quite recognise, as we all recognise, that it is a work of great complexity and volume dealing with a subject which, as the speech which we heard on the introduction of the Second Reading to-day shows, I the Government recognise as one of very great importance and which the country, I think, recognise as being even more important than the Government consider. In answer to my question as to the personnel, I am told that Lord Emmott
  1104
  has consented to act as director of this Department, and that Sir Nathaniel Highmore, K.C.B., will be the secretary. Nothing is said about their qualifications or their ages. Later on we are told that the work relating to the movement of funds and other questions with which the Treasury is mainly concerned will be transferred to the Treasury and will be performed by Sir Arthur Thring, K.C.B., Parliamentary counsel, and his staff. So far as this information goes and I cannot think it is a full answer to my question as to the personnel of this Department, but if it is, and the Secretary to the Treasury tells me that these duties fall upon Lord Emmott, Sir Nathaniel Highmore, and Sir Arthur Thring, I would like to know whether or not Sir James Harrison is concerned with this Department, and, if not, is there anyone else?
  I have nothing in the world—none of us have—to say against Lord Emmott. I have no doubt that he is a most amiable and worthy peer, but I would like very much to know what are his qualifications for being, in time of war, head of a great Department, dealing with the most intricate and critical matters of the commerce of this Empire. I am quite open to instruction on that point. Then as to the secretary, Sir Nathaniel Highmore, I have nothing in the world to say against him, but I should have thought that the secretary to this Department should have been a man who would have been described by the Minister of Munitions as a man of push and go. I should have thought that it would be well to find youth and vigour in this Department, yet I am informed—I do not know whether my information is correct or not—that the secretary has the misfortune to be a man of over seventy years of age. Then we have Sir Arthur Thring, a most excellent and able man; but here we have this Trade and Commercial Department, dealing with these intricate and critical matters of the export and the import into this country during the War, consisting of a peer, a politician, and two lawyers, and possibly an ex Civil servant. Not one single man in that Department has any knowledge, training, or experience in commerce or trade.
  Surely that is a very extraordinary state of affairs for a Department of this sort. I do not know whether the Government can possibly give any explanation of that. I think that it is a very serious matter. If the Government is seriously intending to

  1105
  carry out the business which this Bill gives power them the power to do through the machinery of a War Trade Department, it is perfectly ludicrous and futile to have such a personnel as that which I have described upon the information given to me yesterday by the Secretary to the Treasury, and I think that the House and the country will expect that the Government, if they are going to show seriousness in this matter, will entirely reconstruct this Department. If my hon. Friend likes to have a Gentleman from the other end of the Corridor, wearing a coronet on his head, to preside over the Department, I do not know that anybody will object, but, in the name of common sense and of all that is serious, let us have a Department or a Board which shows youth, vigour, experience, and training in the duties which that Department has to perform, and do not let us have the futile absurdities of putting together two or three old men whose only qualifications are a half obsolete knowledge of law and a recollection of some services rendered in a Civil Service Department.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON(indistinctly heard): I have had some intimate connection with the War Trade Department, and I am bound to say that in the little which I have had to do with regard to the licences I seldom came on anything quite so chaotic. That is the very great danger which the Government have got to meet. I admit that it is a difficult subject. There are certain things which, in my humble opinion, the export of which ought to be stopped. Among these are lead, nickel, antimony, high-speed steel, and castor oil. Castor oil is very largely used in aeroplane work. Tons go forward to Sweden under licence, while Sweden hardly uses any of it. It is the same in regard to high-speed steel. I admit that in regard to ore there is a very great difficulty in regard to Sweden, because we import a great deal of Swedish, steel, and they cannot produce that Swedish steel without a certain mixture of ferro-manganese. But there is no doubt that a tremendous quantity of ore has reached Germany through Sweden and Holland and some from this country. Thousands of tons of ore have gone through Holland. There is not a blast furnace in all Holland, so that that ore must have gone through to Germany. There is no pretence for saying that it goes to Holland, for there are no blast furnaces in Holland in which they could use it to make steel. I would recommend my right
  1106
  hon. Friend that this Department should get some smart men in the City who know Scandinavian business, who know the merchants in Scandinavia, and the sort of things they deal in. I believe that such men would prove very valuable, and it is all the more necessary that such appointments should be made when it is recollected that in Scandinavia there are only four British Consuls who are British subjects. Those four Consuls are at four different places, including Stockholm, Malmo, Christiania, and Gothenburg. These are the only four Englishmen who hold those posts, and therefore when licences are applied for by dealers there is reference to the Netherlands Overseas Trust and the Government.
  It would be all very well if the Govern-were responsible, and would hold themselves responsible, to see that goods were not exported again. What happens? The enormous profits which can be made are a great temptation, and food-stuffs, metals and ores have been passing through to Germany. That will never be put a stop to until you get attached to the War Trade Department men in the City, who, familiar with the Scandinavian, Danish, and Dutch Trade, have some home knowledge of the various dealers and merchants, the extent of their trade, and their usual manner of carrying on their trade. To appoint a very old Civil servant as secretary, though he is a very charming man—I know him very well—is unsuitable. What knowledge has he of Scandinavian business? What does he know about it? It is the old story. People apply for a licence for some goods to be supplied and the application is kept hanging about for weeks until someone takes the bull by the horns. A few days, or a week or a fortnight at the outside, ought to be sufficient. Every assistance should be given where goods are being sent bonâ fide, and which cannot by any possibility reach the enemy, and the licence should be granted promptly.
  In the case of the War Risk Department, which has been a very great success, the Government placed the offices in the City, where it was in touch with the merchants. Instead of being at a distance from the City, this War Trade Department should be nearer the Custom House, through which all the licences go in the first instance. We have had some prosecutions for trading with the enemy. I am not sure that something might not be done in that direction. I know of a firm resident

  1107
  in Boulogne, who have their transmitting agents in London, and an agent in Sweden. Observe what is done. Ore is shipped to Holland, and to facilitate operations this firm has an agent in Sweden, who draws upon a London house, and the London house makes the money arrangements for this shipment of ore to Holland. As I have pointed out already, Holland uses none of that ore, and it goes up the Rhine to Essen, or elsewhere. If a London firm, no matter who they are, have financed or assisted in financing a shipment to the enemy, they come under the Defence of the Realm Act, and ought to be prosecuted. With regard to food supplies, we have shipped something like £4,000,000 worth in one month to Holland and Scandinavia, and with regard to high-speed steel very large quantities of it have gone forward. I am glad to think that a shipment of ferro-manganese was stopped. It comes back to this, that you will never get this War Trade Department to work this Bill with any satisfaction to the country until you get associated with it some men who really know Scandinavia, who know the trade, and who know the various traders, or can immediately decide what to do. Until this is done you will have no satisfaction. The whole country is seething with discontent at the ridiculous way in which licences have been held up. Men who have no notion of this business cannot protect you; they must have men who know the inside ropes of the various countries, and have the means of finding out who the people are and what is the character of their transactions.
  Mr. FELL: This is an effort to meet the difficulty which we have encountered of supplies getting through to the enemy. In regard to the Netherlands Overseas Trust it apparently consists of a number of firms in Holland, and gives a guarantee. I do not know whether the firms who compose that trust are individually responsible, or whether the trust as a whole is responsible in regard to the guarantee. The Netherlands Overseas Trust may perfectly well agree to promise that the goods that are sent out shall not be sent to the enemy; but how are we possibly to assure ourselves that the goods sent out will not after all get into the enemy's country. There is a considerable amount of goods at present in Holland, and if these goods are retained in Holland they can be sent forward into Germany for the benefit of that country when a
  1108
  similar amount of goods is shipped into Holland, and, therefore, Germany would benefit exactly as much as if we had sent the goods, not to Holland, but direct into Germany. If there is not some provision that these people will not forward similar goods into Germany, then they might as well be sent direct to Germany. I hope, if such a thing can take place, steps will be taken to prevent it. I merely point out this danger, and I hope it may be avoided.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. WATT: I desire to say a few words in support of the contention put forward by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel). In regard to cotton, I urge the Government to prohibit its export entirely; they have the power to do that under the Act. Everyone knows the importance of cotton to a country engaged in war. It is a notorious fact that Germany had not an enormous stock of cotton when the War broke out; she had only a stock to last 250 days, having made her arrangements on the basis that the War would be short. If the export of cotton had been prohibited, and Germany had been precluded from obtaining supplies of cotton, her stock would have run out. Though ten months have elapsed since the beginning of the War, I think it would still be well to prohibit the export of cotton entirely than not at all. The right hon. Gentleman constantly urged the Government to take action in regard to cotton, and again and again they have deferred it. If they remedy the matter now they will have acted in a wiser manner than if they continue the policy which has hitherto been adopted. It is the duty of the Government to stop hereafter cotton going into Germany.
  Mr. LOUGH: I had not the opportunity of hearing the whole of this Debate, but I would like to make a protest respectfully against one remark which fell from my hon. Friend (Mr. J. M. Henderson). Although I think in some respects the War Trade Department is open to criticism, yet it is dealing with most difficult questions, and the heavy duties it has to discharge are necessarily of an embarrassing character. My hon. Friend appeared to visit the defects which lie in the nature of the work on the head of the very able official in charge of the Department, Sir Nathaniel Highmore. I think it is rather unfortunate that an attack of that kind should be made.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I made no attack on Sir Nathaniel Highmore, who has only been appointed quite recently.
  Mr. LOUGH: I think my hon. Friend did say something about an old Civil servant in charge of this Department.
  Mr. HENDERSON: I said he was a very able Civil servant and I know he is a very able Civil servant. But what does the nicest or the best or the noblest Civil servant know about Scandinavian trade?
  Mr. LOUGH: My hon. Friend has confirmed the point I made. I would be the last to say that it would not be an advantage to have a business man in connection with these matters. To that extent I agree with the general observation, but if we are to have Civil servants, I think there could be no more capable or able man than he who is at the head of this Department.
  Mr. HENDERSON: Hear, hear!
  Mr. LOUGH: I am glad my hon. Friend agrees with me. I had correspondence with him and I found him display the greatest courtesy and an endeavour to get to the bottom of matters difficult to unravel. The head of a Department must depend a good deal on the evidence that is laid before him with regard to the granting of licences. I think every effort should be made to discharge the duty which the whole country wishes the Department to carry out, namely, to prevent any goods reaching the enemy and at the same time without interfering with the legitimate trade of the country. I do not think sufficient importance has been attached in this Debate to the question of the legitimate trade which the country should carry on. The House ought to realise the great opening which exists for trade in neutral countries. I believe a great opportunity is presented through the shutting up of Germany, which is no longer a rival of this country. We can carry on trade where we like, and our great trade opponent was Germany. If trade can be carried on on safe lines so as to give no help by any goods reaching the enemy, then a golden opportunity is presented of seizing the trade of Germany, which I believe would be as important as defeating her arms or seizing her Colonies. There are two sides to this question, namely, allowing the country to carry on trade where it can safely do so and the preventing of trade with the enemy. We heard in recent Debates about the difficulty of paying for our
  1110
  imports. Of course the reason we do not pay for them is because of the cheek to our exports. If exports can be allowed in legitimate channels it would be the greatest relief to the country and would greatly facilitate those financial operations which we are engaged in at present. I hope that the Board of Trade will not interfere with legitimate trades more than it possibly can, while at the same time making every effort to prevent goods reaching enemy countries. Then there is the question of penalties, and I rather think that the object of this Bill seems to be to increase the penalty on the shipper for an act over which he might not have control. Goods might be delivered to the wrong place in spite of the shipper taking every effort to prevent that occurring. The fine is very heavily increased and there is an alternative of imprisonment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary can give us an assurance that every precaution will be taken to secure that innocent persons will not suffer in the carrying out of this very complicated law.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I explained the question of the penalties previously, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look again at the Bill, he will see that the penalty of £500 or imprisonment does not apply to the shipowner at all. Sub-section (2), Section 1, applies to the shipowner, and the penalty which is imposed upon him is, the same which is always imposed upon shipowners under the Customs Act for shipping prohibited goods. The penalty of £500, or the alternative of imprisonment, is against a person who consigns goods contrary to the Regulations to be issued after this Bill is passed. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree to that as a maximum penalty, in view of the enormous profits which might be made by shipping a cargo of goods to an enemy country under present conditions. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that the penalty of £100 which previously existed was ridiculous, and I think even a penalty of £500 would be equally ridiculous if there were not the alternative of substituting imprisonment if the Court thought proper. It is, however, only a maximum penalty, and I do not think any less maximum penalty would meet the case of those who knowingly trade with the enemy to the detriment of the country at a time like this. In answer to questions by the hon. Member of West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) and the hon. Member for the

  1111
  St. Augustine's Division of Kent (Mr. R. McNeill) about the War Trade Committee, there seems to be a misapprehension about the work of that Committee. It is not the business of that Department to settle what are prohibited goods; the responsibility for settling that lies with the Government. The Board of Trade and the Admiralty and the War Office have considered what it is desirable to prohibit, and they have settled what is prohibited. The function of the War Trade Department is to grant licences for the export of prohibited goods where they are satisfied that those prohibited goods are going to persons who may be trusted not to pass them on to an enemy country. So far from that Department consisting only of its Chairman (Lord Emmott) and a Civil servant, the Department works mainly through Committees. As the House knows, there is no greater authority on matters of coal than the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Russell Rea), who is Chairman of the Coal Committee of the War Trade Department, and which Committee has full knowledge of the coal trade. Then, again, Lord Balfour of Burleigh is Chairman of the Committee which deals with tin and rubber.
  The War Trade Committee is only really the nucleus of the War Trade Department which collates all the work of the committees and deals with those questions. There is then the general Committee which deals with the goods on the Schedules which I have already referred to and which is presided over by Lord Emmott. The Board of Trade has a representative on it, and there are other expert Members who are fully competent to deal with these questions. There is the article which has been referred to by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) namely, cotton. I am not competent to deal with the question, but I may tell him that I think before many days are past he will be informed that another Committee with full expert knowledge of cotton will be dealing with licences for cotton, and all cotton products will be on the prohibited list. I would add to that, that so far from this Bill increasing the responsibility of the War Trade Department the exact contrary is the case. The War Trade Department are not to carry out the machiney of this Bill at all. This Bill deals with articles which are not prohibited, and which therefore do not require licences and do not come before the War Trade Department whose business it is to grant licences. This Bill enables the ordinary
  1112
  Customs authority in every port to prohibit the export of any article whatever, whether it is a prohibited article or not, unless it is consigned in this case to the Netherlands Oversea Trust, or to an approved consignee. There was the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) and by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire, namely, the great desirability of facilitating trade as much as possible. We quite recognise that subject to the major consideration of stopping trade with the enemy, we want to facilitate legitimate trade in every possible way, but we must first of all do everything we can to seal up all those sources from which the enemy is supplied.
  The object of this Bill is a double one. It will, in the first instance, stop all trade, whether prohibited or not, which may reach an enemy country, and it will restrict the routine of licences in respect of those articles, and enable the ordinary Customs authorities to deal with those consignees without them having to go through the form of obtaining licences at all from the War Trade Committee. Therefore I think that on both counts this Bill will work for good. The War Trade Department will themselves admit that there was originally considerable delay. The reason is that given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, namely, that the work is of enormous complexity, of great magnitude, and entirely new. Obviously, when you have a huge schedule of articles in respect of which licences have to be obtained, and you have to secure information as to the ultimate destination of those articles, a certain amount of delay would necessarily occur before the Committee could get its machinery into thorough working order. There is now very little delay, and I believe the Committee claim that no decision as to a licence is ever delayed for more than seven days. I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the suggestion that the Committees of this Department should be strengthened by the addition of experts having particular knowledge of the trade and of the personnel of the traders in the countries with which the Committees are dealing. The question raised by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), that while the consignment of goods from this country might be safeguarded, they yet might release other goods which could be sent to Germany, has been very fully considered in the drafting of this Bill. The only way in which that point can be met is by having

  1113
  as full a knowledge as possible of the imports, both before and since the outbreak of war, of the particular articles in question into a particular country, and having also a knowledge of the home consumption in that country. It is proposed not only to regulate the particular consignment, but to keep a careful watch on the total quantity of any article which goes under this or any other of these Acts into particular countries, and to stop the export of any article where it appears that more is going into the country than that country would naturally and normally consume. I am afraid that there is nothing further that we can do in that particular.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—[Captain Pretyman.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CUSTOMS (EXPORTATION RESTRICTION) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Prohibit Exportation to Persons other thin Authorised Consignee.)
    (1) The power of His Majesty under Section one of the Exportation of Arms Act, 1900, as amended by the Customs (Exportation Restriction) Act, 1914, by Proclamation to prohibit the exportation of articles to any country or place named in the Proclamation shall, during the continuance of the present War, include the power to prohibit the exportation of any article to any such country or place unless consigned to such person or persons as may be authorised by or under the Proclamation to receive such article.
    (2) If any article to which any such Proclamation applies is delivered to any consignee other than an authorised consignee the vessel in which it was exported shall for the purposes of the Acts relating to the Customs be deemed to have been used in the conveyance of prohibited goods.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "consignee" ["delivered to any consignee"], and to insert instead thereof the word "person."
    I think that this Amendment will decidedly strengthen the Bill. The Clause states that, "if any article to which any such Proclamation applies is delivered to any consignee other than an authorised consignee" certain results shall follow. I think that that is a loophole by which fraud may be committed, because an
    1114
    article may be delivered to some person who is not a consignee. Under this Bill there can be no consignee, except an authorised consignee. What seems to me possible is that by collusion the captain of a vessel might deliver some article to a person who was not the consignee. If the shipowner delivers the goods to any person other than the authorised consignee he will be liable to a penalty under my Amendment, and it will be no defence to raise the technical point that the person to whom the goods were delivered was not a consignee.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Amendment on the face of it appears to strengthen the Bill, but I do not think it will be wise to accept it, because the word "consignee" has a particular meaning. It means a person to whom goods are consigned by the shipper. In this case, as the Clause now stands, the Sub-section inflicts a penalty on any shipowner who delivers goods to any consignee, other than an authorise consignee. That means, or who accepts goods from a shipper to a consignee except from a shipper to a consignee as authorised by this Act. If you put in the word "person" you get a different meaning. You might render a shipowner liable in respect to the delivery of goods to some person subsequently to their arrival at their destination. I think the draughtsman had that point in mind, and on the whole it will be wiser to retain the word "consignee."
    Sir WALTER ESSEX: I should like to ask whether, after all, something on the line of my hon. Friend's Amendment might not be acceptable. It is commonly known to everybody in trade that a bill of lading issued, as this would be, with the further document of a licence to trade, might be endorsed and the goods dealt with while in course of transit. In that case the original consignee would be able to get rid of his liability. The person named in the bill of lading is undoubtedly the consignee, but the person who takes the goods out of the ship, having bought them from the consignee, may not be covered by the terms of this proposal. I am a little dubious on the point; perhaps my hon. Friend can enlighten me.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: My hon. Friend has just dealt with a difficult point. Every ship has two sets of papers—the Customs papers and the commercial papers. The bill of lading is the commercial paper, which does not go to the Customs at all. It is the

    1115
    Customs papers which will be dealt with in this case, and no consignment will be allowed to pass except the Customs papers contain the certificate that will be required. My hon. Friend suggests that it might be possible to have a bill of lading which did not agree with the Customs paper, and under which the articles might be delivered to a different consignee. That is really the reason why this Sub-section was introduced, to make the shipowner responsible for seeing that the bill of lading really coincides with the Customs paper, and that the delivery actually takes place to the person to whom the Customs paper applies The point has been most carefully considered, but I do not think it would be wise to give full details of the methods by which we hope to prevent any evasion of this provision. The Sub-section has been drafted with great care to deal with the very point raised by my hon. Friend, who evidently understands the trade.
    Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I wish to ask the Government whether they could not give us a stronger assurance in regard to the matter which I raised just now. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that I might anticipate with some confidence the appointment of a Committee shortly. He will remember that, when we had these matters up before, his leader on the other side of the House did not express much confidence in committees. At this stage, ten months after the outbreak of war, when the Government themselves the other day admitted that we were supplying our enemies—that is urged as a reason for passing this Bill—we cannot get anything more than an assurance that a Committee is about to be set up! That is entirely unsatisfactory, and it is very disappointing to me, as one of the first efforts of the new Coalition Government. I hope the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be able to say something which will not disappoint us entirely on this matter. I hope also that the Leader of the Opposition, whom I see in his place, will give us his very valuable support. In any case I hope the Government will treat this matter with much more seriousness than they have done up to the present.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): My right hon. Friend is under a complete misapprehension if he thinks that the Government do not treat this question of cotton with the utmost possible seriousness. When he reflected on the suggestion that a Committee should be appointed, I think he rather misapprehended what my hon. Friend meant. The Committee which it is proposed to appoint is a purely executive Committee. It is a Committee, not to consider the question of cotton at all, but merely to carry out the measures which are being adopted to prevent trading with the enemy altogther in reference to cotton, just the same as the Coal Committee deals with the special question of coal going to Germany. There is no dispute, so far as I know, as to what our object should be. Our object is to prevent cotton from reaching the hands of Germans. We are all agreed about that. The other thing that we are anxious to do is to protect the legitimate rights of neutrals. It would ill become this country, after the history of the last ten months, to do anything which was unfair or unjust to neutral nations. That is an important matter for us to consider. The question really is, How can both these objects be achieved? Two proposals have been made. One which has been made and pressed very strongly by a number of people inside and outside this House is that cotton should be declared absolute contraband. The other proposal is the one adopted by the Government and embodied in their Order in Council of the 11th March, the effect of which is to prohibit all trade with Germany.
    I think there is a little misapprehension about the effect of the declaration of cotton as contraband. If you declare cotton to be contraband, that does not give you a right to arrest cotton going anywhere; it only gives you a right to arrest cotton if you have a real reason to suppose it is going to the enemy. For a long time now it has been established that until the ultimate destination is manifested you can arrest contraband at any part of its voyage—that is to say, if you find cotton going to a neutral country, and have reason to suppose that it is afterwards to be transferred to an enemy country, you can take it on its way to the neutral country. That is equally true of a blockade or of the Order in Council. Any article which there is reasonable ground to believe is really going to an

    1117
    enemy destination can be arrested on the seas and brought in, even though its immediate destination may be that of a neutral country.
    There is no distinction—I want to make that as clear as I can—in the procedure and method of arrest, whether you declare the article contraband or whether you deal with it as the Government have dealt with it, by means of an Order in Council forbidding trading with the enemy. To declare cotton contraband would make no difference in your right and power to stop cotton on the seas or in any other way if it is going to a neutral country. The real difficulty arises in finding out what is the ultimate destination of the goods, whether they are contraband or the trade is carried on under the Order in Council. The same difficulty arises in both cases. That is the difficulty the Government have to face, and it is a very considerable difficulty. Obviously it would not be right to arrest cotton, or anything else, which was going to be dealt with and consumed in a neutral country. That would be wrong. It would cause great difficulty to this country, would be unfair to neutrals, and in itself indefensible from any point of view.
    The real thing is to devise some test. That is not a simple matter. My right hon. Friend has pointed out one criterion that would apply; that is that a larger quantity than usual of a particular article is being imported into a neutral country. My right hon. Friend will see immediately that that is not quite conclusive, because the neutral consumer might justly say that to some extent he is cut off altogether from the countries with which he used to deal in time of peace. The neutral country may say, Our imports have necessarily been bigger than they would have been in time of peace. I do not wish to go further—I have no authority to go further—than to say that the matter is treated with the utmost seriousness by the Government. They believe that their system, when properly and effectively applied, as they have reason to think it is being now, will prevent the import of cotton into the enemy country; and they do not believe that the declaration of cotton as contraband in this respect would be of any assistance, taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration. They are determined to carry out what is the object of all parties in this House—to put the utmost pressure on our enemy, by commercial, as well as by strictly military measures, in
    1118
    order to bring the War to the earliest possible conclusion.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We are obliged to the Noble Lord for his very interesting exposition as to the meaning of "contraband," but the right hon. Gentleman opposite who put the question to him did not want to know the exact meaning and effect of the word "contraband." What the right hon. Gentleman wanted to know was whether the Government did or did not mean to do certain things. My Noble Friend opposite will agree that on many occasions, in company with some of us on this side of the House, he has objected to the appointment of a Committee. What I understand the right hon. Gentleman opposite to suggest, and what I am perfectly well prepared to do, is, if the Government have made up their minds, to leave the whole question in their hands. If they have not made up their minds as to what they are going to do on this question, I hope they will do so quickly. Let them appoint one man to do the work. If they appoint a Committee the Members will discuss the matter, the Chairman will speak, and then the Committee will adjourn to consider what will be done.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is the hon. Baronet speaking from the experience of his own Committee?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Mine is the exception that proves the rule, but I think many matters would be better carried out by a single man than by a Committee.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: The real danger is concerned with the consignee. The danger, let me assure hon. Members, in these Scandinavian countries is with the merchant and the dealer who buy the goods. Notwithstanding all the affidavits they make, they know you cannot get at them. Stop authorising any goods to be sent to the merchant who deals in these goods. Ask him who is the purchaser. If it is a corporation or any other consumer, let that consumer be the consignee in the bill of lading.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The Noble Lord has made an interesting speech, but I agree for once with the hon. Baronet above the Gangway (Sir F. Banbury) in thinking that what the House wants to know is what is the policy of the Government? That is the real question. It is-common knowledge that more cotton goes to Germany than ought to go there. It is common knowledge, too, that more cotton

    1119
    goes to neutral countries than used to go before the War. I submit to the Noble Lord and to the right hon. Gentleman on his right (Captain Pretyman) that the real policy of the Government should be this: to find out how much cotton went to Germany from particular neutral countries, for the twelve months before the War; or to find out, if you like, how much cotton went into the neutral countries, leaving Germany alone. Let it be so much. There may be, and there probably was, cotton going into Germany from other countries. Give a liberal allowance in respect of cotton from all directions going into neutral countries. Let that be the standard and let us stick to it. Add 10 per cent., if you like, to the amount I have suggested, and let that be the quantity the Government will allow to go to any particular neutral country. The moment that quantity is reached let the Government stop all cotton going. Do not let them put their trust in any consignee. You may have a consignee guarantee by this, that, or the other person, but you do not know what becomes of the cotton after it goes into the neutral country. Nobody can tell. I would like the Government to say clearly, once the pre-war limit is reached, "That is the standard, and that standard must not be exceeded during the twelve months of the War." If they arrive at some policy like that I really think that the House of Commons and the country generally will have much more confidence. I do not understand quite what is meant by an Executive Committee. An Executive Committee, as I understand it, has to carry out the decisions of somebody else. Who is that somebody else? Is it the Cabinet or the Government as a whole?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Very well, if it is the decision of the Government as a whole, I am bound to say that I am more than ever with the hon. Baronet. Why do we want an Executive Committee?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: When I referred to the Executive Committee I was merely dealing with the War Trade Department as a whole. We have three Committees acting merely for the granting of licences. There are three because you cannot concentrate in one individual all the experience required to enable the Committee's functions to be performed in deciding whether licences should or should not be
    1120
    granted. The Committee I referred to is shortly to be appointed to deal merely with the question of issuing licences, and to deal with the applications on their merits.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The right hon. Gentleman says there is some difficulty in concentrating wisdom in one man than in many, but it might be easier to dissipate the wisdom of one man in many. What, however, I want to say is this: let us have some principle. The Government ought, I submit, to come to a decision and say, as regards this or that netral country, we know how much cotton you received before the War, we shall allow so much for the first twelve months of the War. Let the Government stick to such a decision and allow no certificate or exemption to alter it. Nothing short of that will be satisfactory to the House or to the country.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I desire to thank the Noble Lord for the statement he has been good enough to make. I cannot pretend that I am satisfied with the length to which he went. I recognise that obviously this must be a Cabinet matter, and possibly he has not had an opportunity of putting the matter before the Cabinet. But I do hope he will use his influence at the Foreign Office, and bring it to bear upon the Government to deal with this most vital matter. The facts are not in dispute. We have for ten months been supplying the essential things for making ammunition by the enemy. Without our assistance, the whole war, I believe, would have been in a different position to-day. After ten months of war it is not too early to ask that we should have a decision from the new Government as to what their policy is in regard to cotton. I fully understand what the Committee intends to do. Like the other Committees, it is to consider the individual applications for getting cotton. The Committee will consider and give a decision upon the consignee, but they have no further dealing with the cotton. I pointed this out before. In my opinion this importation ought to be absolutely prohibited—and that is the whole point!
    Lord ROBERT CECILmade some remarks inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I did not say prohibited to all neutral countries, but prohibited to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Altogether?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Altogether, and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. Take two of the months of last year before the War, March and August. There were 9,917 centals went into Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands. For the corresponding two months of this year the number was 273,427. Who is responsible for that? That is my point. The question is that these countries are getting thirty times more cotton to-day, with our approval, than they were before the War. I do hope that something is going to be done definitely and completely with regard to this matter. It is much too serious, I think, to delay any longer. I do hope that at a very early date the Government will acknowledge what I am sure is the sense of the House in this matter, and what I am certain is the feeling of the country outside, that this has been allowed to drift far too long. There is too much at stake. The case is complete and unanswerable, and it should be dealt with vigorously and at once.
    Sir PHIPSON BEALE: The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite seems to me to amount to this, that we ought to say to neutral countries, "You only took so much cotton before the War, and now we will interfere with your trade by saying you shall not take any more now." I understand the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy is that we should say to those countries, "You shall have none." It would be a very beneficial thing for this country if we could do that, but it seems to wander away from anything that could be done by the Bill now before us. If the representative of the Foreign Office can persuade foreign countries to facilitate the ascertainment of the quantity they really want for their own purposes, and to forbid any more to be imported, it would be a good thing, but I fear it is not possible to adopt the rather high-handed, although very desirable, suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I cannot help feeling that the hon. Baronet has put his finger on what is very dangerous counsel. This matter does not refer to cotton only. Powers are taken by this measure not merely to include things we now know are helpful to our enemies in their prosecution of the War against us, but the Bill takes power, as I understand it, to add to our present known list any articles which may hereafter appear to make for their greater efficiency as a fighting power. If, therefore,
    1122
    those powers are taken, it leads me to admit the wisdom of the Government in asking that a Committee shall be established to carry this out, and that it shall not be left, in spite of the wish of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), in one person's hands—not even his own, able as they are. If it were one article, there might be some thing in the argument; but, seeing you may have a hundred different articles, with the considerations arising out of the infinite complexity of the various means by which they may be used, transferred, handled and all the rest of it, to put the organisation of the whole of that matter into one hand, or even two hands, seems to me to be counselling the Government to go in the direction of a certain break down. On the whole, I think, with the safeguards in the Bill we can safely leave the matter to the provisions laid down by the Government. We cannot afford at this time of day to start on a line which will bring us into violent opposition with, and rouse the anger of, the large neutral countries to which reference has been made. America alone is enormously interested in one of the articles spoken of to-day, and I have no doubt, if we were able to know what has passed in the counsels of the Government within the last ten months, during which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy has been, as he said, a voice crying in the wilderness—
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I never said that.
    Sir W. ESSEX: That has been the right hon. Baronet's constant complaint. We may depend upon it the Government has seen the difficulty and appreciated it, but have not for obvious reasons, been able to disclose it. Having gone so far, I wish them God speed with it.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I have listened with pleasure to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I venture, to think he is right. The urgency of this question is undoubted. There is no one in the House or country who is not anxious to stop the exportation of cotton to Germany if that object can be accomplished without creating greater harm, perhaps, in other ways. Our position is this: We have now got a Government composed of Members of all sides of the House of Commons. They have before them all the information in the world that can be obtained upon this question. We have not. Are we to be guided by their deliberate

    1123
    decision, or are we to be guided by the advice of men, many of whom are not in possession of all the information that is necessary for forming a deliberate judgment on this question? That, I think, is the position in which we are placed at this moment. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to me just now to express an opinion. My deliberate opinion is that in the position in which we find ourselves placed, our best and our wisest course, and, I believe, our duty, is to trust in the decision, that has been come to by His Majesty's Government.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  MILK AND DAIRIES ACTS POSTPONEMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I have to ask the House to consent to a small Bill to postpone the operation of two Acts of Parliament: the Milk and Dairies Act applied to England, and the Milk and Dairies Act applied to Scotland—Acts which were passed with the general approval of the whole House last year. The Bill is a one-Clause Bill, and enacts that these Acts shall
  "not come into operation until such date, not being later than the expiration of one year after the termination of the present War, as the Local Government Board and the Local Government Board for Scotland may respectively by order appoint."
  The Acts, therefore, must come into operation within one year of the termination of the War, and they may come into operation at an earlier date. The House may expect me to remind them very shortly of the provisions of those Acts. They were designed to improve the supply of pure, unadulterated and uncontaminated milk. Whilst the House has never agreed in demanding pure beer, it did agree in demanding pure milk, and it not only agreed in demanding that, but, after many years of controversy, it agreed on a Bill
  1124
  which was a compromise and which harmonised the conflicting interests, and those two Acts went through the House with the general approval of the House.
  The Acts prevent the sale of tuberculous milk, prevent the sale of milk that has been exposed to contamination and dirt, and prevent the sale of adulterated milk. In order to do this, it is quite obvious that more stringent regulations had to be applied to the milking industry, and a more systematic and detailed inspection had to be set on foot, and it is equally obvious that if you have more stringent regulations, more detailed and systematic inspection, you must have more inspectors. At the present moment it is extremely difficult to add to the number of veterinary surgeons. Veterinary surgeons now are otherwise employed, and they are very difficult to get for the purposes of this Bill and, if you want to bring the Acts into operation, undoubtedly the staff of the authorities must be enlarged. Just now they are very much limited, and it would be very difficult indeed for the local authorities to enlarge their staff at the present time. Moreover, there must be a good deal more direction and supervision by the Chief Medical Officer of Health. He is at the present time otherwise engaged, as we all know, and engaged in doing very high duties and performing things very necessary. Unless we postpone the operation of these Acts, which will otherwise come into operation on 1st October, we shall undoubtedly embarrass the local authorities, add to the burden of the ratepayers, and in all probability increase the price of milk to the consumer, which is the very last thing we should desire to do, particularly at the present time. Therefore I ask the House to pass this Bill, and for a time to forego the advantage which the community would naturally enjoy from those Acts.
  Mr. GRETTON: Representing an agricultural district, I entirely agree with the object of this Bill. The only matter which seems to require some attention is the provision which permits the Acts to be brought into operation at a date earlier than that at first stated in the Bill, in which case it would be necessary to see that adequate notice was given to those persons who would come under the operation of the Acts. Of course, the date was fixed, and it was known previous to this Bill when the Acts would come into force. The agricultural community in the stress

  1125
  of war will certainly agree that the time is not opportune to put these Acts into operation.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. RENDALL: I desire to say that, although I represent partly an agricultural division, I also represent a large industrial population, and I am quite certain that the industrial population will suffer from what, I believe, is a most unfortunate decision of the Local Government Board. For years we have been trying to get legislation to protect the purity of the milk of the people. For many years an agitation has been going on and infant mortality has been increasing through impure milk. Only last year we succeeded in getting this Bill passed. Now, when we are losing valuable English lives, surely, if ever there was a time when the Local Government Board ought to try to improve their methods and improve the milk supply of the people in order to protect infant life, this is the time! Instead of that we have an Act which ought to be in force, and because of the difficulty of getting inspectors, and our old friend the burden on the rates, this Act is to be postponed at the very time when the children ought to be most protected. I think it is most deplorable, and I hope that the Local Government Board will be able to satisfy the country that it has taken some other precaution to protect the milk supply of the children.
  Mr. DENNISS: I very much regret that it has been found necessary to postpone the operation of this Bill. I understand the Local Government Board intend to bring in a Bill to protect infant life and mothers, but now they are postponing a Bill which perhaps would have, a very much greater effect in protecting infant life than the Bill they are going to bring in. I know the difficulties of the Local Government Board. The want of inspectors I quite understand and I know the importance of them, but with regard to medical officers of health, there are plenty of them. There is a medical officer of health connected with every small district council. I believe there ought to be fewer of them, and they should be whole-time men instead of local practitioners with small salaries. Why should these medical officers of health not be employed at the present time in inspecting tuberculous cases? A medical officer of health could do that very well. It is most important that young children should not be supplied with tuberculous milk. The subject
  1126
  is one of great importance to a large Constituency like mine. We are told that of all the infants who die nearly 90 per cent. are fed on other than mother's milk, and principally this contaminated milk which is either tuberculous or dirty, and produced amid surroundings which lead to the contamination of the milk by various diseases. With regard to the inspection of cow-sheds and cows generally, I know that that is a veterinary question, but a medical officer could easily see whether the drainage is sufficient or whether the cows are kept in a clean state. There are lots of medical officers of health who are of much superior knowledge to the ordinary medical officer who could assist in this matter of carrying out this Act as regards any inspection of the cow-sheds and the sanitary condition of the dairies where the milk is stored and distributed. I am extremely sorry to think that the Local Government Board, whom I am sure wish to make the Act a great success, think they can only do it by postponing it until after the War. This time of all others is a time when we should preserve our infant life, because we are losing so many of our best and bravest. Although we must consent to the Local Government Board having this Bill to-day, we do hope that they will take into consideration the fact that it may be possible to come here and ask for power to put some of its provisions into force with the assistance of the medical officers of health who are already in existence.
  Sir W. ESSEX: I share the feeling of the hon. Member opposite in deploring the necessity that arises for bringing in this Bill. I represent a Constituency which is wholly urban, and we are slow at seeing the need for the suspension of the operative date of this measure. We only pass measures like this by the general consent of the House after a lot of wrangling and a great deal of whittling down. These measures do not contain anything like a full measure of the reforms which a number of us desire to see carried out in the dairy and allied industries. Still, the concessions we obtained were a gain, and it is an infinite pity that they are to be suspended. The condition of agriculture to-day, owing to the limitation of labour, is really serious all over the country, and you find work being neglected which has hitherto been looked upon as vital to the industry simply because of a lack of hands. Only yesterday I saw in the country the unusual sight of women, children, and old,

  1127
  men working in the fields simply because labour is so scarce. I am afraid that if you try to load any further the machinery of a slow-going industry like agriculture, under the present circumstances, you will run the risk of it breaking down altogether. As to the loss of life among the children even in these days when human life is so sadly treated, that is a real and a serious disadvantage. Inasmuch as this Act does make the new Act necessarily come into operation from a definite date after the termination of the War, and inasmuch as this is not a matter of indefinitely suspending the operation of those Acts, and possibly by a side wind destroying them, I reluctantly feel compelled to give my support to this Bill.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: I can see no alternative except to assent to the postponement of this measure on account of the administrative difficulty of bringing it into force. I do hope, however, that when the Bill does come into force the Department will make up for its postponement by firm action in bringing it into force. I cannot help feeling that the hon. Member for Oldham in what he said was rather too severe on the Lancashire farmers when he suggested that 90 per cent. of infant mortality was due to tuberculous or dirty milk.
  Mr. DENNISS: I was not speaking of Lancashire at all. I said that with regard to infant mortality nearly 90 per cent. of the children are fed on other than mother's milk, and principally contaminated milk, which is either tuberculous or dirty.
  Sir G. TOULMIN: I accept what appears to be the hon. Member's correction, but it appeared to me that he stated that the majority of the cases of infant mortality were due to tuberculous or dirty milk. I think that is too extreme a statement to make. I do not depreciate the absolute necessity for procuring an absolutely pure supply of milk, and I hope we shall have an assurance from the Department that when these measures come into force they will be firmly administered.
  Sir J. SPEAR: If I thought for a moment that the Government proposal to postpone these Bills was a menace to infant life, I should not support it, but I recognise that the difficulty of putting the measure into operation is a justification for postponement. It is most important
  1128
  that the measure should be very carefully applied, or else it will defeat the object which we all have at heart that there shall be an abundant supply of pure and clean milk. We know that at the present moment there is a great falling off in our milk supply, due to the heavy cost of food and the difficulty of getting milkers, and this is causing a good many people to give up some of their cows. I believe that if this measure was applied injudiciously at the present time it would cause such a decrease of the milk supply as would be a real and a grave menace to the infant life of our country. Consequently I feel that there is a justification for this Bill. Some hon. Members seem to think that farmers and cowkeepers are indifferent at the present time about the provision of clean and pure milk, but only in exceptional cases is this so, and we want this Bill to deal with those exceptional cases. In the majority of cases the dairyman is as anxious to supply the public with good, sound, clean, and pure milk as the public is to have it. I do not think the insinuations which have been thrown out by one or two speakers with regard to the cowkeepers are quite justified. Everybody knows that to carry on a dairy successfully under existing conditions is an extremely difficult matter, and I hope when the Bill is put into operation it will be done in a way that will secure a still further supply of clean and pure milk, and in a way that will not menace or deter men from producing milk for the people. We know the importance of our milk supply, and we want it clean and pure, and I am sure the decision of the Government in waiting for a more favourable time to give effect to the spirit of the Bill is, under the circumstances, not only justified but necessary. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is proposed to deal with the Bill for the consolidation of the Dairies Acts in this way. There is another Bill before the House to consolidate all measures dealing with the milk supply, and I would like to know if that is to be postponed as well?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: No, there is no intention of postponing that Bill, and we hope to get it through very shortly.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: Does the Bill provide, if the Local Government Board thinks the Act should come into effect within less than a year after the War, that ample notice should be given?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: If the Local Government Board should think that, undoubtedly adequate notice will be given to the country that it is being brought into operation.
  Mr. HARRY HOPE: I think that the Government have come to a wise decision to postpone the operation of this Bill. I do not think that the House of Commons could do worse business than to pass a measure when there is not a chance of the machinery being available to carry it into effect. We are all in favour of a pure supply of milk, but we have got milk Orders in operation which have been effective in checking much of the risk that was run, and it is beside the mark to say that the milk supply at the present time is causing so much of the mortality as was hinted by my hon. Friend (Mr. Denniss). I have no doubt, if this Bill did come into operation now, that many alterations to cowsheds and byres which might be demanded would cause such a difficulty in carrying on the industry that many of the cowkeepers would be driven out of the business altogether. In fact, I do not think that there would be tradesmen in the country—masons, joiners, and suchlike—to carry out the various alterations and repairs which local authorities would enforce. The wise course, surely, is for us to wait until we can carry out the Bill in a proper manner, and then I have no doubt that it will be the success which we all hoped that it would be.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Wednesday).

  MAINTENANCE OF LIVE STOCK BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  I am asking the House to give to-day a Second Reading to a Bill connected with the conservation of our food supplies, and the subject is so important that I will ask leave to enter into as brief a review as I can of the present position, both in regard to the supplies of stock in the country and the policy of the Government as to the proper conservation of
  1130
  those stocks. Everyone will agree that our pohey in the matter should be, first of ail, if it is possible, to avoid interference with the carrying on of the ordinary industry of the farmer. It is a very difficult and complicated industry; it is very dangerous to interfere with it; and it is very easily upset. Subject to that, our proper policy, while doing nothing that we can avoid which might increase the cost of meat, which is already high enough to-day, is to do as much as we can to preserve the breeding stocks of the country so that there may be no undue depletion and no undue strain upon them as the War progresses or when the War is over. During the last few months we have been hearing from many quarters that there has been an undue increase in the slaughter of in-calf cows and young calves, of sows in pig, and to a considerably less extent of lambs. After as careful inquiry as we have been able to institute, the Board of Agriculture is in a position to make some estimate of the real position in the matter. There has undoubtedly been, taking the case of in-calf cows first of all, a large increase in their slaughter. The reports of our inspectors confirm that fact. There is some conflict of evidence. Some of the reports that we have received as to a large amount of slaughter have been proved to be ill-founded, but on the whole there has been undoubtedly a great increase in the slaughter of in-calf cows for food, particularly in the northern and northwestern districts of England and Wales, largely in connection with cattle which have been imported from Ireland. There has also been a considerable increase in Scotland.
  It is worth while for the House to spend two minutes to get the matter into a right proportion, because we find that some people have heard of the slaughter of in-calf cows for the first time in their lives. They think that it is a horrible thing, as most of us would, but that is, after all, a matter of taste. They also think that it is an unprecedented thing, and that it has only arisen in the present season owing to the high prices. That is a question of fact, and, as a fact, it is not true. It has been the practice of certain sections of the farming community, realising that heifer become quieter and that both heifers and cows put on flesh more rapidly if sent to the bull than if they are barren, to put their cows and heifers to the bull when it is the intention of feeding them for the butcher. It has also been the

  1131
  common custom in dairying districts, where the farmer wants a milch cow, to put the heifer to the bull and let it produce a calf so as to bring it into milk for dairying purposes. Whereas normally the butcher is inclined to look very much askance at a cow which is obviously in calf, if it is brought up for auction, this year, owing to the temptation of the high prices of meat, there have been such cows considerably advanced in pregnancy which have been brought up for slaughter and which have been largely bought. We know, for instance, of a case where one butcher slaughtered forty cows and thirty-eight of them proved to be in calf. It has been therefore only natural perhaps that those who have had cows in calf to sell, finding the demand for them so brisk, should have kept them longer than they otherwise would have done in order to gain from the extra weight which they would fetch when sold. It is also true that those who would otherwise have kept their cows and used them for milking purposes have been in many cases tempted by the high prices to put them on the market before the calf was produced, and of course this tendency has been intensified because of the difficulty of obtaining the proper amount of labour for milking which has been experienced in many districts where persons who can milk and are accustomed to milk are harder to get owing to recruitment into our Army and other similar causes. It is most necessary for farmers and dairy-keepers to reduce their milking herds, and of course one can only hope that it is the less good animals which are first weeded out.
  As to the slaughter of calves, we also have certain facts brought out clearly. We have in this country the rather curious and, it may seem, unnatural position, that in some districts thousands of calves are slaughtered normally and that in others there is a steady demand for all kinds of young stock of a type suitable for quick rearing and fattening. You might think all that was necessary therefore was to put the two districts into effective co-operation so that the calves born might be sold in those districts where there is a demand for young stock, but that is not quite the proper description of what actually happens. The dairy farmer, as I said a moment ago, wants new milch cows coming into milk. The calf is to him a useless byproduct. The quantity and quality of the milk of course in no way depends upon
  1132
  the bull that may be used. Therefore very inferior bulls are used when these cows are put to the bull, and the calves which are produced are very inferior stock, and are often in no way suitable for rearing. I am not, of course, speaking of the dairy breed, because, of course, in the Ayrshire, Kerry, and Channel Island breeds, however good the bull may be, the bull calves are of very little use for rearing purposes. In this matter in the use of inferior bulls the dairymen have not suffered from a lack of good advice. I have been at the Board of Agriculture a very short time, but I have realised that good advice is the one commodity in the agricultural world which is always very cheap. There has been plenty of it in this matter. Anyone who has made a practice, as everybody ought to do, of buying the Journal of the Board of Agriculture at 4d. a month, has been told over and over again that it is bad economy and really bad citizenship to use these Inferior bulls and therefore to produce calves which are of no use to anybody, rather than to produce calves which, with a little co-operation with farmers in other districts, could be sold and become part of the permanent breeding stock of the country. These calves, therefore, have always come on to the market very young, and there has been normally a considerable waste of what might have been with a little more forethought very valuable material, and that tendency to bring calves of that kind on to the market and not to try to get them reared has become considerably more marked during recent months.
  We have returns from fifty-two different slaughter-houses which show us that taking the number of calves sold between January and May inclusive there has been an increase of at least 25 per cent. this year over last year. This increase having taken place, the Board feel that they may not improperly take some action to restrict the sale of these young calves which, in many cases though not in all, are suitable for being made use of for rearing and fattening. It is the same story with regard to the sale of in-pig sows. It is rather worse, I think, to slaughter a sow that is in pig than a cow that is in calf, because where a cow produces normally only one calf, a sow produces ten pigs or thereabouts, and it is a terrible thing that all that potential life and food should be destroyed. There is clear evidence of an increase in the slaughter of stock of that kind. One Manchester dealer whom we

  1133
  consulted said that there had been at least 5,000 pigs in the sows that he had slaughtered this year. I think that we ought to do everything we can to give those animals a chance at any rate of coming into the world. That has been due, of course, partly to the high prices of feeding stuffs which prevailed in the early part of the year, and partly to the temptation to the owner by the higher prices that he can get by putting his stock into the market.
  The practical action which the Board are taking owing to the facts which I have tried to narrate is that they are to-day issuing an Order under the present Slaughter of Animals Act, passed on 31st August last, which from Thursday of this week will prohibit the sale of animals which are visibly or obviously in calf or in pig, and also will restrict the sale of calves by prohibiting the sale of calves under twelve weeks old except in the case of male calves of dairy breeds.
  Mr. WATT: That is the sale for slaughter?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, that is so. The penalty, of course, will only be where these classes of animals are sold for the purpose of slaughter. The Order has exceptions to the restrictions. It permits the slaughter of animals under the powers conferred by the Diseases of Animals Act; it permits the slaughter of animals necessary or desirable on account of accidental injury to the animal or its illness; and it permits the slaughter of an animal in exceptional cases if, after application to the Board of Agriculture, it is the opinion of the Board that the slaughter is desirable for any exceptional reason. I believe that that Order, although it does not go so far as a great many people wanted us to go, will be generally welcomed. Farmers have been particularly urgent upon us that something of this kind should be done. They foresee, very clearly, it may not be to their permanent interest, whatever may be the temporary and immediate interest of some, that the breeding stocks of this country shall be depleted, because, when once depleted, it is very difficult to build them up again. They have, therefore, pressed upon us the passing of an Order of this kind, and we are very glad to be able to follow their advice.
  We are more particularly following the advice of the Advisory Committee on agricultural matters presided over by Sir Ailwyn Fellowes, which has carefully considered the matters and which recom
  1134
  mended exactly the restrictions that the Order contains. There are a few more words to be said as leading up to the Bill I am now asking the House to read a second time. We have been urged to go a great deal further than we have gone in the Order. We have been urged to prohibit the sale of all female stock and the sale of lamb and veal. We have not done so. We do not intend, as at present advised, to do so. But we do think it desirable to ask the House to give us rather fuller powers, so that if it should prove necessary later on to take further action it would be possible legally to take it.
  I have to ask the leave of the House to explain what our position is in this matter. I think I can justify asking the House for rather further powers than we have now at such short notice. I think I can also show it is desirable to watch the question very carefully before we go further than we have gone. In the first place, it must be clear to the House and to the country that we may in the future have to depend very much more on home supplies than we do at the present time. I do not want, indeed I cannot prophesy as to the duration of the War, or what might happen during the War, but clearly we have to be prepared for the fact that the strain may be longer and greater than most of us expected six months ago, and if it became necessary to rely less on imported meat, and more on home-grown supplies, it would be desirable to have fuller powers for regulating the slaughter and sale of meat than we have at the present time.
  We must be prepared for some drain being made on our flocks and herds, or, rather, on our capital in them. We cannot expect the farmer and the stock breeder will be the only men to keep their capital intact at a time like this. Large drains are being made on our national capital by the proposals recently put before this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we must be prepared to share in some way that drain on our national capital which the War must be expected to make. There is normally, of course, some elasticity in our supplies. They vary from year to year, according to seasons and according to prices. That elasticity is greater in pigs, and to some extent in sheep, than it is in cattle, because supplies can be made good much more quickly, owing to the quick reproduction of sheep and pigs, than in the case

  1135
  of cattle. But we must, I think, be prepared, although we should like to keep our stocks up to their very highest point, for a certain depletion and drain of our flocks and herds, without rushing into very speedy action in the matter. That applies largely to lambs. I have heard it suggested that everybody ought to stop eating lamb at the present time. While the production of lambs and the bringing of lamb to a high state of maturity and development five, six, or seven months after birth is one of the most skilled parts of the farmer's industry, and one of the greatest triumphs of English breeding and English and Scottish feeding that is to be found from one end of the world to the other in agricultural skill, it would not, I think, be legitimate to fall into any sort of panic, or any great anxiety in that matter, if we find that we only have a normal sale of lambs going on, or if we find that a normal sale of lamb is going on at an exceptional time like this. But we must be able to watch it, and if it were found there was being any great or grave depletion of the national supply, especially of ewe lambs, I think at a later time we might have to take powers to check it in some way.
  Luckily, with regard to cattle, in the supply of which there is less elasticity, owing to comparatively slow breeding, our position last year at the beginning of the War was remarkably good. We have the annual returns which are taken on the 4th June every year, and those returns show that in 1914, as compared with 1913, there have been a greater number of cows and heifers in milk, or in calf and not in milk. That number was 2,484,000, as compared with 2,264,000—an increase in a year of not less than 220,000 in that particular class of stock—cows and heifers in milk, or in calf and not in milk. 1914 was the highest year since the statistics were first taken, in 1867, while 1913 proved to be the lowest year. Therefore we started in a good position, and that is a reason why it is not yet necessary to take the extreme step that has been suggested of prohibiting the sale for slaughter of all female stock. There are some signs—they are not very distinct, but they exist—that the position as to stock which should have been kept for breeding is really better than it was a month or two ago. Prices of meat are slightly down since the beginning of this month, and, therefore, there is less temptation to the farmer or breeder to bring his
  1136
  stock into the market. Grass-fed beasts are coming into the market, of course, at this time of the year, and that restricts the drain on the breeding stock. Again, the shortage of the hay crop and the bad prospect for roots, which are unfortunately apparent at the present time, will cause a continued flow of grass-fed stock—not very well finished, I fear, and not very fat—to come on our market, and there again there will be a tendency for the recent drain on cows to decline.
  Feeding stuffs are now, I am glad to say, lower in price than they were in the winter, and prices are still slightly tending to fall. Farmers who rushed their stock to market in the spring, thinking the high prices were only temporary, now find stock feeding, in spite of the threatening shortage of foodstuffs, is likely to be fairly remunerative for a long time to come, and they are therefore doing their best to maintain their stock, whereas a few months ago they were tempted to put animals unduly on the market. Again, there is the summer slackening in the demand for meat, and we hope that the necessity for economy and saving with food-stuffs will be more and more appreciated by the public, and the great demand of the recent months for meat may not revive in such very great force in the coming autumn and winter.
  I think there is one last fact which points to the desirability of taking further powers for watching, rather than acting precipitately, and that is we shall have, by the beginning of August or a few weeks later, the result of the agricultural statistics, which I have just given to the House for 1913–14 in the case of female stock. The figures are taken as from the 4th June. We have asked the farmers to be kind enough to fill up their returns this year as accurately and as quickly as they possibly can, and we shall be in a much more better position when the figures come in to judge whether it is necessary to take any further action than we are taking at the present time. These figures come in, I believe, at the same date—some time in August—in Scotland and Ireland, as in England and Wales. The Scottish and Irish authorities have acted with us in this matter. They have both of them issued the order I have referred to, and I am assured that the authorities in all three countries will keep in close touch with one another, and, when the figures are collected and tabulated, we shall be able to judge whether it is necessary to take further action. Meanwhile we shall watch

  1137
  the market, and should there be any tendency for the farmer to go contrary to his own permanent interest in depleting his stock for the sake of immediate profit, we shall check it by making the necessary orders under the Act, and if and when further action becomes apparent we shall ask the House to give us rather fuller powers than those we now possess.
  At present our powers are contained in the Slaughter of Animals Act, passed on the 31st August last year. That is a very simple Act, and the powers it gives are rather limited. We shall ask the House to allow us to to repeal that Act, and to substitute for it the Bill of which I now propose the Second Reading, a Bill for the maintenance of live stock, which enables us, by order, to prohibit or restrict the slaughter of animals, to prohibit and restrict the sale or exposure for sale as meat of immature animals, and to enable us to deal with the sale of veal, if we find that veal other than imported veal still continues to come on the market in a very immature state. It authorises the local authorities to act on our behalf.
  It authorises our officers, and the officers of local authorities, to enter slaughter houses in order to see that the Act is being complied with, and—and this is a new power—we ask for leave to prohibit or restrict the movement of animals out of the area in which the slaughter of such animals is prohibited or restricted. We may find, for instance, that in certain counties the undue sale of immature stock has become a practice. We may find that whereas we do not want to take power all over the country to prohibit the sale for slaughter of that particular type of stock, yet it may be desirable to do it in this particular area, and it would be of no use for us to prohibit the sale in that particular area unless we also took power to restrict the movement of animals out of that area, because without such powers it would merely be necessary for the farmer to move the animals out of the specified area in order to secure the sale of them. I do not ask the House to give us the Committee and Report stage to-day. Although the powers we ask for are simple, I think they are such as the House, and the farming interest in the country, would like to be able to study, and I think anything which gives the proper authority rather larger powers in this extremely important matter of the nation's food supply, powers to be used under the provisions I have tried to outline to the
  1138
  House, should only be given after very careful and further study of the position. But still, a Bill of this kind is one of which I am sure the House would desire to let us have the Second Reading this evening.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: We are much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the extremely interesting speech he made, which, with great modesty, he would have us to believe is due to the advice which he has received, at the Board of Agriculture, which I was glad to learn from him, for the sake of agriculturists in the Kingdom, is generally speaking good. Be that as it may, I am sure the speech the right hon. Gentleman has delivered to-night will be received with welcome by the agriculturists and farmers of this country generally, because it was quite evident from every word that fell from him that he has given great care, thought, and attention to this subject, and has thoroughly realised the necessity of taking the farmers of the country into his confidence in connection with all the measures which it may be thought necessary that the Board of Agriculture should introduce. I am glad, too, that the right hon. Gentleman has thought it desirable not to take the Committee stage without a little more delay. For that, I am quite sure, he will also receive the gratitude of the farmers, and they will be pleased with the care and watchful treatment that he evidently means to give to them.
  With regard to the Bill itself, the right hon. Gentleman called attention to one power which is taken under the Bill, that is, the power of preventing animals from leaving a certain area. It is upon that provision that I want to say a single word. On looking through the Bill this provision struck me at once. There are two points in connection with it. One is that the provision must, I think, be limited as to the movement of animals; at any rate, I would suggest for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration that it should be limited to what are called immature animals. As to what is to be an immature animal it would be desirable to have a definition in the Bill. The limitation I have mentioned is more especially desirable at the present moment, because we are suffering in many parts of the country to my own knowledge, and I believe almost universally in the more southern parts of the country, from a very excessive and unusual drought. One consequence of that is that the keeping of various animals on the farm must

  1139
  be, I am afraid, very insufficient. If that be the case, and all the lambs and all the calves are to be kept in addition to the other stock on the farm, it would be difficult to maintain them, except at a very unusual cost, if it were rendered impossible by the provisions of the Bill to move the older animals, the sheep and the beasts, to some other place outside the area, possibly where the same farmer might hold land, which is not uncommonly done in the practice of farming in numerous instances.
  There are one or two other points for consideration which I would venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman. Take the case where a certain number of lambs are regularly killed every year. The rearing of lambs, especially at the early seasons of the year, is in some parts of the country almost an industry in itself. If none of these are to be killed in future, and if none of the calves are to be killed, it is not difficult to suppose that the farm, in many instances, will not be sufficient to carry the number of animals that remain upon it. Supposing the farmer has been in the habit of killing a number of lambs and calves every year—I do not know, without studying the Order, how far the slaughter of these animals is to be prohibited, but supposing it is prohibited in any considerable numbers, a serious difficulty might arise for the farmer in this particular respect, that there would be more animals on the farm than it is able to carry. What is he to do? If he cannot kill, or sell or part with the young ones, he might have to kill the sheep or the older stock among the cattle who are not at that moment fit for the market. I understand that this Bill is to come into operation almost immediately, and that seems to me to be a subject not undeserving of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
  I understand that further considerable powers are to be asked for, if necessary, at a later period. I have no objection to that if it should be found necessary and desirable, but still it is all the more serious, because the Regulations, which under ordinary circumstances have always been laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament, thus giving an opportunity to each House of objecting to them, whereupon a Debate could be raised, and if there is a sufficient majority to disapprove the Orders have been annulled, are not laid upon the Table under the Emergency Acts.
  1140
  There is nothing in this Bill, or any of the Emergency Bills, providing for the laying of these Regulations on the Table. I do not see how the old Regulations and Orders can very well be reconciled to the Bill, which is of an emergency character. Stilly it makes the matter all the more important in this case, if we are to have more stringent powers asked for in the future. I am, however, consoled by the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he has carefully considered and thoroughly recognises the necessity of being careful and watchful not to interfere with the usual practice and conduct of his business by a farmer more than he can help, and with that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman I feel quite disposed to be amply satisfied myself. I believe there will be a general feeling of satisfaction, when farmers learn of the speech he has made this afternoon, that the right hon. Gentleman has been appointed to the position he occupies at the present moment. Although I am quite certain that his departure from the Foreign Office will be regarded as a loss by them, the loss of the Foreign Office will, I hope and believe, be a gain to agriculture.
  Sir J. SPEAR: We were all deeply interested in the speech the right hon. Gentleman has made in introducing this Bill. We must recognise at once the reasonableness of the Government taking some steps to endeavour to meet and, if possible, by just means to reduce the present high prices of meat, consequent upon the War. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman showed his realisation of the difficulty of the position by pointing to the danger of interfering with the principle of supply and demand. I am bound to say that he showed a strong endeavour to respect that principle and to deal carefully with the problem. I take it that by supporting this Bill we shall be giving the Board of Agriculture power to issue orders in the direction indicated in the other part of the Bill. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be well, in drawing up these orders, if he would see fit to consult the Board of Agriculture and the Farmers' Union. That would give him some practical assistance in accomplishing the purpose without doing any injustice to the agricultural class.
  I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the moderation of his proposals. I know something of the pressure that has been brought to bear upon the Board of

  1141
  8.0 P.M.
  Agriculture by faddists—I almost said fanatics—who have been demanding that henceforth we should discontinue the slaughter of all calves and lambs. They have advocated that in the interests of what they thought was the promotion of cheaper food, but in my judgment no proposal would be more likely to make food less commonly available than the adoption of that idea. The right hon. Gentleman has shown the extreme care with which he has been advised. It is something of a relief to us to find that that is so, because in a circular issued by the Board of Agriculture, which farmers throughout the country have received, there was a recommendation, "Do not kill your calves, it will pay you to rear them." Practical farmers know very well that if you use your food in rearing calves, you soon get so stocked with store cattle that you cannot make beasts. The idea that you would reduce the price of meat by demanding that no more calves should be killed, is the most absurd proposal that has ever been made. The action of rearing all your calves would be the means of greatly increasing the price of beef. The same with reference to lamb. There has been a cry not to let any lambs be killed. In some parts of the country there is a boycott to refuse lamb from the butchers with the idea that thereby people are helping to secure that state of the food supply. The supply of lambs is the most speedy and, I think, the most profitable method of producing food for the people. We are to be stopped from doing that. The right hon. Gentleman in his Bill—his speech is better than his Bill, I think—takes a deal of power to interfere with the slaughter of immature animals. That goes rather close to demanding powers to stop the sale of Iambs, which his speech was a bit short of. What does that mean? If we had to keep all our lambs we should not be able to keep any ewes next winter. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman that he has stood against it to some extent. I am obliged to say, however, that I think his proposal about the rearing of calves will tend to diminish the food supplies. If we have to rear these calves, even the limited number provided for by the right hon. Gentleman under his Bill, we shall produce less milk, which will be a serious thing for the country, and we shall produce less beef, because we shall have taken the food which we have and used it for rearing stock, instead of using a part for rearing
  1142
  stock and a part for feeding as at present. I believe, honestly, it would have been better to trust to the principle of supply and demand and the common sense of the farmer, encouraged by the high prices of stock to do the utmost he could to produce of all kinds of stock as much as he could. Certainly there is a public demand for something to be done, but I believe the right hon Gentleman will serve the public best by proceeding moderately, at any rate in that direction. With regard to the rearing of calves, we cannot rear calves without milk, and the present milk supply of the country is insufficient and is being still further menaced, and even the limited number of calves that the right hon. Gentleman is going to forbid being slaughtered will take the milk and reduce the milk supply for the people, which is a very serious thing, and when they commence to take fodder it will be so much less power that we shall have to produce that food for the people. The right hon. Gentleman's limited proposals will increase the price of meat rather than otherwise, and we all regret the abnormal price of meat—producers as well as consumers. It is not healthy for anyone. Any legitimate means which are likely to so increase stock in this country as to bring cheaper food would have my hearty support.
  There is one point which has been lost sight of. I see the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. W. Russell) on the Front Bench. This Bill will hit his country pretty hard, because at present we use an enormous number of Irish store cattle. Now we shall not want to buy the right hon. Gentleman's store cattle from Ireland. If the Irish Members were here I think they would have something to say upon that aspect of the question. However, I am bound to say farmers generally are very anxious to serve their country and to assist the Government in doing what they can to provide and procure the greatest possible amount of native food supply that our land is capable of producing. The right hon. Gentleman said it may be that in the future we shall have to rely more on homegrown food and less on foreign. I am glad he has come to that view. Perhaps if some of the principles which we have recommended on this side of the House had been adopted we should not have dear meat at the present but an abundance of all kinds. However, that is by the way. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks made me very hopeful that his experience at the Board I of Agriculture—and we congratulate him

  1143
  on the attainment of that position—has broadened his mind on that particular aspect of the question. We only grow a certain quantity of food in this country, and if we use it for rearing we cannot use it for feeding. Therefore it is better far to give the farmer fair encouragement. Do not menace his industry, but leave him to have the security and confidence that if he develops his land it will not be taken from him, or the cattle either, and that, I believe, will be the best way to keep a healthy supply of stock of all kinds in this country. If this drought continues the farmers will not be able to rely on the stock they have. Talk about killing the lambs, if this weather last it will almost starve the lambs. That shows how absurd it is for outside people to talk in this way. If the Government want us to grow more stock and greatly increase the number of live stock they must help us to get far more favourable terms for feeding them. It is a very important matter in every sense of the word.
  There is one point I must refer to with reference to the slaughter of in-calf cows. They are all kept in a good state and practically fit to kill. When they cease to give the full quantity of milk they are sent to the butcher and the cow keeper has to buy six or seven new cows to put in their place. First of all, he must sell the calves. There will be an embargo on that which will embarrass him, but if he is prevented from selling his cows when they have become very much reduced in their milk-giving powers he will at once prevent to that extent the supply of beef, and you will also reduce the food supply. This shows that the right hon. Gentleman evidently realises the very great difficulty of dealing with the matter. I thank him for the spirit he has shown. I know he is anxious for the welfare of agriculture; and I thank him, more than all, that he has the backbone enough to resist the recommendations of the faddist to prevent altogether the non-slaughter of cows and lambs. He has gone dangerously far in trying to meet their views, and I am afraid he will find, at any rate at present, that it is bound to be disastrous. If it is found to increase the price of meat, which it will, at no great distance of time we shall have to retrace less mischief than would have been the case if he had yielded to the clamour outside.
  Mr. HARRY HOPE(indistinctly heard): There is very grave need for the administration
  1144
  of the Bill to be carried out in a wise and prudent manner and by Boards which are manned by practical officers in touch with public opinion. I should like to join in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the understanding and sympathy which he seems to have with the agricultural industry. Our industry is an extremely complicated one. It is idle for anyone to begin to lay down cast-iron rules as to how farming must be conducted. There are so many kinds of farming in so many different districts in the country and the interests all interlace, and yet we need such a flexible system and, as it were, so little interference that it is dangerous to bring legislation into effect. Still, for all that, I think there is room for this Bill and almost need for it. The right hon. Gentleman first refers to the case of in-calf cows. I think he was on sound ground in saying that we need to reduce and prevent as far as possible the slaughter of these animals. No doubt there are difficulties in all cases in keeping separate in-calf cows from fat ones. But on the broad principle I think it is desirable that we should do what we can to check the slaughter of in-calf cows. With regard to lambs, the less interference with their sale for slaughter the better. In Scotland the sheep industry has been conducted with a very great amount of skill. Of course there are different breeds of sheep in Scotland, but the manner in which our flock masters have brought their stocks to maturity is a credit to them, and any interference by the Board with the selling of lambs would inflict a very great injury indeed upon Scotland.
  I do not think anything is to be gained from the consumers' point of view from stopping the sale of lambs. Those lambs, whether they be of the larger breeds or the black-faced breed, though not, of course, as heavy as when full grown, still are animals of large weight, and if they have to be kept fewer ewes would have to be kept upon these farms and the whole system of farming would be so altered and broken down that nothing could be done to make up the injury. When you come to the position of calves, I think the right hon. Gentleman was on sound lines. For instance, such, breeds as shorthorns, I think, ought to be immune from slaughter. There is a large cow population in Edinburgh, and, of course, the city dairymen have not the means of keeping on their calves. Of course in many cases they are bought by farmers and dealers who do

  1145
  rear them, and that is all right. In many cases these good short-horned calves are slaughtered at a week or ten days old. That is a matter of great regret, and I think the right hon. Gentleman and the Boards both of England and Scotland will have an opportunity for doing good work in checking that ruthless slaughter. In other districts of Scotland—say, in the West and South-West, where cheese-making is carried on—it would not be to the advantage of the country in general and the consumer that the bull calves of Ayrshire breed should be prevented from being slaughtered. I think that these animals could be slaughtered with perfect security for the general welfare. They are not cattle that grow up to be what are called beef cattle, and they cannot be reared on these dairy farms. If they were, the same amount of cheese could not be produced. I would suggest that, with the exception of the few calves of poor beef breeds, such as Ayrshire, Jersey, and Guernsey breeds, there is good work to be done in carrying out the principle of this Bill. I think the success of this measure will depend upon the common sense and the practical knowledge of those who administer it. I have confidence, speaking as a Scottish Member, that our Board of Agriculture in Scotland will be wisely conducted. If they act in that spirit, and keep in touch with the opinions of our public bodies, which express agricultural views so well, I have no doubt that this Bill will be a success, and that, by encouraging a larger number of cattle in the country, they will produce the effect of reducing the price of store cattle, which I am extremely pleased to think is a possibility. My hon. Friend (Sir J. Spear) was, perhaps, expressing views from the breeder's point of view, and naturally the breeder wants to see, and the Irish Members will probably want to see, a high price for store cattle maintained. But for the general interests of agriculture as a whole, and from the consumer's point of view, I think it would be very much better if we saw a reduced price for store cattle. That would enable more cattle to be fed, and it would encourage farmers to feed them, and bring more cattle forward to the butcher. Because of that, I welcome the Bill, and I hope it will be administered in a wise, prudent, and practical manner.
  Mr. MOLTENO: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the very clear, lucid, and if I may be
  1146
  allowed to say so, well-balanced statement which he made in introducing this Bill. He showed in that statement that he realised that there were dangers in the administration of this Bill which have to be guarded against. Indeed the danger is so great that any indiscriminate enforcement of regulations on so varied an industry as farming might have a very different result from that which was intended. We are all in agreement as to the object of the Bill. The hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Harry Hope) has said something for Scotland, and as the Bill applies to Scotland, I would like to point out how in Scotland we should be very seriously affected if the sale of lambs were at all indiscriminately interfered with. The rearing of lambs is really quite an art. The lamb, I might say, is almost an artificial production. It is a food product which has been produced very skilfully, and it has been turned into food by the use of an enormous supply of feeding stuffs. In that way food is produced rapidly and is ready for human consumption in the very best form. The introduction of this Bill has caused some apprehension in Scotland, and I have had representations made to me from my Constituency. It might perhaps be advisable if I pointed out the dangers which are apprehended there from any indiscriminate application of the Bill to their industries. I have a letter from a farmer who puts the matter so very clearly and cogently that it may perhaps be worth while to read it. I shall not mention his name, because I have not his permission. In the letter he says:—
  "My object in writing you is to try to have the order so far as sheep are concerned to apply only to purebred lambs, which alone are suitable for breeding, and to have an exemption made in favour of cross-bred lambs which are only fit for fattening, and have been bred specially for that purpose. I would point out that in my case it would not only cause me a considerable loss but would defeat the very object for which it is intended. On this farm, as on hundreds of other arable farms as well, it is the custom to carry as large a stock of breeding ewes as possible and put away fat lambs from now onwards as the pasture begins to fall. If we are not to be allowed to kill these lambs we will have no keep for them, as the farm is stocked on the assumption that the fat lambs are all away in July. If the order is still to be in force next year it will simply mean that we will have to keep a smaller stock of breeding ewes, as we cannot possibly keep both lambs and ewes when the pastures are past their best. I think it should be quite apparent, even to outsiders, that the sooner the lambs can be got ready for the butcher the more stock the farm can carry, and that if farmers are to be compelled to keep in their lambs they will just have to reduce their stock of ewes accordingly, In the same way with cattle, if more calves are to be kept, then the number of aged cattle will have to be reduced accordingly. The country is quite incapable of producing sufficient food for the population, and no amount of artificial conditions created by Act of Parliament will alter that fact, though it may cause great loss and

  1147
  hardship to the agricultural community. All farmers know that the more stock their farm can carry the better, and if they sell fat lambs or surplus calves it is only because they cannot keep them, and it seems to me to be an act of madness to compel them to do so."
  That letter brings out very clearly the danger on that particular kind of farm, of which there are a great many in my Constituency, of any indiscriminate action of this Act. I associate myself with what has been said by the previous speakers in regard to various questions in which they have urged upon the right hon. Gentleman the utmost caution in applying the very great and wide powers which are created in this Bill. I need hardly say that I heartily support the Bill.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I happen to be a cattle breeder on rather a large scale, and therefore I can speak with a little confidence on this subject. I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having had the courage to bring in this Bill in regard to the slaughter of immature animals, because I think that many of those who have spoken have ignored the fact that we are dealing with an emergency caused by the War. Some of the arguments which have been put forward are, in peace times and from the agriculture point of view, no doubt perfectly sound, but we are not at peace, and we cannot deal with agriculture or anything else in the way of business as usual. We must put that entirely out of our heads. Therefore we have to consider what steps can be taken to increase the meat supply of the country during the next year or two while we are at war. I think that the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman goes very far in the direction of meeting that want, because it stands to reason that if you do something to reduce the slaughter of calves you are also doing something in the direction of increasing the number of store cattle a few months hence, and if you have more store cattle in a few months that means that you have more beef a few months beyond that again, and to that extent certainly I think this Bill is most effectual. Judging from the speeches which have been delivered, I think there has been some misconception. Hon. Members have spoken as if this Bill was going to insist upon each individual farmer keeping and rearing his own calves. That is not the case. This Bill permits, as I understand it—the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—the farmer to sell the calves which he does not want to rear himself to
  1148
  another farmer who would be willing to carry those calves up to the stage of being stores or possibly beef. If that is so, surely it is a step in the right direction.
  Having given my little meed of praise to the Bill, I would like to suggest an Amendment to Clause 1 (e), or, rather, to suggest certain matter for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. The Clause restricts or prohibits the movement of animals out of any area in which the slaughter of such animals is prohibited or restricted. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not consider the advisability of modifying that and of allowing a farmer living in a prohibited or restricted area to sell his calves to a farmer living in another prohibited or restricted area. I can quite understand that it would defeat the object of the Bill if a farmer living in a prohibited area were allowed to sell his calves in an area where no prohibition or restriction exists. That would mean, probably, that the calves would be slaughtered; but why should not the farmer have the liberty of selling his calves to any adjoining area where the same restriction or prohibition exists as in the area in which he lives himself? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take that matter into consideration. I do not want to suggest any form of words, but if I were allowed to word it I would add, after the words "prohibited or restricted," in the last line of Clause 1 (e), the words "into any area in which such prohibitions or restrictions are not in force."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Wednesday).
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question. "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. KING: May I ask when the Army Act (Amendment) Bill, Committee, will be taken?
  Mr. WALTER REA: The present intention is that it should be taken to-morrow.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Half after Eight o'clock.

MUNITIONS.
  TORPEDO FACTORY, FORT MATILDA.
  TORPEDO FACTORY, FORT MATILDA.
  MOTOR-CAR OWNERS (RELEASE OF CHAUFFEURS).
  MOTOR-CAR OWNERS (RELEASE OF CHAUFFEURS).
  COURTS-MARTIAL UPON OFFICERS.
  COURTS-MARTIAL UPON OFFICERS.
  YEOMANRY HORSES.
  YEOMANRY HORSES.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (INDIAN MEDICAL SERVICE).
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (INDIAN MEDICAL SERVICE).
  Old Age Pensions and National Insurance (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions and National Insurance (Ireland).
  Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
  Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
  Youthful Offenders.
  Youthful Offenders.
  Death Sentences.
  Death Sentences.
  Telephone Exchanges.
  Telephone Exchanges.
  Merchant Shipping (Convention) Act.
  Merchant Shipping (Convention) Act.
  Colonial Frozen Meat.
  Colonial Frozen Meat.
  Charcoal Imports.
  Charcoal Imports.
  Alternatives to Imprisonment.
  Alternatives to Imprisonment.

Preamble
The Lord MERTHYR—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord WENLOCK—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Marquess who leads the House I have to acquaint your Lordships that His Majesty has been pleased to create the Right Honourable Sir Stanley Owen Buckmaster, Knight, Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, a Peer of this Realm by the title of Baron Buckmaster of Cheddington, in the County of Buckingham.
His Lordship, having retired to robe, was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).

Weardale and Consett Water.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TRENT NAVIGATION TRANSFER) BILL.
A Witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the No. 1 Order was withdrawn: The orders made on the 3rd and 9th instant respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said Order discharged, Committee on the Bill to meet on Tuesday next.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
CONWAY FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
SEA FISHERIES (CARDIGAN BAY) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
SEA FISHERIES (POOLE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
CHELMSFORD CORPORATION GAS BILL.
  LURGAN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
METHODIST CHURCH IN IRELAND BILL.
  AMMANFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    FRIENDS' PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 95.)
HIGHLAND RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
BRISTOL TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment considered, and agreed to.
HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL. [H.L.]
    WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
Colonies (Annual)—No. 843. Zanzibar (Report for 1914):
British South Africa Company—Supplemental Charter to the British South Africa Company, dated 13th March 1915:
Miscellaneous—
No. 12 (1915). The treatment of prisoners of war in England and Germany during the first eight months of the war;
No. 13 (1915). Report from the United States Ambassador at Berlin, dated 8th June 1915, on the conditions at present existing at the Internment Camp at Ruhleben:
Trade—Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions, 1914, compared with the four preceding years; compiled in the Statistical Office of the Customs and Excise Department. Volume I:
National Education (Ireland)—Appendix. Section I, to the Annual Report of the Commissioners for the year 1913–1914:
Bermuda War Contribution—Treasury Minute, dated 1st June 1915, showing the manner in which instalments of the Bermuda War Contribution will be applied:
Intoxicating Liquors (Restrictions in Foreign Countries during War)—Correspondence relative to the measures taken in certain foreign countries for the restriction of the sale of intoxicating liquors since the outbreak of war:
Irish Land Commission (Proceedings)—Return for the month of February 1915
Light Railways Acts, 1896 and 1912—Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, entitled the North Lindsey Light Railways (Amendment) Order, 1915:
Aliens Act, 1905—
Part I. A statement with regard to the Expulsion of Aliens;
Part II. Ninth Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector under the Act for the year 1914:
Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.
Public Works Loan Board—Fortieth Annual Report of the Public Works Loan Board, 1914–1915, with Appendices:
Penal Servitude Acts, 1853–1891 (Conditional Licence)—Licence granted to a convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home:
Shops Act, 1912—Orders made by the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department affecting certain classes of shops within the following areas—

1. Sowerby Bridge Urban District;

2. Sowerby Bridge and Luddendenfoot Urban District:

Dockyard Ports Regulation Act, 1865—Order in Council, dated 16th June 1915, relating to the Dockyard Ports of Chatham and Sheerness:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

KILMARNOCK GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  IRVINE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD (EMERGENCY POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to de Commons.

PORT-GLASGOW GAS AND BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. (Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 36:
Power to deal in gas fittings, &c.
36.—(1) The Town Council may sell purchase acquire supply let for hire fix repair alter and remove and contract for doing work in connection with (but shall not manufacture) engines stoves ranges pipes and other gas fittings for lighting motive heating ventilating cooking or any other purposes (all of which are hereinafter in this section included in the expression "fittings") and may provide all materials and work necessary or proper in that behalf and with respect thereto may demand and take such remuneration or rents and charges and make such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon.
(2) Any fittings let on hire under the provisions of this section shall not be subject to poinding or to the landlord's hypothee or remedy for rent or be liable to diligence under any process of law or any proceedings against the person in whose possession the same may be in the event of his bankruptcy or insolvency and such fittings notwithstanding that they be fixed or fastened to any part of any premises in which they may be situate or to the soil under any such premises shall at all times continue to be the property of and be removable by the Town Council Provided that such fittings are marked or impressed with a sufficient mark or brand indicating the Town Council as the actual owners thereof.
(3) Provided as follows:

(A) The Town Council shall so adjust the, charges to be made by them for any such fittings or for the fixing repairing or removal thereof as to meet any expenditure by them under the powers of this section in connexion therewith (including interest upon moneys borrowed for those purposes and all sums applied to sinking fund for repayment of moneys so borrowed):

(B) Every sum charged by the Town Council in respect of the provision of such fittings or the fixing repairing or removal thereof shall be separately stated on every demand note delivered by the Town Council to the consumer:

(c) The total sums expended and received by the Town Council in connexion with the purposes in this section mentioned in each year (including interest and sinking fund) shall be separately shown in the published accounts of the gas undertaking of the Town Council for that year.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 30 of the Act of 1865 the Town Council shall not manufacture fittings.
Amendments moved—
Clause 36, page 16, line 28 [subsection (1)], leave out ("sell purchase") and insert ("purchase sell"), and leave out ("acquire supply")
Clause 36, page 16, line 29, leave out ("alter")
Clause 36, page 16, lines 29 and 30, leave out ("and contract for doing work in connection with")
Clause 36, after line 37 insert:
"(2) The Town Council may enter into contracts for the execution of any of the powers of this section and shall not themselves lay any pipes on the consumer's premises except between the main of the Town Council and the consumer's meter and except pipes necessary to connect any fittings to existing pipes on such premises nor shall they sell any fittings except through a contractor."
Clause 36, page 17, lines 3 to 7, leave out from ("insolvency") to ("Provided").—Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MASSY'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

THE MILK AND DAIRIES ACT, 1914.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had the following Question on the Paper—
"To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will postpone the coming into operation of the Milk and Dairies Act, 1914, till next year; and whether the Local Government Board are willing, as requested by the Bath and West Agricultural Society, the British Dairy Farmers Association, and the Rural District Councils Association, to consult those bodies before making any Orders under the above Act."
The noble Lord said: I desire only to put the latter part of my Question, because in another place a Bill has already been introduced suspending the operation of the Milk and Dairies Act of last session.
LORD HYLTON: In answer to my noble friend I can assure him that the Local Government Board will take care that the various societies and associations referred to in his Question are given an ample opportunity of considering any new Regulations under the Act before they are officially settled.

MILK PROSECUTIONS.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Home Office has had its attention called to the case of Mr. Turner, of Clays Hill Farm, Lavenham, who, though not convicted, was ordered to pay 9s. as costs; whether the milk taken from a can in the presence of a Police Inspector was certified by the analyst to contain 5¾ per cent. of added water.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I will give the reply which has been furnished me by the Department. The attention of the Home Office was directed to the case of Mr. Turner by the British Dairy Farmers Association, who made an application that the costs might be remitted. Their communication, however, did not contain, as it professed to do, any report of what passed at the hearing, so that the Home Office is not in possession of the facts of the case and it has no information as to the last point mentioned in the noble Lord's Question. As regards the question of costs, it may be observed in the first place that it is not unusual for a defendant who is not technically convicted to be ordered to pay costs. Under Section 1 of the Probation Act, 1907, Courts of Summary Jurisdiction have power, in cases where they consider that a charge is proved but that there are mitigating circumstances, formally to dismiss the charge but at the same time, under subsection (3), to make an order for the payment of reasonable costs by the defendant. Secondly, the question of costs is entirely within the discretion of the magistrates, and the Secretary of State has no power to remit them.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I gather from the noble Earl's answer that he has not been able to go into the question of the form of certificate of analysis adopted by the Home Office. Perhaps he will be so good as to inquire of the Department whether it would not be possible to state the result of an analysis in different terms from those which are in use at the present moment. It is evident in this particular case, if the facts are as stated, that no water was added; yet the certificate of analysis states that water was added. I am given to understand by public analysts that it is in accordance with the form at present laid down by the Home Office to certify that

85
water has been added when the milk is below the standard laid down by the Regulations of the Board of Agriculture, even although as a matter of fact no water may have been added. It seems ridiculous, too, when a prosecution takes place in respect of milk in which fat is below 3 per cent., that the certificate should state that fat had been abstracted, whereas no fat may have been abstracted. Again, it is laid down that there must be 8·5 per cent. of solids. In the same way, where the solids are below that figure the certificate of analysis states that water has been added, whereas in a great many eases no scientific evidence can be given showing any ground for this statement. I submit that the certificate should state simply that the
86
milk was deficient in fat or deficient in solids. Perhaps the noble Earl will inquire into the matter. I am sure he will see what a difference this would make to the unfortunate farmer, who, where milk supplied by him is below the prescribed standard owing to the poverty of the milk, is now wrongfully accused of having added water to it deliberately.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I will, with pleasure, communicate to the Home Office the substance of what the noble Lord has said, and let him have a reply.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.