Sitting of 11 May 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
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 Bills, 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:—

Sutton District Water Bill [Lords].

Northwich Gas Bill [Lords].

Altrincham Gas Bill [Lords].

Bristol Tramways Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a second time.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Reports from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
London and North-Western Railway (Redeemable Stock) [Lords].
Port of London Authority [Lords].
Reports referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Private Bill Petitions (Standing Orders not 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 Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
London Electric Railway Companies Facilities.
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions
1446
for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.
Bills to be read a second time To-morrow.
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 Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill.
Bills to be read a second time To-morrow.
Liverpool Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Barnoldswick Urban District Council Water Bill,
Chelmsford Corporation Gas Bill,
Dewsbury Corporation Bill,
Friends' Provident Institution Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Mersey Railway Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Metropolitan Water Board Bill,
Rhondda Urban District Council (Tramways Extension, etc.) Bill,
Southend Water Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Deaf and Dumb Poor Asylum Bill [Lords],
Ilfracombe Gas Bill [Lords],
Lurgan Urban District Council Bill,
Neath Canal Navigation Bill [Lords],
Worksop and Bawtry Railway Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Brighton and Hove Gas Bill [Lords],
Falmouth Docks Bill [Lords],
Frimley and Farnborough District Water Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
To be read a second time upon Thursday.
Ormskirk Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords],
Rotherham Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Salop County Council Bill [Lords],
Sheffield Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords],
Sunderland Corporation (Wearmouth Bridge) Bill [Lords],
Warwick Gas Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1861, in the matter of a proposed Drainage District in the parishes of Fangfoss, Full Sutton, Bolton, High Catton, Wilberfoss, Newton-upon-Derwent, Barmby-on-the-Moor, Sutton-upon-Derwent, Allerthorpe, Thornton, Storwood, Melbourne, Wheldrake, Thorganby with West Cottingwith, East Cottingwith and Bielby, in the East Riding of the county of York." Presented by Sir HARRY VERNEY; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]
Great North of Scotland Railway Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Great North of Scotland Railway." Presented by Mr. McKINNON WOOD; read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 19th May, and to be printed.
Message from the Lords,—That they have passed a, Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers on the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county Borough of Halifax for the construction of tramways; to provide and run trolley vehicles and omnibuses and to make further provision with regard to their tramway undertaking; and for other purposes." Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Mayor,
1448
Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of South Shields in regard to their tramway undertaking; to extend their Mill Dam Quay; to construct street works; and to acquire lands; to make better provisions in regard to the electrical undertaking and the local government, health, and finance of the borough; and for other purposes." South Shields Corporation Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further capital powers on the West Gloucestershire Water Company; and for other purposes." West Gloucestershire Water Bill [Lords].
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Urban District Council of Aberdare to make and maintain tramways and to run trolley cars by railless traction and motor omnibuses; to carry out street improvements and to confer further powers upon the Council; and for other purposes." Aberdare Urban District Council (Tramways, etc.) Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the South Staffordshire Waterworks Company to extend their limits of supply; to construct new works; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." South Staffordshire Water Bill [Lords.]
Consolidation Bills,—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Five Lords to join with a Committee of this House to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session, and request this House to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.
The Lords propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A on Monday the 17th instant, at half-past Three o'clock.
Government of India Bill,—That they have referred the Government of India Bill to the Joint Committee appointed to consider all Consolidation Bills of the the present Session.
Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords],
South Shields Corporation Bill [Lords],
West Gloucestershire Water Bill [Lords],
Aberdare Urban District Council (Tramways, etc.) Bill [Lords],
South Staffordshire Water Bill [Lords],
Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of five Orders in Council, dated 29th April, 1915, approving Memorials of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL PRIZE ACT, 1864, AND PRIZE COURTS ACT, 1894.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 29th April, 1915, finally approving certain Amendments in the Rules as to the Procedure and Practice of Prize Courts, in force under the Orders in Council, dated 17th September and 28th November, 1914, and 3rd February, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES ACT, 1907.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 29th April, 1915, transferring to the Essex County Association certain Property hitherto held by Trustees for the benefit of the 7th Battalion Essex Regiment, of the Territorial Force [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVY (RESCUES).
Copy presented of Return showing the number of Rescues that have been effected from German warships by His Majesty's vessels and from His Majesty's vessels by German warships, respectively [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5442 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Return of the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made, the number of Patients seen, and the number of Miles travelled by the Visitors of Lunatics, between 1st October, 1914, and the 31st March, 1915 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      MEDICAL PERSONNEL.
      Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state what progress has been made for the release of medical personnel detained in the various belligerent countries?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): As will be seen from White Paper, No. 8 (Miscellaneous), His Majesty's Government accepted in its main outline the interpretation placed by the German Government on the provisions of the Geneva Convention dealing with the release of medical personnel, with the reservation that such personnel should not be detained in connection with new work. The German Government pointed out that there were certain epidemics amongst the prisoners in German detention camps which require expert assistance. This referred principally to typhus, which has broken out amongst Russian prisoners and in which disease Russian doctors were more expert than German doctors. On further consideration, His Majesty's Government decided that circumstances, such as the outbreak of obscure epidemics among prisoners, might arise in which the captors might be justified by humane considerations in retaining medical personnel who are thoroughly competent to deal with the disease for a period longer than that which is ordinarily permissible. A Note to this effect was addressed to the United States Ambassador on 30th April, and an answer has not yet been received.

      CIVILIAN INVALIDS.
      Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that invalid civilian prisoners happening to be in Germany on the outbreak of hostilities were not allowed any time to return home; and if he will, by the good offices of the American Embassy, ascertain if the said invalids will be allowed to return to Bad Nauheim or such other health resort where they might have been residing before the outbreak of hostilities?
      Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The circumstances of civilian invalids who were in Germany on the outbreak of hostilities differ according to age, sex and occupation, and a certain number have not been interned, while others have been allowed to return to this country. If, however, the hon. Member will furnish me with the names of the persons on whose behalf he desires representations to be made to the United States Ambassador, I shall be glad to give the matter my favourable consideration, but I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the negotiations for the release of the patients at Nauheim which are recorded in White Paper, No. 8, Miscellaneous.

      TREATMENT IN GERMANY.
      Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that prisoners of war and civilians interned in Germany suffer from insufficient rations, and that their friends here who are supporting them have not only to pay for the food but duties thereon; and if he will approach the American Embassy with the object of mitigating this injustice?
      Sir E. GREY: A number of complaints as to insufficient rations have been made by prisoners of war and interned civilians in Germany. The German Government have stated that parcels for prisoners of war are exempt from Customs Duty, and that in cases were duty has been levied it will be refunded, but if the hon. Member will give me specific information as to cases in which duty has been levied on such parcels, I shall be glad to bring the matter to the notice of the United States Ambassador.
      Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Home Secretary if he has received any information indicating that the naturalised Germans and Austrians in this country have taken, or are taking, any concerted action to protest against the treatment which has been inflicted upon British prisoners in Germany?
      Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the negative.

      RELEASED GERMANS.
      Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary for War if his attention has been directed to a pamphlet recently published in Berlin, purporting to be written by Bruno Schmidt-Reder, an
      1452
      officer in the German Army, giving an account of his release from Dorchester, where he had been interned as a prisoner of war, in which it is alleged that he was released by telegraphic order from the War Office obtained in a manner as to which he must preserve silence; that he was not required to give any undertaking not to bear arms again during the War: and that there was no British officer at the camp at Dorchester on the day of his release; whether photographs of the camp at Dorchester appear in the pamphlet; if he will say whether prisoners of war are allowed to possess and use photographic apparatus; whether Schmidt-Reder, when released, was searched; if he had in his possession any other photographs besides those of Dorchester camp; why was he permitted to take photographs of the camp to Germany; and will he explain the circumstances under which Schmidt-Reder obtained an order for release and was permitted to leave England?
      Mr. TENNANT: Nothing is known of the pamphlet referred to, and I am, consequently, unable to make any statement regarding its contents. No prisoner of war is permitted to have a camera. The staff at Dorchester detention camp has been changed since Major Schmidt-Reder was released, and I am unable to say whether he was searched. Major Schmidt-Reder was released as being medically unfit for further service. He was also suffering from a disease of the ear which necessitated a very dangerous operation by a specialist. In the case of releases made under such circumstances neither Germany nor this country have demanded that parole should be given.
      Mr. McNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the danger, in view of the publication by this gentleman, of allowing prisoners who are released for reasons of that sort to go back to Germany?
      Mr. TENNANT: I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. If the person were so incapacitated by physical ailment as to make it impossible for him to serve in the army, I do not quite see where the danger can arise.
      Mr. McNEILL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that, although this man may be physically unable to serve in the army, he may publish matter in Germany which is very dangerous to this country?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes, if such an individual should be in possession of facts the publication of which would be injurious, of course he ought not to be allowed to return to Germany.
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Has any prisoner in Germany been exchanged for this man?
      Mr. TENNANT: I should like to have notice of that question.
      Mr. NcNEILL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a man who was in possession of photographs of the camp where prisoners are interned should not be allowed to go out of the country?
      Mr. TENNANT: Photographs of the camp, I should have thought, would have been harmless. Of course, if he had other photographs, it might be dangerous to let him return, but I am not aware that he had any photographs.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Were not these photographs published in all the illustrated papers?
      Mr. BUTCHER: Is it not desirable to search these prisoners before allowing them to go back to Germany?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes.

      INTERNED GERMANS.
      Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he can now state how long the three remaining vessels which are used for the occupation of German prisoners in this country will be so used; and whether he will state what was the weekly cost of providing this floating accommodation when all the nine ships were so occupied, and the weekly cost at present?
      Mr. TENNANT: It is hoped that the two ships still in use will be dispensed with by the end of the present month. The approximate weekly cost of the ships at the two periods named is £20,000 and £2,750 respectively.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND GREECE.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is willing to lay before Parliament the communication made by the British Ambassador to Greece to M. Venezelos, which is referred to in M. Venezelos' letter to the King of Greece,
  1454
  dated 11th January, 1915, concerning the relations between Great Britain and Greece, and any subsequent communications, if any?
  Sir E. GREY: I regret that the present international situation renders it undesirable to lay any isolated document or selection of Papers of the nature suggested by the hon. Member.

  ARMY SERVICE JACKETS.
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the supply of khaki serge is now sufficient to permit of the service jackets of the non-commissioned officers and men being made of the same length as the officers' jackets?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The supply of khaki serge would be sufficient for the purpose stated, but there is no present intention of making the jackets of the non-commissioned officers and men the same length as the officers' pattern.
  Colonel YATE: Is it not possible that the much larger percentage of casualties among the officers than among the non-commissioned officers and men may be due to not making the coats of the men the same length as those of the officers?
  Mr. TENNANT: I should very much doubt whether in trench warfare that would be the case, but now that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has drawn my attention to this probability I will have it investigated.

  HORSESHOES.
  Colonel YATEasked whether orders have been issued to discontinue the supply of English hand-made horseshoes for the use of the Army, and contracts have bean given for American machine-made shoes to replace them; whether the latter are inferior in quality to the. English hand-made shoes and more difficult to fit under conditions prevailing at the front; and whether arrangements will be made for a continuance of the manufacture of English hand-made shoes, especially during next winter?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on this subject

  1455
  last Thursday to the hon. Member for Devizes, of which I will send to him a copy.
  Colonel YATE: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will not do something to give employment to British farriers during the present year? Why should they all be thrown out of employment by the giving of these contracts to America?
  Mr. BAKER: The hon. Member will see what is the present position. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) made a suggestion, and investigations are being made.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: When shall we be able to hear the result of the investigations?
  Mr. BAKER: I hope very soon. The matter was taken up immediately.

  SERVICE CAPS.
  Colonel YATEasked whether, considering that the flat-topped circular khaki cap has proved unsuitable on service, definite orders will now be issued abolishing the wire frame and regulating the new pattern cap with a softer top?
  Mr. TENNANT: It is not proposed to give orders for the removal of the wire frame from service dress caps in wear at home. But the notice of the military authorities in France has been drawn to the fact that the removal of the wire frame renders the cap less visible, and I understand the frame is very often removed. A new pattern cap, with a soft top, is in course of issue.
  Colonel YATE: Why should not the wire-framed khaki cap be abolished, if a new pattern of soft cap is being issued?
  Mr. TENNANT: The reason of keeping the wire-framed khaki cap is that it is considered to look more reasonable and smart for home service, but for foreign service a new pattern is being issued.
  Colonel YATE: Would not the naval pattern be suitable for the purpose?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman does not represent the Navy.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that no
  1456
  more of these very dangerous caps will be issued for foreign service?
  Mr. TENNANT: It is quite simple to remove the wire.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Some officers may have removed them on their own initiative, but have instructions been given for the wire to be removed?
  Mr. TENNANT: The authorities and the men themselves at the front are perfectly alive to the situation, and they can remove the wire.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE (QUARTER-MASTERS).
  Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Army order ruling that quartermasters of the New Army will receive a gratuity at the close of the War applies also to the quartermasters of the Territorial Forces and, if not, will he say why it is not to be applied to them?
  Mr. BAKER: This question is at present under consideration, and I hope to be in a position to announce a decision shortly.
  Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman inform me when a decision is come to?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes.

  TUBERCULOUS SOLDIERS.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked whether the arrangements made by the War Office for tuberculous soldiers apply to soldiers suffering from tuberculosis who are discharged from military hospitals or convalescent homes to make room for the wounded or for other reasons?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.

  DARDANELLES (OFFICIAL NEWS).
  Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Under-Secretary for War why official news concerning the Dardanelles which could be published in Cairo on 4th May could not be published in London the same day?
  Mr. TENNANT: The official news published in Cairo on 4th May was received in London in the evening of the same day, and was then given to the Press.

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.

    ARMY MEAT SUPPLIES.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether on Tuesday, 5th May, several vans were loaded for his Department at the stores of the Compania Sansenina de Carnes Congeladas, Long Lane, Smithfield, with hindquarters of beef from South America; that delivery was accepted with no inspection of the goods whatever either as to soundness or good average quality; and that, except for casual cuts and tears, the canvas cloths covering the beef had not been opened since its departure from South America; whether he can give any information where the meat inspector who devotes his whole time to Government service was when this occurred at twelve noon; and whether, in view of the adverse remarks of the City of London chief veterinary meat inspector on Argentine meat inspection, he can give any assurance that this meat before final use would be subjected to any more efficient inspection than that shown to have been existing at the White City?
    Mr. BAKER: I am informed that two inspectors were present at the delivery referred to and inspected the meat in question The arrangements made for the inspection of meat before its use by the troops have worked most satisfactorily.

    BOOTS AND SHOES.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has received complaints from the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives that the Granite Boot Company, Mountsorrel, which is executing Government orders, is withholding money due for two months to its workpeople, that it has failed to pay a bonus agreed upon by manufacturers in the trade, that in its employment of boys it has violated the boy labour award, that the wages it pays to women are below the recognised standard; whether he has been informed that this firm definitely declines to negotiate with the representatives of the men's union; whether, in consequence of the failure on the part of the men to get this firm to accept the responsibilities of Government contractors, men have left their work; whether the trade union has requested the War Office to intervene; and what has been the result?
    Mr. BAKER: I have received complaints of the nature referred to, and have made inquiry of the firm, who assure me that they are observing the rates and conditions laid down in the "Statement of wages," dated 3rd March last, as regards Government orders. In view, however, of the conflict of evidence on this point. I have ordered an inspection to be made, and will inform the hon. Member of the-result in due course.

    MUNITIONS.
    Mr. HEWINSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the offer made by the hon. Member for Walsall, on 21st April, for the supply of 5,000,000 shells at lower prices than are now being paid was submitted in writing; if so, what were the conditions of the offer; whether it was accepted or refused; and, if refused, what were the reasons for such refusal?
    Mr. BAKER: An offer to supply certain quantities of ammunition, to be made in America, was submitted to the War Office in writing by the hon. Member for Walsall. It is not possible to make a comparison of prices without further information as to what precisely was included in the offer. The offer was refused for reasons unconnected with prices. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the reasons.

  INOCULATION.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary for War for how long 90 per cent. of the Expeditionary Force have been voluntarily inoculated; whether a general order for inoculation of our soldiers in France is in force or has been issued at any time since August; what proportion of those originally sent to-France had been inoculated; and whether hereafter information asked for material to a full knowledge of this subject will be given?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that inoculation in France is otherwise than a purely voluntary measure. As regards the percentage of inoculated men in France, this was about 60 per cent. in October last. No statistics of the percentage in successive months are available, but I am glad to say it is gradually rising, as the men become enlightened as to the value of inoculation, and it is hoped that the percentage, which is now 90 per cent.—as I

  1459
  have already stated—will soon be 100 per cent. I am unaware of any information which has been withheld from the House on this or any other subject. On the contrary, I have always supplied the fullest information, consistent with the interests of the Army in the field.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the right hon. gentleman kindly inform me whether a general order has, or has not, been issued in France? I have asked this question about three times.
  Mr. TENNANT: For compulsory inoculation?
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Yes; has any general order for compulsory inoculation ever been issued in France?
  Mr. TENNANT: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked why the death-rate amongst typhoid patients who have been fully protected with two doses of vaccine is higher than amongst those only partially protected with one dose?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am unable to express any definite opinion upon this subject at present.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether in all the cases of typhoid in the Expeditionary Force not reported as fatal recoveries had been made at the time of the Return; or, if not, how many cases were still possible fatalities?
  Mr. TENNANT: I could not say that all cases not reported as fatal at the time the last Report was rendered have recovered beyond the possibility of relapse. My medical advisers state that the prognosis in enteric fever is uncertain, and, in view of this, any statement that could be made as to how many cases are still possible fatalities would hardly provide a sound basis on which my hon. Friend could base any reliable conclusions.

  WAR OFFICE CLOTHING DEPARTMENT.
  Sir R. COOPERasked the Undersecretary for War whether the hon. Member for the Loughborough Division holds any position, and, if so, what, in connection with the Clothing Department of the War Office?
  Mr. BAKER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh on 18th February last, in which I stated that the hon. Member for Loughborough was serving on a Committee concerned with the handling and issue of stores at Pimlico.

  SEASIDE RESIDENCES, IRELAND (LETTING RESTRICTIONS).
  Mr. CREANasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that the restrictions at present in force against the letting of seaside residences at Crosshaven, county Cork, are causing loss and inconvenience to their owners, who are, in many instances, very poor, and almost solely dependent on the letting of them for a living; whether his attention has been called to the loss to the traders and shopkeepers in the village, and whether he will have these restrictions removed for the summer months?
  Mr. BAKER: Owners of permanent residences at Crosshaven and the neighbouring watering places are permitted to occupy them or to sublet them to approved tenants. The prohibition against subletting applies only to certain shanties in close proximity to the forts, and is a necessary precaution on defence grounds. I regret it is not possible to remove the restrictions, but am informed that the loss to traders involved is in the circumstance not likely to be appreciable.

  WAR OFFICE (EMOLUMENTS).
  Mr. GOULDINGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state or furnish a Return of the salary and emolument attached to each of the several directors of Departments in the War Office?
  Mr. H. BAKER: Yes, Sir. With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the Return with the Votes.—[See Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. GOULDING: May I ask whether, when two important posts are amalgamated, the pay and emoluments are enhanced to an extent commensurate with the increased duties?
  Mr. BAKER: The hon. Gentleman had better give notice of that question.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any machinery has now been provided by which an applicant for a separation allowance can appeal from the decision of the pension officer and the old age pensions committee?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the poster referring to such appeals which was published on 1st March last.
  Mr. MEAGHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there is any rule or regulation by which pension sub-committees are to be made aware of the decisions of the Army authorities on the claims submitted to pension committees by dependants of soldiers for separation allowances when the decision of the pension sub-committees is not in agreement with the decision of the pension officers who first report on the claims; and whether, if there be no such rule or regulation, he will see his way to have instructions given to have the decision of the Army authorities or Admiralty authorities made known to the pension sub-committees so that each case may be completed on the registers of claims?
  Mr. BAKER: The decision is, of course, made known to the claimant, but no general desire has been shown for its notification to the pension committee as well. It is most desirable to avoid adding to the mass of correspondence already involved in these cases, but if in any particular case the information is asked for, it can be given.
  Mr. MEAGHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that there are three children of Private John Grout, D Company, 3rd Leinster Regiment, now stationed at Cork, on Poor Law relief in Castlecomar Union; and whether, seeing that these children are without a mother and that the father is prepared to have them leave the work house and have them taken charge of outside the Poor Law, he will see that the allowance of 5s. a week each to which the children are entitled is passed to them and that the grant will date as from the 15th March last, the date on which application was made to the regimental paymaster, Cork, for this allownce?
  Mr. BAKER: In the event of the children being removed from the workhouse separation allowance, at the motherless rate will, on the fact being notified to the regimental paymaster, Cork, be issuable to their guardian as from the date of such removal. The allowance is not issuable for any period during which the children were chargeable to the Poor Law authorities.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a communication from the London local pension committee suggesting that the pension of every old age pensioner should be increased by 1s. a week during the remaining period of the War; and, if so, whether the communication has been considered and with what result?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part of the question, I fear I can add nothing to the reply on this subject which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Tottenham Division on the 20th ultimo.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the purchasing power of the pension paid to pensioners is reduced by about 30 per cent.?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid that is so, but, unfortunately, if we were to reconstruct all these payments upon that basis it would be a very serious addition to the burdens of the country.
  Mr. THORNE: But is it not a serious position for the old age pensioners?

  INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS.
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any special arrangements have been made in favour of naval and military officers and men engaged in the War in France, Flanders, the Dardanelles, Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Cameroons, or East or West Africa, to extend the period allowed for making claims for refund of Income Tax deducted at the source from dividends and similar payments, considering the difficulties such persons have in collecting and

  1463
  keeping the dividend vouchers and other documents required to accompany such claims?
  Mr. LLOYD GSORGE: Claims of the nature referred to by my hon. Friend may, under the existing law, be preferred at any time within three years of the end of the Income Tax year to which they relate. In these circumstances it does not appear that any special arrangements for extension of time are called for.
  Sir J. JARDINE: May I ask whether, in the case of officers killed or wounded, a further extension of the time at the end of the War will be considered?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The extension is a very liberal one at the present moment—three years—but I am quite prepared to consider the point.

  RECRUITING (PUBLIC PARK KEEPERS).
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state how many men of military age are being employed in the public parks permanently or temporarily?
  Mr. WALTER REA (Lord of the Treasury): Out of a total of 617 men now employed in the Royal Parks 144 men are of military age. Of these about thirty are known to be unfit for service. One hundred and thirty-five men have joined the Colours.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Would it be possible to allow the others to join?
  Mr. REA: I understand that all unnecessary work is being discouraged. If the hon. Gentleman wants some further information, will he put another question down?

  ALIENS (REGISTRATION).
  Mr. KINGasked the Attorney-General (1) whether he has considered the case of Otto Weitz Grainger, a youth who having repeatedly offered to register under the Aliens Restriction Order, and having been declined registration as not being an alien enemy, was in February prosecuted at Brentford for being an unregistered alien enemy, but was discharged by the magistrates and told not to register, but has since been interned in a camp with alien enemies; and will he say whether
  1464
  any prosecution will be undertaken against him; and (2) whether Otto Weitz Grainger being doubtful of his nationality according to English law, made himself known at the outbreak of war to the police at Ramsgate, then offered to enlist but was refused as an alien; whether on removal to Gloucester he again offered to register with the police, and was registered as an alien friend, and was subsequently prosecuted at Brentford by the police authorities for being an unregistered alien enemy, was there discharged and informed by the magistrates that he should not register; again consulted his solicitor in view of a decision in the Court of Appeal affecting the position of aliens, and was advised not to register but obey the magisterial decision, who has since been arrested presumably as an unregistered alien enemy and interned; whether he is aware that Otto Weitz Grainger was stated by the police conducting the case at Brentford to have had his whereabouts known at Scotland Yard since August, and that he has never gone anywhere without notifying the police; and, if so, why was he not arrested before 10th March; whether he is aware that when requested to discover the birthplace of his father, who has been for years lost to him, he made inquiries which resulted in his producing a marriage certificate in which his father was stated to have been born at Grevenbroich, Germany; whether it is in consequence of this that he is now interned; whether he is aware that Otto Weitz Grainger has only resided a few weeks in Germany since he was born, and is imperfectly acquainted with the German language; and whether, in view of these facts, this youth may now be set at liberty, especially as respectable parties are willing to be guarantee of his good behaviour?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Attorney-General has asked me to reply to these questions. The young man to whom the questions relate succeeded for some time in the provinces in passing as a Dutch subject. It is not the fact that his whereabouts were known to the Metropolitan Police since August. They got into touch with him at the end of December and he was arrested on the 2nd of January. He was prosecuted for failing to register as an alien enemy, and though the magistrate at Brentford eventually dismissed the charge, further consideration of all the facts, including the marriage certificate which showed that his

  1465
  father was born in Germany, pointed clearly to the conclusion that he was of German nationality—like his mother and sisters who had duly registered themselves as such. He was thereupon arrested and handed over to the military authorities for internment as an alien enemy, and I am advised that no hope of his release can be held out.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the mother of this young man has practically disowned him for many years, and only turned up when he inherited money and she wanted to get a share of it?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have not entered into those matters.
  Mr. KING: As I know a great deal more about this case than the Home Secretary, may I have a conference with him on the subject?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the circumstances in which Bruno Schmidt-Reder, a major in the German Army, who was released from the prisoners' camp at Dorchester, was permitted to leave the country without an order From the Home Office; and why he was not detained at Folkestone, seeing that the War Office had issued an order for his rearrest?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; this German officer did not leave the country without a permit from the Home Office. A permit was duly issued by agreement with the War Office, and there was no reason for detaining him at Folkestone. The War Office did not issue an order for his rearrest.
  Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman, when he went back to Germany, said that he got away without an order from the Home Office?
  Mr. McKENNA: Then I am afraid the gentleman in question did not speak the truth.

  SPECIAL CONSTABULARY (METROPOLIS).
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Home Secretary whether he will supply the Metropolitan special constables with uniforms suitable for summer wear?
  Mr. McKENNA: The special constabulary have up to the present performed their duties admirably without being in uniform, and for many reasons it is desirable that their status as an honorary aid to the regular police should be preserved. I may add, moreover, that in view of the urgency of the need for large quantities of clothing for the New Armies, it has been decided, at the request of the Army Council, to postpone the current issue of summer clothing to the regular force.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: Did not the Home Office issue overcoats to some of the special constables for use in the winter, and if they did so, why cannot the men have suitable clothing for the summer?
  Mr. McKENNA: We issued overcoats because it was a special strain upon the clothes of special constables during the winter months. There will be no equal special strain upon them during the summer months.

  RUSSIAN LANGUAGE (FACILITIES FOR STUDY).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the possibility of a large extension of the commercial relations between this country and of Russia and the difficulty presented by the almost complete ignorance of the Russian language in this country, he can state what facilities exist for the study of the Russian language; and whether he proposes to take any steps to increase these facilities?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply I gave the hon. Member for East Nottingham on the 17th February last. The Board are prepared to pay Grants for the teaching of Russian under their Regulations, but it is for education authorities to take the initiative in establishing classes.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Have these facilities been increased since February last, the date referred in the answer?
  Mr. PEASE: The Grants are similar; but I take it that an increase in the Grants would be considered for the teaching of Russian, if there is any demand in the I country for it.
  Sir R. COOPER: Is it not a fact that the London County Council have made very extensive arrangements in the County of London for this express purpose?
  Sir J. JARDINE: Have not the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge both made adequate arrangements for the teaching of Russian?
  Sir J. D. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman reconsidered the question of bringing Russian within the curriculum of the Oriental School of Languages?
  Mr. PEASE: It is really a matter for the institution, and the Board of Education has no control over what subjects are taught in that institution.

  SIBERIA (KARA SEA ROUTE).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to take any steps to secure the development of the Kara Sea route to Siberia?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have seen some of the gentlemen interested in the enterprises and the matter is engaging attention, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  USE OF GAS BY BRITISH FORCES.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether, before any sanction is given by the Government to the use by His Majesty's military forces of any gas of which the use is, except in retaliation, contrary to the rules of war, he will give an opportunity for a discussion of the subject in this House?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I regret that I cannot promise a day for this discussion.
  Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in the case of reprisals taken by the Admiralty, there has been forthcoming no defence either from Members of this House or even from Members of the Government, and before further reprisals are taken will the House be taken into consultation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to my answer.

  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE AND REGISTRATION.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister if he can now state whether he will consider the desirability of arranging that every man who has volunteered for the War, and so risks his life in the service of and defence of the country, shall be entitled at the age of twenty-one to a Parliamentary vote during his lifetime, irrespective of other qualifications?
  Mr. HENRY TERRELLasked the Prime Minister if the Government have yet determined whether they will introduce a Bill to extend the Parliamentary franchise, irrespective of other qualifications, to all men who have served, or who shall during the present War serve, in His Majesty's Navy or Army; and, if not, whether he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the question whether all men who have recognised their duty to the country by serving in His Majesty's naval or military forces during the War ought to be given a voice in the management of the affairs of the country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In answer to these questions I can only repeat that the whole question of franchise and registration is receiving careful and detailed consideration, and I hope shortly to be in a position to make a statement with regard to it.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Seeing that the matter is under consideration, does the right hon. Gentleman accept the imputation in the latter part of question 45—that only those persons recognise their duty to their country who are engaged in naval and military work?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. If there is any such imputation, I repudiate it.
  Mr. LOUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman hope to make a statement before the Whitsuntide adjournment?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that.

  WELSH CHURCH (POSTPONEMENT) BILL.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister when the Government intend to proceed with the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I cannot yet make a definite statement as to the date when this will be taken.

  ARMAMENT WORKS (PROFIT SHARING).
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Prime Minister whether there has been or is being prepared a scheme (in accordance with the intention expressed by the Secretary of State for War), under which workmen of armament firms coming under Government control shall have a share in the profits of those firms; and, if so, when the scheme will be brought into operation?
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Ministers, in pursuance of the statement of the Secretary of State for War, in reference to the sharing of War profits among employés of armament and other firms?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to these questions. I am unable to make any further statement on this subject.
  Mr. PETO: Does that mean that the Government do not propose to do anything whatever in this matter; and is there no meaning to be attached to the statement of the Secretary of State for War in another place?
  Mr. TAYLOR: Is there nothing going on in the way of arrangements with a view to carrying out what the Secretary of State for War said in another place?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The matter has had a good deal of consideration. It is not a matter in which the Secretary of State for War is able to dictate to private firms.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Did the Secretary of State for War make the statement in another place with the authority of his colleagues?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand that the opposition comes from these private, firms, and that they have refused to allow their workers to share in these profits?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; my hon. Friend is not to understand that from my reply.
  Mr. PETO: In view of the very unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question on the Motion for the Adjournment.

  MEDICAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether the Medical Research Committee has rendered any assistance in connection, with the War; and, if so, what have been the nature and amount of such assistance?
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Montagu): Yes, Sir. A full Report of the work of the Medical Research Committee since its inception (including its recent work in connection with the War) is already being compiled by the Committee, and will be laid upon the Table in due course. In the meantime a White Paper is being prepared and will be presented in a few days summarising the work specially referred to in the question.

  GOVERNMENT MEAT PURCHASES.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, during the last week of August last, or the first week of September, 60,000 sheep or thereabouts were acquired through or from the firm of W. Weddel and Company for Army or Navy purposes; whether, if so, he will give the brand marks of the same and the names of the ships from which they were delivered; and whether they were goods then lying in store or goods purchased to arrive at a future date?
  Mr. BAKER: I am informed that during the last week of August last about 60,000 carcasses of mutton were purchased by Mr. Gordon Campbell, of Weddel and Company, in conjunction with the A.S.C officer deputed to buy meat for the Government. These sheep were not purchased either through or from the firm mentioned, but were bought in London and Liverpool, ex store, on the spot, and not to arrive at a future date. They comprise the following brands:—Sansinena, White Star, Shell, Patagonian, and New Zealand.
  Mr. W. THORNEased the President of the Board of Trade if any part of the cargo of the steamship "Ruahine," now discharging, is meat commandeered by the Government under the new Colonial scheme; if so, how much will be required for Government purposes and how much will remain for sale to the civilian population; and whether, in view of the present prices of New Zealand mutton and lamb, he will arrange to market the goods as speedily as possible, and while in good bright condition, and, if possible, to place

  1471
  the same for sale with firms who have not importations of their own in stock which would impede them doing their utmost on the Government's behalf?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The whole of the frozen meat cargo of the "Ruahine" is the property of the Government under the new Colonial scheme and will be placed on the market as soon as the conditions of sale have been settled. I am not certain how far the suggestion at the end of the question is practicable, but it will be borne in mind.

  MEDICAL OFFICERS (ROYAL NAVY).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the highest rank in the Navy is that of surgeon-general at a full-pay rate of £1,300 per annum; and, if so, whether this fact was taken into full consideration when the arrangement was made to remunerate consultants for shore duty at the rate of £5,000 per annum?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): A surgeon-general of the Navy, when employed at any of our naval hospitals, draws a salary of £1,300 and charge pay at the rate of £182 10s. per annum. He is also in the occupation of a house valued at £70 per annum. All the facts bearing on the question were taken into consideration when deciding the remuneration to be paid to the consultants.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the number of civilian doctors now in the service of the Navy is in excess of the needs of that service; and whether he would sanction the transfer of a limited number of such doctors to the service of the Army?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In these circumstances it would not be possible to adopt the suggestion contained in the second part. As regards the special consultants to whom reference has been made in an earlier question, if a specific request were made for the help of one of them for any particular operation or for any special consultation, it would certainly be acceded to if it were possible; but the daily duty that has to be performed by these gentlemen in naval hospitals would not allow of the utilisation of their services by the Army to a greater extent than this.

  SHIPS SUNK.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked what is the number of mercantile vessels, yachts, trawlers, and drifters which have been sunk during the War, the names of their captains, and the number of officers and men who have been killed or drowned?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: On the assumption that the question does not include commissioned vessels, according to our latest information, the total number of the craft sunk by the operations of the enemy is 201, and the approximate number of lives lost, including passengers, 1,556. The figure includes losses known up to noon this day. I will communicate the names of the masters to the Noble Lord if he so desires.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many are passengers and how many crew?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I could not say off-hand.

  NAVAL OFFICERS (PATROL WORK).
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether retired officers of the Navy, including several admirals, have volunteered for patrol work in the North Sea; if so, will he give the number and the ranks of the officers so employed, and the number, if any, who have relinquished their appointments; whether these officers were paid for their duty; and, if so, at what rate?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answers to the first and third parts of the question are in the affirmative. As regards the second part, retired flag officers, captains, commanders and lieutenant-commanders are employed on this service, but I do not think that it is in the public interest to give information as to their number. With reference to the fourth part, retired flag officers receive, in addition to their retired pay, a bonus of 25 per cent. on such retired pay together with command money and other allowances on the naval scale. Other retired officers receive the full pay and allowances applicable to their rank on the retired list.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Did any of these officers relinquish their commands for the purpose of taking this service?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That I cannot say. There have been some who have ceased to hold their command since the War began.

  PHOTOGRAPHY (RESTRICTIONS AT LERWICK).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to a notice published in Lerwick with reference to photography, etc.; if such notice is in the usual form; and if such notice includes prohibiting a photographer from carrying on his ordinary business, such as selling films, plates, and other ordinary photographic appliances?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The notice is based on the Defence of the Realm Regulations (No. 19). Under that regulation, the competent naval authority is empowered to permit exceptions to the general regulation, and the case referred to in the question appears to be one which should be dealt with by direct application to the competent naval authority, who should be governed in his action by Regulation No. 1, which states that the ordinary avocations of life and the enjoyment of property will be interfered with as little as may be permitted by the exigencies of the measures required to be taken for securing the public safety and the Defence of the Realm.

  BRITISH SHIPS (NEUTRAL PORTS).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked what is the approximate estimated number and tonnage of British merchant ships now on voyage between neutral ports; and whether the Board or the Admiralty have power to recall ships for the purpose of trade to or from the United Kingdom?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that I am unable to state the number of British merchant ships now on voyage between neutral ports. Neither the Board of Trade nor, so far as I am aware, the Admiralty can compel British ships to engage only in trade with the United Kingdom.
  Mr. HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say roughly the percentage?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I am afraid I could not.

  RACE MEETING SPECIAL TRAINS.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked whether officers and men on their way to the front have been hindered from reaching their train by racegoers struggling for places in racing specials; and,
  1474
  if so, what steps the Government propose to take with regard to this state of things?
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the complaint made on 1st May by Mr. M. O'Neill that on that date certain officers were delayed in getting to Waterloo en route for Southampton and the front entirely owing to their train being held up for the Hurst Park racing specials; and if he will obtain from the Joint Executive Committee on Railways, and give to the House, an explanation of how it is that racing specials are being run in time of War?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Railway Executive Committee state that no well-founded complaint has reached them to the effect stated in the Noble Lord's question, and that the delay of the particular train referred to by my hon. Friend was in no way caused by the running of special trains for the races. I understand that the position of the Railway Executive Committee in this matter is that the companies have withdrawn all inducements to travel to race meetings by the issue of cheap tickets, but that, while race meetings are held and persons desiring to travel to them pay the ordinary fares, it is incumbent on the companies to carry them so long as the naval, military, and civil requirements of the Government and of the public are not thereby prejudiced. In their opinion more disorganisation and delay of traffic would frequently be caused by attempting to carry these persons in ordinary trains than by providing separate accommodation in special trains. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that every effort will continue to be made to prevent occurrences of the kind to which the questions relate. I may add that I am in communication with the companies as to the expediency of raising the fares on special trains for races.

  BRITISH DYES, LIMITED.
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked whether the object of the Government in assisting in the formation of British Dyes, Limited, was to establish a concern to provide dye users generally with dyes on the most reasonable terms possible, or to establish a concern trading with the object of obtaining high prices and making large profits for the benefit of its shareholders, and, if the former was the object, will the Government take steps to see that its intentions are carried out; and whether the

  1475
  Government will make money grants to other and competing concerns or to independent scientific bodies for experiment and research in order to increase the production and reduce the price of aniline dyes?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The objects which the Government have in view in the various steps which they have taken to promote the supply of dyes have been repeatedly explained to this House, and I cannot usefully add to these explanations. The whole question of Government assistance to scientific research for the benefit of British industry is at present receiving careful consideration.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several other manufacturers, who are also taxpayers, feel aggrieved that their competitors are receiving Government assistance which they cannot get?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The whole question of Government assistance for research in dyes is a matter which is receiving attention.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sorest point is not the granting of money for research, but the affording facilities for the transfer of raw material to Switzerland and bringing it back?
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked how much the present subscriptions to British Dyes, Limited, exceed the amount of the approved subscriptions on the date when the directors refused to go to allotment, on the ground that the subscriptions were inadequate; what, on the basis of the present subscriptions, is the total available cash working capital of British Dyes, Limited, after making due provision for its known liabilities; and if this present available capital is sufficient to carry out the objects for which the company was formed, as named in its prospectus?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am unable to give the information desired, but I have no doubt that the directors satisfied themselves as to their ability to carry out the objects of the company before deciding to go to allotment.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is it not the fact that the Government have got two directors on the board of British Dyes, Limited, and is it not possible that questions which are asked in this House can be adequately answered?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, the two Government directors are Sir Frank Forbes Adam and Sir Gilbert Claughton, but it would be most inconvenient that every detail of the company's management should be answered from here by Ministers. The administration of the company must obviously be conducted in the same way as the administration of other public companies.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is it not the fact that the great bulk of the capital in this concern at present has been authorised by this House and subscribed by the Government, and is this House not entitled to information on points which affect this very large sum of Government money?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: In so far as the security of the money which has been advanced by the Government is concerned, the fullest information will be given to the House. It is not strictly accurate to say that the capital has been provided in exactly the way described by the hon. Gentleman, but I do not wish to press that point.

  ENEMY AIRSHIPS (ROUTE OF RAIDS).
  Sir GEORGE AGNEWasked the Solicitor-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that various newspapers give a detailed account of the course followed by enemy airships when making a raid in this country, naming the towns and villages over which they pass; whether the official information shows that these reports are of assistance to the enemy; and, if so, will he take steps to put a stop to the publication of these reports?
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): My attention has been called to the questions raised. I have no official information as to whether the published reports have been of assistance to the enemy, but it is obvious that such accounts as those mentioned are liable to do much mischief, and steps have been taken to deal with the matter.

  CANADIAN TROOPS IN ACTION (DESCRIPTIVE ACCOUNTS).
  Colonel YATEasked the Solicitor-General why, considering that a descriptive account of the heroic action of the Canadian troops north of Ypres was

  1477
  recently published, permission was not granted for the publication of similar descriptive accounts regarding the part taken by the other units engaged?
  Sir S. BUCKMASTER: No such accounts as those mentioned have been submitted to the Press Bureau, consequently permission for publication has neither been sought nor refused.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give permission in future? Does he not realise the importance and the necessity of descriptive accounts of the various units engaged?
  Sir S. BUCKMASTER: I have not stopped them.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise not to stop them in future?
  Sir S. BUCKMASTER: When the hon. and gallant Member submits his descriptive account I will deal with it.

  GERMAN LETTERS FROM HOLLAND.
  Mr. FELLasked the Solicitor-General if his attention has been called to the fact that German letters are now being freely delivered in this country, having been addressed to German agents in Holland and by them forwarded in covering envelopes; if correspondence from Holland is examined by the Censor; and, if not, why this condition of affairs is allowed to continue?
  Sir S. BUCKMASTER: The Press Bureau, for which I am responsible, has nothing to do with the censorship of letters.

  TREASURY BILLS (SCOTTISH INVESTORS).
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will cause arrangements to be made whereby investors in Scotland can obtain Treasury Bills from local bankers instead of being obliged to employ and pay an agent in London, which process involves an unnecessary waste of time and money; whether bills will in future be issued for amounts suitable for small investors and not restricted to amounts of £1,000 and upwards; and whether no subscriptions from investors, large and small, in Scotland are desired in the meantime?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): The present arrangements for the issue of Treasury bills are working very satisfactorily, and my right hon. Friend is not disposed to disturb them—at any rate while they are still, as at present, in the experimental stage.

  POSTAL COMMUNICATIONS (LONDON AND LWOW, LEMBERG).
  Mr. KINGasked the Postmaster-General whether postal communications between London and Lwow (Lemberg) are passing at the present time; whether he is aware that postcards of a purely personal nature for Lwow are returned to the sender marked "Undeliverable"; and whether any special regulations should be observed by those desiring to write to friends in Russia?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): Correspondence addressed to Lwow (Lemberg) and other places in Galicia is returned to the senders as undeliverable because the Russian Post Office has announced that it is unable to accept such correspondence at present. Letters from persons in Galicia appear occasionally to be received at present, but they may have been entrusted by the writers to persons returning to Russia; examination of the mails show that there is no regular receipt of correspondence posted in Galicia. I know of no special regulations to be observed by those desiring to write to friends in Russia.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE (EMOLUMENTS IN INDIA).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any arrangement has been made to increase the total emoluments of Territorial troops serving in India; if it will apply to officers and non-commissioned officers as well as to the men; and what is the nature and extent of the enhancement, if any, and from what date payable?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): The Government of India, after careful examination of complaints made, have come to the conclusion that the Territorials are worse off as regards their total emoluments under peace conditions in India

  1479
  than at home under active service conditions. The Secretary of State is consulting the War Office with a view to arranging for payment of a special daily allowance to officers of the junior ranks and to all warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Territorial Force serving in India.
  Sir J. JARDINE: What is meant by the expression "officers of the junior ranks"? Is it to include all lieutenants and captains?
  Mr. ROBERTS: As this matter is under consideration at the present time I do not think I can reply more definitely.
  Colonel YATE: Will special consideration be given to the claims for proficiency pay on the part of the Territorial service, and will you give some relaxation of the present rule, which presses so hard upon the men?
  Mr. ROBERTS: This matter and the other matters are under consideration at the present time. I do not think I can go beyond what I have said.

  DESTRUCTION OF STEAMSHIP "LUSITANIA."

    COURT OF INQUIRY.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether he can state who are the skilled assessors appointed to assist Lord Mersey in the "Lusitania" Inquiry; whether such an inquiry, ordered by the Board of Trade, has authority to pronounce upon or in any way to criticise the adequacy or inadequacy of the defence or protective arrangements made by the Board of Admiralty; and whether he can state the terms of reference Lord Mersey has been given as to the conduct of the inquiry?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The assessors to assist Lord Mersey have not yet been appointed. Certain questions, yet to be formulated, will be addressed to the Court of Inquiry, but no formal terms of reference will be given to Lord Mersey. The inquiry will be conducted by the
    1480
    Law Officers, who can be relied upon to see that all pertinent points consistent with the public interest are dealt with.

    ALIEN ENEMIES.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether it is the case that he has now issued a compulsory Order calling on hotel proprietors and boarding-house keepers to keep a register of every alien enemy visitor; and can he state what information, if any, has come into his possession calling for such an Order, having regard to the fact that it was not considered necessary to issue it at an earlier period of the War.
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend refers, no doubt, to the Order in Council of 13th April. The object of that Order is not so much to deal with alien enemies, who from the first day of the War have been required to register with and report their movements to the police, but to secure means of tracing the movements of all other aliens also. The Order was made on a recommendation of a Sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence. It is not desirable to state the information on which they based their recommendations.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether information has reached him to-day that 400 German butchers have been refused meat in Smithfield; whether it is the case that many shops have been smashed; and whether he is taking any precaution to protect the hotels which are employing a German staff, such as the Charing Cross Hotel?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not had any such information as has been referred to by my right hon. Friend, but I will make inquiries.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter at the very earliest opportunity.

  China and Japan.
  Mr. YEOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there is any understanding between Japan and Great Britain with regard to spheres of influence for their respective development work in

  1481
  China in respect of minerals and railways, respectively; if so, will he state its nature; and whether he can say if it is still regarded as guiding our policy in the Far East?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. BIRDasked the Prime Minister (1) whether in the coroners' lists of starvation deaths for both years 1912 and 1913 there were a number of old age pensioners; how many there were in 1914; (2) whether, in view of his recent refusal to increase old age pensions in time of war with food and coal prices greatly advanced, and seeing that both in 1912 and 1913, in time of peace, numbers of these pensioners then died from starvation, he will cause a circular to be issued advising the guardians to encourage old age pensioners to come to them for medical relief when necessary; and (3) whether, when aged and infirm persons and persons permanently sick or disabled were actually in receipt of relief immediately before they obtained the old age pension, he will advise guardians by circular to put them on the list described in Article 75 of the Consolidated Order of 24th July, 1847, so that they may have tickets for medical relief under Article 76; and will he explain in such circular that food and other necessaries and nursing, if ordered by the doctor, may be given as medical relief without the loss of the old age pension?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to these questions. With respect to Question 49, the number of cases in England and Wales was seven in 1912, and eight in 1913, out of a total number of pensioners of nearly 700,000. The returns for 1914 are not yet complete. In answer to the other two questions, I do not think there would be any advantage in issuing the circulars suggested by the hon. Member. Guardians are well aware of the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Acts with respect to medical relief, and of their powers of giving such relief to old age pensioners, and I have no reason to suppose that medical relief is withheld from persons permanently sick or disabled, who are in need of it. The precise form in which such relief should be given is a matter for the guardians.
  Mr. MEAGHERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board for Ireland, in the case of the claim of Mrs. Maria Doran, of Coolcullen, in the Castle-comer pension sub-committee district, decided that the claimant was not entitled to any pension on an appeal made by the pension officer against the decision of the Castlecomer committee at their meeting held on the 25th March last granting the claimant a pension of 3s. a week; whether, seeing that at a previous meeting, held on 30th July, 1914, the Castlecomer committee went carefully into the means of this claimant and had the advice and opinion of a practical farmer, Mr. John Clear, Coolcullen, on the question of means, and granted this woman, who is a widow and feeble, the full 5s. a week, which decision was also upset by the Local Government Board, who decided she was not entitled to a pension, he will give instructions to have the Castlecomer pension sub-committee informed as to the manner in which the Local Government Board make their calculations of means, so that the committee may not be losing their time needlessly in going into individual estimates when the said estimates are so liable to be upset by the Local Government Board on appeal; and whether, in this particular case, the Local Government Board will forward the Castlecomer committee the particulars on which they estimated the means of the claimant when coming to the decision that she was not entitled to any pension?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Mrs. Doran's claim has been twice disallowed in the circumstances mentioned. It is not the Board's practice to enter into correspondence with pension committees regarding details of cases appealed against, but the claimant in this instance occupied a farm of 38 acres with a value of £22, and comprising one acre under potatoes, 1½ acres under oats, half an acre under barley, one under roots, seven under hay and twenty-seven under grass. On the farm there were three cows, two horses, two sows for breeding, one pig for fattening and thirty-one fowl. These particulars are already known to the Castlecomer pension sub-committee.

  National Insurance Act (Drug Fund Deficits).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received a resolution passed

  1483
  by the Insurance Committee for the borough of Blackburn appreciating the action proposed to be taken by the Insurance Commissioners respecting the deficits in the drug funds of the various overspent insurance committees for the year 1913, and expressing the desire that a Departmental Committee be appointed to inquire into the causes of and remedies for the continuing deficiencies in the drug fund in insurance areas, and for an amendment of Article 40 of the Medical Benefit Regulations; and if it is intended to carry out these suggestions?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the last part, the cost of the supply of drugs under the Insurance Acts is already the subject of inquiry by a Departmental Committee which has been specially appointed for the purpose. Before considering any further action I am awaiting their report.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether these deficits are likely to be increased by reason of the new proposed modified taxes upon alcohol, and if he does so find will he approach the Treasury with a view to seeing that that result is obviated?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am considering that question, and will keep watch upon the subject.

  Parish Council Elections.
  Mr. RAFFANasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will take steps to amend the Parish Councillors Election Order, 1901, so that the election of parish councillors shall take place by ballot, as already provided for in the case of elections for urban and rural district councillors?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: An amending Order is being prepared, and I am now in communication as to its form with persons who are interested in the matter. The next parish council elections are not until April of next year. A decision will be reached before then.

  Congested Districts Board (Brew Estate, West Clare).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in regard to the estate of F. S. Brew, West Clare, he is
  1484
  aware that the Congested Districts Board have had the matter in hand for nearly four years, but that the tenants have not yet received their vesting orders; whether this state of affairs is typical of the conduct of business by the Board in West Clare and discontent is caused in consequence; and whether he can state what steps the Board now intends to take and when the vesting orders will be issued?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that although the terms for the purchase of this estate have for a long time been agreed upon, this estate is still not yet vested in the Congested Districts Board, who are thus unable to proceed with its rearrangement and resale. The vesting is not a matter which rests with the Board but depends on the proof of title, and I understand that the vendor's solicitor is at present in communication with the Land Commission in regard to it.
  Mr. LYNCH: Considering that four years is a long time to take to deal with a very small matter, will the right hon. Gentleman put a little push and go into this matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can assure the hon. Member that I do my very best to make these matters of title go as quickly as possible, but, unfortunately, the smaller the estate the more complicated the title.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that at a recent meeting of the general council of the county councils a demand was made that each county council in Ireland should be supplied with a list of tenants within its area who have failed to pay their land purchase annuities; and, in view of the sums which have been deducted from the Grants to county councils to meet such failures as those indicated, will the demand be acceded to so that some real and definite steps may be taken by the local authorities to relieve the ratepayers of this burden?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am now giving special consideration to the question whether the request of the county councils for more detailed information, in regard to defaulting annuitants in their respective counties, can be met in a way that would be useful to them, without undue expenditure.

  Grants-in-Aid (Limerick).
  Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how much money was deducted from the Grants-in-Aid to the Limerick county council to meet the failures of land purchase annuitants during the years from 1903 to the year ending 31st March, 1915, giving each year separately; also the amount of such failures afterwards collected; and whether the same was put to the credit of the county council each year, to be given separately?
  Mr. BIRRELL: With the hon. Member's permission I will publish with to-night's Votes a statement in reply to this question.—[See Written Answers this date.]

  Postal Orders (Ireland).
  Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Postmaster-General whether any official intimation has been given to bankers and others of the fact that postal orders are no longer legal currency; whether he is aware that at country post offices in Ireland notices are still displayed stating that postal orders are to be accepted when tendered as cash; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In addition to the notice given in the Royal Proclamation of the 3rd February, 1915, that postal orders would cease to be current and legal tender on the 4th February, a poster was issued for exhibition in all post offices. Bankers would, of course, be aware of the terms of the Royal Proclamation. Postal orders which circulated as currency before the 4th February are still being cashed at post offices, and will be so cashed until the end of this month.

  Telephone Service.
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Postmaster-General whether the present system of telephone charges is based upon a scheme of exchange areas, which was fixed arbitrarily many years ago; and, seeing that this system works inequitably and causes inconvenience in many districts, whether the charges for inter-communication between exchanges can be made dependent on distance and not fixed arbitrarily as at present?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The present charges for communication between different telephone centres are based mainly on distance but are affected to a considerable extent by the system of exchange areas which has practically been in force since the
  1486
  beginning of the telephone service. Under the revised tariff which it was proposed to introduce last year charges for inter-urban and trunk calls were to be based more strictly on distance. The general revision of telephone rates of all kinds would cause many changes in the service and would involve a large amount of additional construction and rearrangement work, besides producing a good deal of uncertainty as to the financial position of the service. In present circumstances it is obviously undesirable to create any special demand for skilled labour or to incur any avoidable capital expenditure, and the Government have therefore been obliged to postpone the adoption of the new tariff. The system of charging for inter-urban and trunk calls would involve a considerable sacrifice of revenue, but this was to have been balanced by the increased receipts from the revised tariff for local service, and it would be impracticable to alter the present system of charge for trunk calls except as a part of the general scheme.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is it absolutely inevitable that a redistribution and alteration in this matter should wait until the end of the War?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, absolutely.
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that it is proposed to provide a telephone, call office at Lowton St. Mary's post office, connected with the Leigh exchange, and a similar call office at Lowton post office, connected with the Golborne exchange; whether he is aware that this will cause inconvenience to the residents of Lowton, whose interests are almost entirely in Leigh; whether he has received representations on the subject from the Leigh Rural District Council; and whether he will give further consideration to the matter before arriving at a final decision?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am aware of the proposals referred to. The establishment of an exchange at Golborne was authorised for the express purpose of serving a district which includes the neighbourhood of the Lowton post office. It is reported to me that the connection of this district with Leigh is not closer than with Golborne and Newton-le-Willows, and I regret that I am unable to adopt the suggestions which I have received from the Leigh Rural District Council on the subject. If the Lowton call office were connected with the Leigh exchange trunk fees would be chargeable on calls between

  1487
  Lowton post office and Golborne, and the difficulty with regard to charges would therefore merely be transferred from one set of calls to another.

  Panel Doctors' Salaries (Cork City).
  Mr. CREANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the salaries of the panel doctors of the City of Cork are now six months in arrear; whether the Insurance Commissioners in dealing with the county panel doctors paid only three months' salary about three months ago, six months' salary being then due; and whether he will have this state of things attended to immediately in the interest of the service?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am informed by the Irish Insurance Commissioners that further payments on account will be made to the doctors referred to both in the county borough and the county in a few days.

  INDIA.

    SALE OF INTOXICANTS.
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) whether any local government has found it possible to take action extending the functions of excise advisory committees beyond that of merely considering the number and sites of shops, as suggested in paragraph 6 of the Dispatch of the Secretary of State for India, dated 29th May, 1914; and (2) whether approval and publicity has been given by any local government to the suggestion that special areas could be kept altogether immune from the sale of intoxicants in which it seemed to be desirable and likely to be in consonance with the wishes of the inhabitants, as set forth in paragraph 6 of the Dispatch of the Secretary of State for India, dated 29th May, 1914?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: No information has yet been received as to action taken by local Governments on the suggestions referred to, but the Government of India have instructed local Governments to report on the subject in the Provincil Excise or General Administration Reports for 1914–15.

    LEASE OF DISTILLERIES.
    Sir H. ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, with reference to the statement showing the buildings and sites which are used in the different provinces of India in connection
    1488
    with the manufacture of liquor, he is in a position to give information as to the rent charged and the conditions imposed in the lease of distilleries owned by the Government; whether he can state approximately the cost to the Government of the sites and buildings leased to distillers; and whether these buildings can be used for any other purpose should the premises be not required for distilling purposes?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The rents charged and the conditions imposed in the leases referred to vary in different provinces and districts in India. I have no reason to suppose that the buildings and sites in question are of any great value, or that the terms of lease are unduly favourable to the lessees. I fear, however, that precise information on this and the last two parts of the question cannot be obtained without calling for a detailed report, which the Secretary of State does not see his way to ask the Government of India to undertake in the present pressure of work.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it to be inferred from the answer of the hon. Gentleman that drastic proposals are under consideration for India similar to those which have been so universally condemned in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I do not think that arises out of the question.

    DELHI CONSPIRACY CASE.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the appeals in the Delhi conspiracy case to the Privy Council have all been dismissed, with the result that in one case a British subject who was acquitted by the judge who tried him will be sent to transportation for life, and in another case a British subject who was sent to transportation for life by the judge who tried him will be hanged, and in each case by the judgment of an Appeal Court which heard none of the witnesses; and will he say how soon a reform in these judicial methods may be looked for which will make them more conformable to the practice of this country?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I have nothing to add to the statement in my answer to the hon. Member on 27th April, except that there is nothing in the proceedings before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that suggests a miscarriage of justice in the Indian Courts in these cases.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILL PRESENTED.
    SPECIAL CONSTABLES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To amend the Law relating to the appointment of Special Constables in Scotland." Presented by Mr. McKINNON WOOD; supported by the Lord Advocate; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

    IMMATURE SPIRITS (RESTRICTION) BILL.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to restrict the supply and sale of immature spirits."
    Since the increased duties on certain intoxicating liquors were proposed ten days ago prolonged discussions with the trade have taken place with a view to seeing whether the restrictions that are necessary in the national interests can be secured without additional taxation. The present Bill, together with the Defence of the Realm (No. 3) Bill, are the result of those consultations. It is not to be disputed, and it appears to be quite plain from the White Paper, that a large part of the mischief which must be stopped is due to the consumption of raw new spirits, which is at once the cheapest to buy and the most fiery in its influence and effects This Bill will, therefore, propose to prevent the sale of young and immature spirits. I believe that the House as a whole will favour the proposal. It was suggested from more quarters than one in the course of our recent discussion as being the proper way to deal with this pressing trouble, and, while some exception must be made, of course, from any general rule laid down, I do not think that the spirit trade as a whole will resent the suggestion that there should be some minimum age before which spirits should not be sold for drinking purposes. The main provision of this Bill will be to lay down that that minimum age should be three years. I will read the operative Clause: "No British or foreign spirits shall be delivered for home consumption unless they have been warehoused for at least a period of three years."
    The House will observe that that applies to both British and foreign spirits, because, of course, we must not favour
    1508
    foreign spirits at the expense of the homemade article. But we propose to provide that where it is shown that imported spirits, before they were imported, had remained abroad for a period of time after distillation, that period shall count towards the three years which must elapse before such spirits can be made available for consumption in this country. Then, as regards the exceptions to that general principle, I will tell the House briefly what they are. The first and most important is this. We find that to make this a hard and fast rule, and at very short notice, would not be practicable, and would not be fair, because, at any rate for a time, the trade will not in all parts of the country be able to adjust itself to the new conditions for which the warehouse accommodation existing may very well not be sufficient, and there may be other reasons. So we propose to provide that, during the next twelve months, spirit may be taken out of warehouse as soon as it is two years old, though, in order to equalise the position as between such spirit and other spirit which has been kept in the warehouse for three years, there must be a small duty of a shilling a gallon added, in order that the two spirits may stand in the market at substantially the same level. The next exception about which the House is anxious to be assured is that of spirit which is used for industrial purposes. That, as the House knows, does not pay any tax at all, and there is no reason whatever why spirit which is used for industrial purposes should be kept in warehouse for a single day. Consequently it will be free to be used for industrial purposes however new and raw it may be.
    In the next place there is the exception of the spirit which is delivered to licensed rectifiers, to manufacturing chemists, and to the manufacturers of perfume for use in their manufactures. There, again, there is no point in insisting that the spirit should have a minimum age, and in that case, the spirit will under the exceptions which we are introducing in the Bill, be free to be taken out of warehouse as soon as desired. There again, in order to equalise the matter, as between spirits which are quite new and spirits which have to be kept for three years before they are taken out of warehouse for consumption, we must put a small duty—1s. 6d. is the amount suggested—upon such spirits taken out before they are two years old. Again, that is merely in order to keep the balance even. Again, spirit required for scientific purposes will not be required to be kept in

    1509
    warehouse for three years before it is made available. There is one other exception, the case of Geneva, and the case of certain foreign liquors which are imported. These may be allowed to be available for consumption before the period of three years elapses, because, as the House knows, the liquor known as gin is not kept for any period of time before it is used for consumption. Thus, shortly stated, the House will see that while the principle of the Bill is to lay down the minimum age of three years, there are exceptions, which I have endeavoured to recount, which will meet hard cases and prevent interference with manufacture and other use of spirits. I may be allowed to say that the whole scheme of the Government obviously tends to this, that, in view of these provisions, it is not proposed to persist in the additional taxes which were submitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer some ten days ago. The present Bill, as the House will observe, is not founded on any Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, and the tax of 1s. and 1s. 6d. which I have mentioned of course will be incorporated in the Budget. The present Bill is confined to prohibiting the taking out of warehouse of certain spirits until the spirits have reached a certain age. The House will naturally wish to know at once how we propose to get rid of the additional duties which were resolved upon in Committee of Ways and Means ten days ago. We shall propose to do it by taking on Report those additional duties so far as wines and beer are concerned, in order that they may be negatived by general consent, and therefore the situation will be restored which existed ten days ago.
    Mr. LOUGH: What about the money already paid?
    Sir J. SIMON: As regards the additional tax upon spirits doubling the tax on spirits, it will be absolutely necessary to keep that duty alive until the present Bill is law. Otherwise, as the House will see at once, a large quantity of raw and immature spirits would be instantly taken out of bond, and the prohibition which we are now seeking to impose would be for a long time practically ineffective. The Bill which I am asking leave to introduce is quite a short one, and I trust will not lead to much controversy or prolonged debate, and as soon as ever the Bill is secured the consumption of immature spirit will be stopped of course, and we can then get rid of the additional duty on
    1510
    spirits which the Committee imposed ten days ago.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: I am aware that to be in order at the present stage I must offer the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman desires to introduce my opposition, but of course I have no intention of taking the opinion of the House on the Bill at the present stage, and the few observations I wish to make in opposition to it are rather more to warn the right hon. Gentleman, if I may so put it, that he must not assume that this measure is non-controversial—
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I understood on an occasion when I was dealing with a Bill under the Ten Minutes' Rule, exactly as the hon. Member is doing now, you put the question to me whether I intended to go to a Division against the Bill, and whether I was really directly against it, and I did go to such Division, although I only wanted to make inquiries, just as the hon. and learned Member opposite does.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman did observe that he would not divide the House, but he has not concluded his speech and may alter his mind.
    Mr. BOOTH: May I call attention to the fact that the hon. Member opposite has asked that he should not go to a Division and that he was rising in order to obtain information?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may probably think better of it.
    Mr. McNEILL: The observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite may influence my decision. As the right hon. Gentleman observed in the Debate the other day, a good number of Members, some on this side of the House, expressed agreement with the principle embodied in this Bill, but the result of the Commission which was held some time ago would appear to show that this opinion of hon. Members may have been rather hasty. I want to recall to the recollection of the House that, in 1909 the Royal Commission reported upon this very question, and, if that Report has any value at all, then the whole idea that new spirits are more, or substantially more, deleterious than old spirits would appear to be an entire fallacy. The Commission, for instance, said:—
    "It was not established before us that any material change in the toxicant quality of whisky is effected by age, but it is generally agreed that with old age a great improvement in the flavour of whisky is developed."

    1511
    In other words, the older the whisky the nicer it is, and it might well be argued that the older the whisky the greater the danger of excess. There is no evidence whatever that old whisky is necessarily less harmful than new. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That opinion seems to be shared by a number of hon. Members opposite. If any whisky can be said to be more harmful when new than when it is old, it is the pot still whisky, which, according to the evidence given before the Commission, is so disgusting when new that nobody will drink it. The consequence of that is that pot still whisky is only put on the market when it is three years of age. Patent still whisky, on the other hand, is perfectly harmless when new, and therefore the legislation which the right hon. Gentleman proposes, if carried out, would have the effect of giving preference to one class of manufacture over another, which would be a very unfair thing to do. There is one other passage from the Report of the Royal Commission which I should like to report:—
    "In our opinion the evidence is not sufficiently positive to justify us in holding that it is necessary for the protection of public health to detain any spirits for a minimum period in bond."
    I take it, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will have to use all his persuasive powers and his expert knowledge of whisky to let the House understand that it is necessary, or that it will have the slightest effect for the object we all have in view—the production of munitions of war. This is an emergency Act, if it is to be an Act at all, and in my opinion not only is this Bill perfectly useless for the object in view, but it is also very impracticable. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman has made some exceptions which recognise the difficulty of providing warehousing accommodation in the interval before the Act comes into full operation. He has given an interval of about twelve months. That the emergency measure is not to come into operation for twelve months is, at all events, not a very optimistic view of the present military situation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman's forecast in that respect may turn out to be too pessimistic. The practical difficulties were also dealt with by this Royal Commission.
    Sir J. SIMON: The interval of twelve months which I spoke of is a concession which cuts the three years' minimum down to two years before the whisky is taken
    1512
    out of bond, and that would be the case at the present moment.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. McNEILL: I am quite aware of that, if I may say so, but it remains true to say that the Act will not come into full operation until after the lapse of twelve months. In the meantime, spirits must be be two years old before they can come out of bond. So far as my information goes, I do not think that concession will really get rid of the difficulty with regard to accommodation in the meantime. I do not know what is the attitude of hon. Gentleman from Ireland below the Gangway on this point, but I know something about the distilling interest in the North of Ireland, and I should think some three-fourths of the whisky distilled in Ireland comes from that part of the country. I am informed by a very large firm that this Bill, if carried into law, would make it absolutely impossible for that firm to carry on business for at least twelve months and that that period would require to elapse before they could provide warehouses and casks which would be necessary to carry out the provisions of the Bill. Let me call the attention of the House to another extract from the Report of the Royal Commission. All the witnesses were asked whether there would be any hardship in enacting that spirits should be kept compulsorily in bond for a fixed period,
    "and the testimony was practically unanimous that compulsory bonding would harass the trade and was altogether unnecessary."
    That opinion was given by experts from England, Scotland, and Ireland. Another concession which the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed was with regard to whisky used for the making of gin. But there are a number of other substances besides gin which would be quite as entitled to an exemption of that kind. The whole making of liqueurs depends upon it. And another important point, I think, is that although this legislation is intended to strike at the evil of excessive drinking of whisky, so far as the wording of the Bill goes the right hon. Gentleman said it applies to all spirits. But the evidence shows perfectly clearly that no case whatever has been made out as regards gin, rum, brandy, or any other spirits, and, although whisky distilling is one of the largest, it is by no means the only one. There is also the point noted in the public Press as to the production of yeast, which is a matter of very great importance. I venture to make these few observations at

    1513
    this stage because I think the right hon. Gentleman must be prepared for having these and kindred points pressed upon him at a later stage. I hope he will give consideration to them, and see if there is any way in which they can be met.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the House to understand that an hon. Member, having stated that he will not divide against a Bill, is entitled to criticise it? I venture to ask the question, because I remember on a former occasion the then Member for Montgomery District pursued that course, and objection being taken by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), that hon. Member was promptly ordered to resume his seat. It is of some importance to know the Rule, and therefore I ask.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The difficulty arises owing to the actual form in which the Rule is drawn. If an hon. Member begins by saying that he does not mean to oppose, then, of course, strictly speaking according to the Rule he ought not to continue his speech, but the Rule has been very loosely drawn and rather loosely carried out. As far as I can I give every opportunity to hon. Members to speak. Still, I would recommend hon. Members, if they wish to keep strictly in order, not to begin by saying that they do not intend to oppose, but always to withhold their judgment until they see how their observations are received.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can do so on the Second Reading.
    Question put, and agreed to. Bill ordered to be brought in by the Attorney-General, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Solicitor-General, and Mr. Acland. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (AMENDMENT—No 3) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (AMENDMENT—No 3) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(State Control of Liquor Trade in Certain Areas.)
  (1) Where it appears to His Majesty that it is expedient for the purpose of the
  1514
  successful prosecution of the present War that the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor in any area should be controlled by the State, on the ground that war material is being made or loaded or unloaded or dealt with in transit in the area or that men belonging to His Majesty's naval or military forces are assembled in the area, His Majesty has power, by Order in Council, to define the area and to apply to the area the regulations issued in pursuance of this Act under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, and the regulations so applied shall, subject to any provisions of the Order or any amending Order, take effect in that area during the continuance of the present War and a period of twelve months thereafter.
  (2) His Majesty in Council has power to issue regulations under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, to take effect in any area to which they are applied under this Act—

  (a) for giving the prescribed Government authority, to the exclusion of any other person, the power of selling or supplying, or controlling the sale or supply of, intoxicating liquor in the area, subject to any exceptions contained in the regulations; and

  (b) for giving the prescribed Government authority power to acquire, compulsorily or by agreement, and either for the period during which the regulations take effect, or permanently, any licensed or other premises in the area, or any interest therein, so far as it appears necessary or expedient to do so for the purpose of giving proper effect to the control of the liquor supply in the area; and

  (c) for enabling the prescribed Government authority, without any licence, to establish and maintain refreshment rooms for the supply of refreshments (including, if thought fit, the supply of intoxicating liquor) to the general public or to any particular class of persons or to persons employed in any particular industry in the area; and

  (d) for making any modification or adjustment of the relations between persons interested in licensed premises in the area which appears necessary or expedient in consequence of the regulations; and

  1515

  (e) generally, for giving effect to the transfer of the control of the liquor traffic in the area to the prescribed Government authority, and for modifying, so far as it appears necessary or expedient, the provisions of the Acts relating to licensing or the sale of intoxicating liquor in their application to the area.

  (3) Any regulations made before the passing of this Act under the powers conferred by any Act dealing with the Defence of the Realm as respects the restriction of the sale of intoxicating liquor are hereby declared to have been duly made in accordance with those powers.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "twelve" ["twelve months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "six."
  I do so for the purpose of inquiring from the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he regards it as necessary to continue this temporary measure for so long a period as twelve months after the War has concluded. I had given notice of three months, but that appears to me to be probably too short a period, and, therefore, I propose in substitution six months, which gives quite sufficient time and opportunity for any arrangements which require to be made for the re-transfer of those businesses, more particularly as I rather think the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not desire anything of a permanent character done under this Bill. The arrangement is temporary and confined strictly to the period of the War itself, and as soon as possible we should try and get back, whether on the same basis or not it would be afterwards to consider, to the existing condition of affairs.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): This is inserted in order to give Parliament an absolutely free hand at the termination of the War. We are now simply taking purely temporary powers. The moment the twelve months expires all the powers of the Government under this Bill cease, and they could not exercise any control. That will force whatever Government is in power to come to Parliament for further directions as to what to do under the conditions. That is exactly the object of this. Let me put to the hon. Baronet exactly what my point is. I consider six months too short. Supposing we had peace, say, at the end of August, at the
  1516
  end of the Session, then you could not possibly get a Bill through. There must be conflicting views to consider, and at that time there would probably be much more important matters than that for consideration. The time of Parliament would probably be fully occupied with those very urgent matters for some months after the termination of the War. It would be hopeless for anyone to endeavour to get a Bill dealing with a matter of this kind through in less than twelve months.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: What is the need for it. Why not return to the status quo.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know that you would. Parliament ought to be free to consider that, and why should not Parliament be free to do so? And you should not tie the hands of Parliament as to what ought to be done at the end of the term. Surely Parliament ought to be allowed to consider what is to be done in these cases. There may be all sorts of things which may arise as a result of an experiment of this kind, and no one could guarantee a Bill of the kind within less than twelve months, because there would be so many more urgent matters to deal with.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us his reason for this. It is the reason which I always thought was probably the true reason. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that after the twelve months he wants a Bill. What does he want to get a Bill for? This is a temporary measure to deal with a certain crisis which has arisen in certain trades, and now we find it is not a temporary measure at all, but part of another scheme which will be amplified and enlarged later on when the Government, which is in office after the War, has had the opportunity to consider what they should do. I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division on this Amendment, because it is really a very important matter. It may be right or it may be wrong to consider a general measure, and I myself think it wrong, but we ought to know what we are doing and whether we are considering a temporary emergency measure or a ground for temperance legislation hereafter. I am personally opposed to anything at the present moment being taken which has not to do with the War, and which is not entirely temporary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us most openly that he is contemplating bringing in a Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not so, and the hon. Baronet has said so for the second time. I never said anything of the kind. I never said I contemplated bringing in a Bill. What I did say was this, that a Bill might be necessary and that all sorts of things might arise in connection with this matter which we cannot foresee, and you might require some measure, and there might be a Bill necessary.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not see that I misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that a period of twelve months was necessary, because it was necessary to give Parliament a free hand, and the bringing in of another Bill might be necessary and that twelve months must elapse in order to give Parliament that free hand. I say that Parliament does not want any free hand. There is no necessity, and can be no necessity, for bringing in a Bill. This Bill only deals with a contingency which has arisen owing to the War. The moment the War is over we revert to the status quo ante, and there is no necessity to have any Bill of any sort or kind. There is no necessity that this prohibition should go on in any area for twelve months, or even for a fortnight, after the War. If Parliament in its wisdom should, after the end of the War, desire to bring in a Bill, it would have plenty of opportunity of doing so without having this provision in this Bill. I can see that it would be very much easier to bring in temperance legislation if you make this particular Bill last for twelve months after the War, for then people will be able to say: We have got to do something, as this Bill is going on for twelve months after the War. And those who desire to curtail the sale of spirits will say: Now that we have gone so far we must go further. That is what I object to, and what I did not understand that the House was being committed to. I thought the House was being committed merely to a temporary measure to meet a temporary situation.
  Mr. LOUGH: I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press their objection on this particular point. The hon. Baronet speaks of the moment the War is over, as if that were an easy moment to fix. A great war like this will be a long time coming to a conclusion. There may be armistices and so on. There will, of course, be a moment when there is a cessation of hostilities; but after that there may be a great many discussions as to whether peace should be confirmed. We
  1518
  would all hope that peace might be confirmed. But the troops will be in all parts of the world, and it will take many months to get them home; therefore the twelve months' arrangement seems to me most reasonable. The point urged by my right hon. Friend, which has been taken advantage of somewhat unfairly, I think, was that this may be an interesting experiment. There may be results quite different from those which Members on either side expect. Parliament should be left free to consider the results of the experiment. Hon. Members may learn something they did not know before.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is very easy.
  Mr. LOUGH: Then why should the hon. Baronet exclude himself from the opportunity of considering the circumstances which arise? On the whole, I think the period mentioned in the Bill is most reasonable, and I do not think the Government ought to be pressed to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) said that he hoped the Mover of the Amendment would go to a Division. Personally, I hope that no Division will be necessary, but that we may, by a spirit of sweet reasonableness and compromise, come to a unanimous decision. I confess I find it hard to justify the Bill as it stands, and it seems to me that a reasonable compromise is offered by the Amendment. I think that the right hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) had not very carefully considered the matter before he spoke; because he said there might be armistices and negotiations, which might take a long time. That is quite true, but what has that to do with the question before the Committee? The War does not end until the Treaty of Peace is signed and ratified. The longer the negotiations lasted, the longer would the Powers endure, because the state of War would not have come to an end. The only point we have to consider is how long after the state of war has been definitely terminated by a Treaty of Peace it is necessary that these special provisions should prevail. I do not want to anticipate future discussions on the licensing question. I have a certain hereditary interest, if I may say so, in any proposal of public control over the retail sale of drink. Had the proposals which my father earnestly advocated in the early part of his Parliamentary career, and to which he secured the assent

  1519
  of the Corporation of Birmingham, approved themselves to Parliament at that time, when there was not a tied house in the country, the solution of the problem might have been advanced very considerably beyond the point we have reached to-day. Therefore, I do not speak as one hostile to public management, still less as one hostile to disinterested management; but I do say that these are questions which we cannot touch without grave danger to-day.
  All we have to do at the moment is to give the Government such powers as are necessary for the specified purposes for which they ask for them. They ask for them in order to regulate the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor in any area where they think it should be controlled by the State, on the ground that War material is being made, or loaded, or unloaded, or dealt with in transit. That is the primary and the great ground of necessity put forward. As the Government were bringing in a Bill, they included any area where any great number of troops are assembled; but I venture to say that the reports on the conduct of the troops are such that the Government would never have thought of bringing in a Bill for the troops if they had not been bringing one in for the civil population. It is really in connection with the supply of munitions of war that this Bill is introduced. When the War comes to an end that special necessity will come, to an end; the real reason for the Bill will be at an end, and the sooner we can stop our liabilities in the matter the better it will be. I think my hon. Friend has given the House of Commons quite reasonable time to turn round and make its arrangements. I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept that offer, and not press upon the Committee the period of twelve months, which I think really goes beyond anything that is justified by the plea which the Government themselves have put forward.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have shown throughout that I am very anxious to secure agreement. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have pressed this proposal upon me, especially having regard to his traditions in this matter. It does not give the House of Commons an opportunity of considering how the thing has worked, or on what conditions it should restore the status quo in these particular areas. It really denies the House of Commons the opportunity of
  1520
  reviewing the experiment and considering the conditions on which the status quo should be restored. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as I know he is open to reason, to consider the question of transport? I can conceive conditions under which the troops will not return within six months; it might be a little longer. The worst and the most dangerous conditions are, I am sorry to say, in the ports. I can hardly tell the Committee the dangers which have arisen in the ports. It is difficult to say what has happened in some of the ports without giving information which might be useful to the enemy. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press us to curtail the period of twelve months by a single day. But I say frankly that I am not going to force a Division; it is really a question on which we ought to meet each other. I should be sorry to press any part of these proposals to a Division. Carry them by means of a party vote I certainly will not; I will not take the responsibility. I am anxious that the House should share the responsibility in these matters. I again plead with the right hon. Gentleman to allow the twelve months to remain. The transport question is a very important one.
  Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: I ask the Committee to consider this matter from the point of view of what is to occur when the troops are coming back. We shall not get the troops back for a good many months after the War is over. We shall require the most careful regulations in the ports and certain other districts while the troops are coming back. Therefore it seems to me very desirable that there should be this ample limit of time. There is no compulsion on the Government to keep the thing going for twelve months except in the districts where they think it necessary.
  Sir J. D. REES: I desire to enter my protest against the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Member for West Islington, that at this time any legislation could be passed in order to allow experiments in temperance reform. That is an altogether wrong attitude to take up. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to get these proposals by agreement, he would do well to muzzle the right hon. Member, whose short speech—I do not know how it affected other Members, but it certainly inclined me to vote against the Government, especially as the Bill just introduced by the Attorney-General is unexpectedly, and I think, unnecessarily, drastic in character.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: I hope that the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be responded to, and that right hon. Gentleman opposite will agree to the twelve months. It is not only Parliament that may want time to look into the matter. On that point I have no strong views; I rather agree with the hon. Baronet opposite, that we do not want to do anything which opens up new questions now or then. But it is not only Parliament that may be concerned. The people in the areas may be very much concerned in the arrangements that have to be made. I do not see how you can revert to the status quo at once. Under this Bill a large number of alterations will be made; there will be all sorts of arrangements between various people; houses will be closed for a time; arrangements will be entered into between various interests. I do not see how you can be sure of dealing with the matter in six months. You might do very serious injustice to the local people themselves. It is only a question of time. No one wants to retain a period which would be unfair to anyone. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite are unwilling to accept the twelve months, they might agree to a period "not exceeding" twelve months. That would not make it obligatory if the matter could be dealt with in less than twelve months. On the other hand, twelve months may be absolutely necessary in the interests of all concerned. Therefore I hope the Committee will not agree to reduce the twelve months to six.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I find it very difficult to resist an appeal such as the right hon. Gentleman made to us now. I cannot say that we are wholly convinced, but we do not like to press our point after such a speech. I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept an Amendment which would make the powers run during the continuance of the present War and such period not exceeding twelve months thereafter, as may be found to be necessary.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite for the way in which they have met the appeal of the Government. I will certainly accept such an Amendment. We do not want the provision for longer than is necessary.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): Does the hon. Baronet withdraw his Amendment?
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I am quite ready to withdraw my Amendment, but I am not altogether convinced by the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the right hon. Gentleman finds that he has a bad hare running he generally starts another. He did so in this case. He turned from the munition areas to the transport areas, and he made an effective appeal to my right hon. Friends, who are softer-hearted on this question. Therefore, in deference to the general opinion, I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "a period of twelve months thereafter," in order to insert instead thereof the words, "such period not exceeding twelve months thereafter as may prove to be necessary."
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: What exactly does that mean?
  Mr. HEWINS: I would like to ask my right hon. Friend below me to whom shall it be proved?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The last thing that I wish to be is to be treated as the Minister in charge of the Bill, or, perhaps, I should say in charge of an Amendment to the Bill, but I should imagine that this will be taken to mean such period as may reasonably be shown to be necessary for the purpose set out in the preceding words of the Clause. If it is so proved it is for the House of Commons to bring the Government to book if they exceed their instructions.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Proposed words there inserted.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words,
  "Provided that if the local authority in any area or part of an area to which the regulations apply represent that the continuance of such regulations or any of them is inexpedient, such regulations or regulation shall not have effect after one month from the date of such representation in that area or part of an area, unless a public local inquiry shall have been held during such month by a Commissioner appointed by His Majesty, and the report of the said Commissioner

  1523
  shall have been received and published. For the purpose of this Section the expression "local authority" means for any area or part of an area comprised within the county borough or borough the council of such borough, and in every other case the council of the county in which the area or part of an area is comprised."
  I have framed my Amendment on the supposition that it is necessary, as I think, that in some form or other there should be a check upon the possible arbitrary action of officials who have the carrying out of very difficult, very invidious, and absolutely new duties. The check I suggest is a very moderate one. First of all, it would not prevent the Regulations being started in any area. If the times were normal I should have liked a preliminary inquiry in every locality. That, of course, is impossible. I recognise it, and I do not propose it here. In the second place, my Amendment only insists upon an inquiry on the demand of the responsible local authority, and not in consequence of private representations. In the third place, although my Amendment asks for an inquiry, it does not absolutely bind the Government to accept the results of the inquiry. It only says there shall be an examination of the circumstances of the neighbourhood in reference to these Regulations if the responsible authority so demands it. I do say something of the kind is necessary, because there is a real danger, under present conditions, of officials rather taking the bit between their teeth.
  There is need for the facts to be ascertained in matters of this kind. Even as it is, on the whole of the case, we are by no means certain what are the facts. Listening to the Debates which have taken place we do not know the extent of the evil. We do not for certain know the extent of the lost time. We do not know for certain the causes from which the time has been lost. Various statements have been put forward, no doubt perfectly bonâ fide, but Gentlemen below the Gangway on the opposite side have brought forward on the other side a statement of other causes, so that we do not know exactly how the matter stands at the present time. I do ask that the difficulties we have been in in discussing the whole question here may not be repeated if local trouble arises. I can well understand an official going down to an area of which he knows nothing to make arrangements
  1524
  for carrying the Act into operation. He may very likely, for instance, see some employer who has a considerable local position, who may hold his own views very strongly, though they may not be the views of the neighbourhood at all or the views of the workpeople—
  Mr. BOOTH: Hear, hear!
  Mr. HOPE: I do suggest that this official, who may perhaps be inspired by an honest and biassed opinion, should not prevail over the real wishes of the locality. I have endeavoured to surround this power to the locality with every possible check. I ask that if the neighbourhood, whether it be a county borough or other defined district, does come to the conclusion, and convinces its own local authority, that this or that regulation is working badly, that there shall be a public inquiry into the facts. I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman was well advised when he said the other day that we could not in matters of this kind go ahead of local opinion. I desire, in moving this Amendment, that local opinion should be consulted, and if that local opinion is with the Government, their scheme will be far more successful than if they tried to overbear with the mere weight of official power.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Nothing but the very strongest conviction set against the great respect that I have for my hon. Friend who sits below me would lead me now to declare the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not yield to this Amendment. Were it not for that great respect that I have for my hon. Friend and for his colleagues the other hon. Members for Sheffield, I should have thought that they were perhaps inclined to yield a little too easily to facile utterances and charitable compliments to the local authority which we are all too prone—
  Mr. HOPE: No.
  Sir H. CRAIK: We have something else to do than to pass any such compliments or eulogies, or to accept any such surpassing trust in the wisdom of these local bodies. The evil that this Bill is intended to deal with may, no doubt, be confined, or largely confined, to certain localities, but the danger that this Bill is meant to counteract, and which it must meet, and which is the only justification for the Bill, is an Imperial danger, and is to be settled by Imperial considerations and not by

  1525
  local considerations. We know perfectly well what local feelings are, and how easy it would be for this man or that man who has certain interests to stir up and put forward a specious case. That case would be supported by many apparently fairly sound arguments, and local opinion would be put forward in its favour. Envenomed dissension would spring up, and there would be wrangling and fighting between the two sections of the locality. The result would be that if the provisions of this Bill were enforced they would only be enforced after envenomed fighting in the locality, in which all sorts of personal considerations were brought in.
  Is it possible that my hon. Friend who advocates this Amendment desires to see local objections of that sort or to prevent such friction in the working of the Bill which, if it is to be agreed upon at all, is to be agreed upon only as one of urgent, imperious necessity? We all know how these local inquiries are conducted. An amount of fair argument may be brought forward on behalf of the objectors, and a rankling feeling of wrong is spread throughout the locality. What in the world can a county or a borough council have to say to grave questions which we are dealing with in this Bill, and how far evil is to be dealt with by drastic measures? We have had some experience of the action of local authorities hitherto. Under previous emergency Bills local authorities could have very considerably counteracted opportunities for drink. What have they done? I do not hesitate to state—because I have fortunately no county council which I am obliged to flatter—that these local authorities have failed to act on their responsibilities, and have not enforced with sufficient drastic authority the powers which we gave them by the emergency Bills. If a local inquiry is to be held, let it be held. I am perfectly certain that the hon. Gentleman does not suppose that the Government central body would act without ascertaining the local opinion in the proper way. Let these local conditions be ascertained by an emissary sent down from the central body, appointed by them and responsible to them, and not moved by any kind of opinion in the locality. It is by that means, by action which I am perfectly certain will be observed, by having thoroughly good men sent down as your emissaries, that you will ascertain far better the real justice of the case as regards the local conditions and opinion, and
  1526
  you will not take out of the hands of the central authority, which has to decide, these very drastic powers to be used in case of emergency. You will not let that pass from that authority into the hands of the very doubtful and very confusing eddies of local controversy and local ideas which might impair the whole. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment, ably as it has been proposed by my hon. Friend.
  Sir J. SIMON: I think everybody will agree that the Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University has made a very powerful speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] He has put as fairly as they can be put the large consideration which it seems to us must be borne in mind in considering this proposal. The proposal itself is quite attractive, because everybody is attracted by the idea that before you interfere by edict in the ordinary daily life of some local area you ought to ascertain the facts, and realise that in that local area there are local authorities who claim, quite fairly, to speak for those by whom they have been elected. The answer to all that is, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, that this is a case where you interfere in local areas, not for the sake of the local area, or for the sake of those who live in this local area alone, but for the sake of the country as a whole, and for the sake of great national interests that are in the charge of all of us. And it would plainly be wrong to allow the view which is expressed in the locality—not wrong, of course, to take it into account, but wrong to allow it to control the policy which, from a wider point of view, ought to be adopted on behalf of the nation at large. I hope the House will observe that this is not a proposal that you should consult the locality or that you should do what you can to ascertain local opinion, either through the local authorities or otherwise; this is a proposal that if the local authority—I presume by any majority; by a snatch majority on the town council any day of the week, even if it succeeds by a majority of one—says it objects to any regulation, that decision by that local authority is to operate in order to stop a regulation which, in the national interests, it is necessary to enforce. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see, in the circumstances, that is a thing which really we cannot agree to do.
  Mr. HOPE: It operates in the sense that it makes a public local inquiry necessary.
  Sir J. SIMON: I am sure I do not wish to misrepresent what he proposes, but it makes a public local inquiry necessary. Though I have had something to do with public local inquires and do not wish to say anything against them, I do say this with confidence: they are a very slow method, and I should think them wholly inappropriate to a matter which is essentially urgent, immediate, and national. With every desire to consult the opinion of the locality, the view we feel bound to take is that really the responsibility here must be regarded as a responsibility of the central authority, acting on behalf of the nation as a whole. The hon. Gentleman who makes this proposal very truly says that we shall not get on if we run counter to informed local opinion. That is no doubt true, and it is for that reason my right hon. Friend the other day said that which I now repeat, that the first thing we should do before we impose stiff regulations in any given area would be to inquire and ascertain what is the view which is taken by those best qualified to judge inside the area, representative of the area, and speaking on their behalf. That is a very different thing from saying that, in a matter which is essentially national, essentially Imperial and essentially a case of emergency, you should give, in the first place, a power of veto to the local authority, and, in the second place, have to indulge in the rather slow-moving machinery of a public local inquiry. Therefore, while we certainly shall not forget the importance of consulting local opinion and acting with local opinion, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not desire to press further upon us that we should substitute the view of a majority, after, it may be, much acrimonious controversy in some local body, for that which must be the deliberate decision of those who are primarily responsible for defending our shores and for defeating the foe. After all, you cannot use a town council or county council in order that their view may overrule the view of the War Office or the Admiralty.
  Mr. HOPE: No.
  Sir J. SIMON: Well, that is what is involved, because consider what the effect will be in an area if you first, by a small majority, have a public inquiry. Those who have supported that majority will persist at the local inquiry that they are right and the War Office is wrong. If the War Office has good reason for its view, however unpopular it may be locally,
  1528
  they must persist in their view, and, as the result of long controversy in a public local inquiry, you will find there will be only more acrimony, more contest, and more disputes than before. Surely the right thing is to consult local opinion and act with it as far as you may, but the responsibility here is a national responsibility resting, in the first instance, on the Admiralty and the War Office, and it is that responsibility which they must discharge in the interests of the nation as a whole. For those reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Sir J. D. REES: I submit, among the Imperial considerations, one is that no subject should be placed under any unnecessary restriction, and I submit that the Amendment—I do not know whether my hon. Friend means to press it to a Division—is suitable for the circumstances of great cities like his own constituency, and indeed others. Take the case of a city, the chief characteristic manufactures of which are stockings and nets, stockings being always necessary, and nets being recently necessary owing to the poisonous and barbarous methods of warfare in which our enemies indulge. Under this Bill it might very likely happen in the case of a great city that one part of it would be properly obnoxious to the provisions of this Bill and another part would have no particular concern. Under the Amendment it would be quite possible to divide the area, as I understand, leaving the general and Imperial considerations operative in the part to which they apply and making immune from such considerations that part of the area to which they need not apply. In that case I confess I cannot quite see that all the objections which the Attorney-General instances apply to the case. My hon. Friend's Amendment allows a month, and I do not quite understand why it should be held that any inquiry under this Amendment necessarily amounts to a stand-up fight with the War Office. I do not think it has that meaning, but only that, if it were shown that these restrictions, which no doubt are extremely drastic and severe, were not necessary, an inquiry might be held with a view to exempting the area concerned from their operations. I submit there are good grounds for the Amendment.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I think local authorities, though grateful for the good intention, would certainly not be grateful for the result of the Amendment if it

  1529
  became the law of the land. I cannot conceive any town or county council viewing with other than abhorrence having this responsibility put upon them. It is a purely exceptional war measure, and the more you detach it from the ordinary process of local government and put the responsibility where it must be—on the authorities for national defence—the better. I am confident there is no demand by local authorities to have this power given to them.
  Mr. HOPE: The right hon. Gentleman opposite argued as if the effect of this proposal would be to stop regulations being applied. All that it was intended for, and all I think it would do, was that, if regulations had been applied and were found to be working badly and defeating their own object, there should be some means of securing a revision by the central authority. It by no means takes it out of their hands. However, seeing that the Government is against this proposal, I will not at all press it, but I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that, not only in the first instance before regulations are applied, but that the body, whoever they may be, will be instructed to keep their ears open and their eyes open to see whether these regulations are really working properly, and, if not, that there will be some machinery for their revision. That is the whole object I had in view.
  Sir J. SIMON: I know that is the intention of the hon. Gentleman. Of course, it may turn out that the regulations as first made will be found by experience not to be wide enough; in that case it will be necessary to add to them.
  Mr. HOPE: Certainly.
  Sir J. SIMON: On the other hand, it may be found after experience that the regulations are unduly wide and in some respects are not producing the results intended. That will be a case for contracting their scope. Both the one and the other must be matters for consideration by the central authority, and it is certainly our intention that the one, no less than the other, should be borne in mind.
  Mr. HOPE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (a), to leave
  1530
  out the words "selling or supplying, or" ["the power of selling or supplying, or controlling the sale"].
  I would like to ask the Attorney-General what is the motive of the Government for changing the form of the Bill where they first deal with the control of the liquor traffic in Sub-section (1). In that part they say that in those areas where the Government deem it desirable that the trade should be controlled by the State certain regulations shall be made, but when they come to Sub-section (2) they are not content with taking the power of controlling the sale or supply of liquor; they ask for the power themselves to sell or supply liquor. My Amendment would have the effect of giving to the Government complete control of the supply of liquor in any area. They could make any regulations as to the sale of liquor, as to the sort of liquor, as to the people who sell it, and as to the houses in which it is sold—any sort of regulations they thought desirable they could make if my Amendment is carried. What they could not do is themselves to carry on the selling or supplying of liquor; and I do think, before the Government ask for power to embark upon an experiment which the Government in this country have never yet tried, some substantial reasons ought to be given why they think those who at present supply and sell liquor are not competent to sell and supply liquor under the new regulations which the Government propose to lay down. I feel bound to point out to the Government that this proposal does arouse very considerable opposition among a large section of the community. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has alluded to the proposals put forward by a late honoured Member of this House in regard to the Gothenburg system a great many years ago, but at the time the right hon. Gentleman's father put them forward there was a hot controversy in the country, and there is still a large body of opinion which is not at all converted to the view.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It was killed by the temperance reformers.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: That is a facile way of attacking the temperance party, and I am sorry he should have done it to-day, as I am not dealing controversially with the matter at all. What I am saying is that a respectable and numerous body of opinion in this country think it an undesirable experiment, and I put it to the Government they have no

  1531
  right to jump the country into experiments upon this matter. The House, putting aside the personal opinion of Members and constituencies in this matter, is willing to give large powers to the Government on recognised lines; but, at any rate, the Government, if they themselves are going in for the sale and supply of liquor, will be doing so in opposition to a strong, and as I think a not unwise body of opinion. Passing from that, the Government have no experience in this matter to guide them; it is purely an experiment. They are proposing themselves to go into what I regard as a most difficult trade to carry on. I am not one of those who blame the men who have carried on the trade for all the evils caused by it. I think it is an extremely difficult trade to manage, and there is nothing to show that a body of whom we know nothing, through a Committee whose constitution we do not know, will be a better body to carry out regulations of the Government to sell liquor than the present sellers of liquor if the Government issued their demands to those sellers. I do not think the Government have made any case for this at present. Whom are they going to employ to sell and supply liquor? Are they merely going to turn the present sellers into Government sellers, or are they going to create a new body of persons to sell liquor in the country? Who are the men who are going to manage the places in which the Government propose to sell? The Chancellor of the Exchequer exhibited great impatience yesterday when someone on those benches asked how many glasses of liquor he was going to allow to be supplied in these houses, but these are questions which the Government will have to determine, and if they are going to employ their own servants they will have to give them instructions how many glasses are to be supplied; they will have to tell them where to buy the liquor, which breweries they are to patronise, and whoso whisky they are to sell. These are questions which the Government are not competent to deal with, and they had far better leave it in the hands of those who have been accustomed to selling intoxicating liquors and place such restrictions upon them as are necessary. By doing that we shall be fulfilling the first Clause of the Bill and at the same time meeting the necessities of the case. It woud be far wiser to prescribe the regulations, and
  1532
  let them place in every one of these houses which is to be left open a military officer, or someone who, on behalf of the Government, will see that the regulations are carried out. That is already being done under the Defence of the Realm Act, with the greatest effect, in various places, and that is one of the most effective methods of stopping drunkenness. My suggestion is to place a military officer in or near these public-houses, in order to see that the men who ought not to go in do not enter, and see that the men who go in are not supplied with more than is allowed. That is already being done, with the greatest possible success, and the places where this has been tried are at the present moment far and away the best managed places in respect of the liquor traffic that are to be found. I say that no case has been made out for the Government taking this trade into their own hands. We do not want to try social experiments in regard to which there is any controversy during a war. What we want is that the trade should be so managed as not to lead to the evils of which the House has been speaking during the last few days, and if the Government accept my Amendment they will be able to do everything that is necessary by prescribing their regulations and seeing that they are carried out.
  Sir J. SIMON: The Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved is, I think, similar to an Amendment which he has lower down on the Paper, which is to leave out the words "including, if thought fit, the supply of intoxicating liquors."
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Not at all.
  Sir J. SIMON: I thought it was, and I should have thought that the principle in the one proposal is exactly the same as the other.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: In the case of canteens at the present time there is no Government sale of intoxicating liquors. The liquor is supplied and sold by contractors under Government control. At the present time there is no Government sale or supply of liquor in this country.
  Sir J. SIMON: I only wanted to ascertain what the hon. Member's view was, because if the two proposals were intended to raise the same point, I thought we should not need to discuss them twice. It appears, however, that this is not the same point. My hon. Friend contemplates

  1533
  that under this Sub-clause you should take away the proposed power of selling and supplying liquor, and yet at the same time leave the Government with power to establish canteens, and amongst other things give the canteens the power of supplying intoxicating liquor.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: No.
  Sir J. SIMON: It is either the same point or a different one, and I do not mind which. I understand now that the two points are quite separate. I submit that this Amendment will make perfect nonsense of the Bill. I should have thought that if there is any part of this scheme which is generally approved in all quarters of the House, it is the proposal that, in view of the special temptations which are offered to workmen in munition areas by the sale of drink immediately at the doors or near the places where they work, you should in case of need shut up some of those houses on compensation terms, and run them as Government canteens. I should have thought that that was a proposal which the House generally would accept. If you are going to establish such a canteen, it is to be for the special benefit of the men engaged in producing munitions of war in places close to where they are working, and under conditions which are not likely to interfere with the efficiency of their work, and at the same time supply them with reasonable refreshments. Does anybody really suggest that those canteens are not going to sell intoxicating liquors? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course, they must supply intoxicating liquors, and they will be canteens which the Government wish to see provided, supplying food as well as drink, tea and coffee, and other refreshments as well as intoxicating liquors. That must be so. If that is going to be done I am quite unable to understand that there is really any point in urging that the Government is not to take Power in these cases to sell and supply intoxicating liquors. If, of course, the principle is that the Government should never soil its hand by selling directly or indirectly a single drop of intoxicating liquor, I can quite understand that is a proposal which is perfectly logical itself, and certainly I shall use no hard words about it. My hon. Friend and others who are supporting this Amendment are most honourable and distinguished for the courage and persistency with which they have urged this principle, but if there is to be a Government canteen in which
  1534
  workmen are going to get what they want to drink and eat under fair and proper conditions, is there any point in saying that we must remove the power of selling and supplying intoxicating liquor? Really, if we were to do this with our eyes open we should be guilty of something very much like the making of a pretence, because what is the good of saying that the Government must not have the power to sell or supply intoxicating liquor and at the same time allow them to set up a canteen, and put in a manager who may sell and supply intoxicating liquor?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Is the contractor going to sell Government food? Is the food going to belong to the Government, or is the manager going to arrange with contractors to supply food?
  Sir J. SIMON: The Government already has power to buy and sell food, and we do not need any special power to do that. The Government buys large quantities of food every day, and it is quite beside the point to say that because there is no express power to sell sandwiches or buns that therefore the Government has no power to buy sandwiches and buns and sell them. This is practically the undertaking by the Government of a new function, and it is quite right that it should be examined carefully, and put into plain terms in the Bill, because by so doing the position will be really understood. Our position is that amongst other things power is needed by which we might be able to set up in munition areas places of entertainment where food and drink may be obtained, and it may well be where they may be supplied without the temptation in the proprietor to push the sale of one article. It is by that means you can hope most effectively to supply the worker with what he wants and at the same time see that it is supplied in a way which is not going to interfere with the rapid and efficient production of munitions of war. I hope my hon. Friend will see, when he is laying down that under no circumstances shall the Government have power to sell intoxicating liquor, that it is an essential part of his own scheme.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: No.
  Sir J. SIMON: That is our view, and we certainly could not consent to give up the power of selling and supplying intoxicating liquor, because we think that if we did give it up a great deal of the efficiency of what we are proposing to-day would be

  1535
  really hampered. If we were engaged in times of peace trying to alter the public taste, and endeavouring to teach the British workmen that tea and coffee are much better for him than whisky and beer, and if we had plenty of time to do it I can understand that we ought not to take power to sell beer and whisky; but we are in the middle of a war, and we have to do this thing quickly, and this is not an occasion when we ought to try to change the public taste and beat the Germans at the same time. We are doing what is calculated to promote the rapid and efficient production of munitions of war, and even though that may involve taking power to sell and supply intoxicating liquor, it is a power which we must obtain, and it will only be used within the limits which are necessary having regard to the exigencies under which the War is carried on.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I sympathise with the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) in his anxiety at the Government being licensed to sell and supply intoxicating liquors to be consumed on or off the premises, for I am sure the hon. Gentleman never thought he would live to see the Government do that—
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I have not in the least attacked the Government for selling and supplying intoxicating liquor in those places at the present time. The point I am dealing with now is whether the liquor sold is to be Government liquor.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I said that his own Government were to be licensed to sell intoxicating liquor to be consumed on or off the premises, and that is where I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I have myself a little hesitation in supporting the Government on this particular part of the Bill when I remember what took place a short time ago when we were told that, probably, after the expiration of the War there would be another Bill, and it is possible that the Government may find it so profitable to stand behind the bar in white aprons—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) would look very well—that after the War they may desire to continue that operation.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I am bound to say that I am very much surprised at the speech that has been made by the
  1536
  Attorney-General. I have had a very great deal of experience myself of working men and their employment, and I never heard of any Bill being brought into the House of Commons to try to prevent drunkenness, and the evils arising out of the sale of liquor, and at the same time for the Government to engage in it themselves as provided in the words suggested in the Bill. It is the most astonishing proposition I have ever listened to, and, if this experiment and what the Government is forecasting here is carried into effect, you will not discourage the evils of which you are complaining, but you will increase them. I know a very large number of works—steel works and engineering works—where no drink at all is permitted to enter, and the workmen do not drink during the time they are employed at the works; they drink after they come out of the works. I speak from very great experience, because I can tell the House that in my young days I was for seventeen years a steel worker myself, and for ten years out of the seventeen I worked as an absolute teetotaler. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the other seven years?"] There is no man living unless he has gone through the experience who knows the temptation working men suffer in having to pass public-houses going from the works to their homes, but I am thankful to say with regard to those seven years that I did escape the temptation, and, if I had not escaped it, I should not be a Member of Parliament to-day. I make that confession openly.
  I feel very strongly about the sorrows, the poverty, and the crime arising from over-drinking. I have been a magistrate for many years, and you can see it in the Courts. You can follow it to the asylums. There is, in fact, no man acquainted with the question who is not bound to come to the conclusion that drink is the greatest curse with which we are battling to-day. I am bound to confess I am surprised that I should have lived to see a Liberal Government undertaking to sell drink or to control the sale of it, either through public-houses or through canteens. I should much prefer that they should do what has been done under the Act of 1904. Under that Act we have reduced 14,000 public-houses. We have destroyed 14,000 licences, and in no case has it ever been suggested that we should supply the place of those public-houses which were destroyed by canteens. I know towns in the north of England where we have destroyed

  1537
  as many as fifty-four licences under that Act. There has never been a suggestion by anybody that we should replace them by canteens or anything of that kind.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Because they were redundant houses.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: They were redundant houses, because there is now a different idea as to the sale of drink. In former years these houses were not redundant. They were established in the years 1860–70, and they have had to take the licences away. I am arguing that when you destroy a public-house you do not replace it. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are the clubs!"] In some of these towns there are very few drinking clubs indeed. You have therefore the destruction of a number of public-houses without replacing them. The Government will find that the troubles which I suggested yesterday will come upon them. I know working men fairly well. A man acquires a taste for drink—it is more habit than anything else—and if you sell drink within the reach of that man's employment he will not be satisfied with one or two pints; he will demand more, and I ask the Government how much they are going to restrict that man to receive during the day's work? All these are factors which will have to be considered, and I do hope that the Government will reconsider this matter, especially with regard to the canteens, and that they will not undertake the sale of intoxicating drink. I have in my hand the account of an excellent example of a canteen in one of the shipyards on the Tees, where they supply no intoxicating liquors whatever. They simply supply non-intoxicating beverages and hot food. These firms would do all this if the Government were to request them, but, if the Government undertake this experiment, it will, in my opinion, lead them into great disaster hereafter, and I venture to say that they will very much regret the passing of a Bill like this, which, instead of decreasing, will increase the temptation to our working men.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: The hon. Member, as far as I can make out, suggests to the Government that they should take advantage of this emergency Bill to enforce prohibition in the various areas they intend to schedule. That would be a most dishonest proceeding on their part, and I am a little surprised that any suggestion should be made to put the Government in
  1538
  the position of having to discuss the matter at all. I do not think the consciences of hon. Members ought to be seriously disturbed by the proposal of the Bill. They are already partners in the trade. As taxpayers they are being relieved of burdens by the taxation of liquor, and it is extraordinary to me that they should discriminate in the one case and not in the other. They rejoice in any taxation of drink because they know that it relieves them of some of their burdens. There is no one more unwilling to see his business arrangements interfered with than myself, but, while I can see that very serious derangement and great difficulties will arise for everybody connected with this business in those areas where the Government are going to act, I do not see how the Government are going to carry out the control without the powers for which they ask, and I should myself be dishonest if I did not say so. I have said that I accept, and that the trade accepts, the principle of this Bill. They are willing that the Government should have this control. They could destroy the Bill by supporting and accepting the hon. Member's Amendment. Therefore I shall certainly go into the Lobby against it, because I have already said that we accept this proposal of the Government, and I am not going to do anything which would counteract a pledge which I myself have given.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I confess I am rather surprised to hear from the hon. Baronet that this Bill would be destroyed altogether if these words were taken out. I should have liked the hon. Baronet to have given some reasons for his statement. His statement surely amounts to this, that it is insufficient to give the Government powers of control and regulation over the licensed trade. If it amounts to that, does it not carry us a step further and mean that the licensed trade at the present moment would not be prepared to accept restrictions which the Government might properly put upon them? Is it not a fair statement of the case to say that if the Government were satisfied that certain restrictions ought to be given effect to, those restrictions could be carried out effectively if the licensed trade would fall in with them in the spirit in which they were made? I put that point to the hon. Baronet because his statement amounts to this, that no restrictions of any kind would be effective unless you had the power to sell and supply.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not admit saying anything of the kind. I say that this is not a prohibition Bill, and the Government know perfectly well that they cannot make it a prohibition Bill if they expect it to work, because the trade would not accept it.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: That is a different point. The point of the hon. Baronet was that no restrictions of any kind would be effective unless you had the power to sell and supply. If the licensed trade were prepared to come forward in the spirit which they have suggested and help the Government, they would accept any restrictions which were thought necessary to carry on the trade at the present time. Surely, if this Bill means anything, it means that you are giving the Government power to control the trade in any way that they think fit, and if the hon. Baronet does not include the shutting up of public-houses and the prohibiting of the sale of liquor in some circumstances, I cannot understand the Bill.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Of course I do!
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Under the Defence of the Realm Act, already passed, absolute powers are given to the Government to close any public-houses, and I understand that this Bill is not intended to limit the powers of the Government—although I believe it will—but to carry them further. I cannot therefore understand the suggestion of the hon. Baronet. Surely no case whatever has been made out why the Government should not accept the Amendment. The Captain Superintendent of the Clyde and other well-qualified authorities go a great deal further and suggest prohibition. There is no reasonable restriction that is required which cannot be effectively enforced under this Bill without the Government itself actually selling or supplying liquor. So far as the houses which are going to be taken over are concerned, I would distinguish, for a moment, between the case of the canteens put by the Attorney-General and the case of the other houses which are to be taken over and controlled. Take the case of a house outside certain works which it is proposed, under certain circumstances, to acquire and run. What objection is there to this house being placed under regulations, and to the present occupiers continuing their business under the restrictions which the Government think it right to lay down?
  1540
  When you are dealing with the question of compensation, surely it is a proper thing to suggest that the present owners, or occupiers of the premises should be allowed an opportunity of continuing to run the business, while the Government makes such provision as it thinks fit for any loss that may be sustained, such loss to be computed on the reduced takings. This so far as houses in the hands of the trade are concerned. The Attorney-General suggests it is necessary to go further, and he tells us the main purpose of the Bill is to establish canteens. Let me ask the House to consider, first, the position of Government works. I understand that the Government already has ample powers to establish canteens in their dockyards and workshops; indeed, in many cases they have already done it. Am I right in saying that?
  Sir J. SIMON: Certainly.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that they have ample powers already to deal with Government dockyards and workshops. We are now dealing with the cases of private firms. A question was asked in the House the other day whether this provision could not be made by private firms, and an illustration was taken in this particular instance from what was done in Germany. Although I do not suggest that that is an example we should necessarily follow in all respects, I should like at a time like this, when employers are earning such large profits in their works, to appeal to them to come forward and take their share by making some provision of this character. I believe that many would be willing to do it. It would not involve a very heavy burden, and it is appropriate to suggest that they should do it. If it is desired to go further, what objection is there to provision being made for giving all necessary powers to the employers to do this in their works, or in some suitable house immediately outside? I suggest to hon. Members that in the great majority of cases it will be possible to find licensed premises immediately outside the works which will be suitable to be turned into canteens under the control of the Government, while they remain in the hands of the present owners. As a matter of fact, there are too many licensed houses immediately around the works, and you could easily set up canteens outside the works in premises at present occupied by licensed owners. [An HON. MEMBER: "Disinterested management!"] No. I suggest

  1541
  that the restrictions which are laid down by the Government and enforced on the present holders of licensed premises are all that is necessary in this case. The Government should lay down their conditions and restrictions, and enforce them on the present holders. I sincerely hope that the House will consider seriously, before accepting the Bill in its present form, the desirability of limiting its provisions as suggested in the Amendment.
  Mr. RIGBY SWIFT: The Attorney-General, in replying on the Amendment, moved by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley, seemed to indicate that it had something to do with canteens.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: Please attribute the Amendment to the right quarter.
  Mr. RIGBY SWIFT: I should have said the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones). I apologise to both hon. Members. It seemed to be thought that the Amendment had something to do with the question of canteens, and I rather gathered that the last speaker was under the same impression. But, to my mind, in discussing this Amendment, we have nothing whatever to do with the question of canteens. This Amendment is directed at the first of the empowering Clauses of the Bill, and the question of canteens comes up quite separately in another part. I certainly should not oppose any suggestion the Government is making as to taking powers for selling or distributing intoxicating liquors in canteens which they think it necessary to put inside any works. They have provided in the Bill for doing that, and they have also expressly provided that they may do it without taking out any licence. I can see no objection to the adoption of that course. But in the part of the Bill to which this Amendment is directed they are seeking far wider powers than merely selling to workmen engaged in the manufacture of munitions inside the works. They are seeking powers to hold and run public-houses in any part of the country where they may think it necessary to do it, and they are not even asking this House to allow them to do it without being licensed, as in the case of canteens. I presume, and I shall continue to do so until I am told I am wrong by a higher authority, that a Government servant selling intoxicating liquors in an ordinary public-house would require to be licensed just like anybody else. If it is not so, I can only say that no provision has been made for that.
  1542
  Is the drink problem going to be helped in the slightest degree by converting the present licensed victuallers all over the country into Government servants, or by casting them out and putting Government servants into their places? Yet that is what this Bill enables to be done. I do not say it will be done. I should not think it would be done to any extent. I cannot conceive it being done to any very large extent. Still, the Government is asking power in the Clause to which this Amendment applies, not merely to control the sale of intoxicating liquors, not merely to to make regulations as to the sale of them, not merely to be allowed to distribute intoxicating liquors, along with food, to men working in munition factories—and to that I have no objection—but they are asking to be put in the position of the ordinary publican, in the ordinary public-house, and to be allowed to sell intoxicating liquors in the ordinary way. I hope that the Attorney-General, having separated in his mind these two questions, may see his way to agree to this Amendment. I trust that in this, as in other matters, we may arrive at some compromise which will avoid the necessity of taking a Division on this Amendment. I should be very loth indeed to give a vote, or to seem to acquiesce in any proposition which, in these days of emergency and crisis, would have the effect of turning the State into the owner of licensed public-houses.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: It is very desirable, in discussing this extremely important portion of the Bill, that we should clearly distinguish between two questions—one which is raised, and one which is not—and I will say, with all respect to the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire and to the hon. Member for Stockton—
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: The point was also raised by the Attorney-General.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait a minute. He does not know what I am going to say. I was remarking that he and the hon. Member for Lanarkshire had been discussing a question which is not raised by this Amendment, and, although he interjected that the same thing was done by the Attorney-General, that does not do away with the fact that the discussion was proceeding on wrong lines, although it may constitute some excuse for confusing the two points. But let us get back to a discussion of the real issue. The provision of canteens in works is not the question at issue

  1543
  in this particular part of the Clause. We are now discussing how we can best deal with the liquor traffic in the areas outside works devoted to the manufacture of munitions, as well as in military centres, and also—and to my mind this is especially important—in ports. There are two things you can do. One is to prohibit the sale and thereby remove the temptation; but, although I agree very largely with those who wish that to be done, I must admit that what we have to discuss at this moment is what is practicable, and, with all my desire in the direction of prohibition, I realise it to be an obvious fact that you cannot now have anything like widespread prohibition throughout these areas. You would defeat your own object if you attempted to do anything of the kind, and you certainly would not get the output of munitions which it is the desire of all of us to obtain. Therefore, I say, that anything like widespread prohibition is impracticable. Some control under stringent regulations is, however, admitted to be necessary.
  How are you going to provide it? The Government are taking powers which will enable them to close a certain number of houses. I have no doubt they would do so, but that would still leave a number of other houses easily accessible to the men, and unless you have very stringent control of the remaining houses which are open only a little further away, you will be defeated in your object. What are you going to do with these houses? You cannot effectively control them unless you are practically the actual masters of them. We have had all kinds of legislation and regulations for the control of public-houses. I ventured to say only yesterday that if the present law were enforced with regard to drinking the condition of things would be very different from what it is; but being in the position you are with the trade in existence, with men whose business and livelihood depends upon it and who are bound therefore to push the trade as business men, it follows that, as long as you have those conditions, your regulations will be evaded. You cannot possibly help it. The Government suggestion is halfway between universal prohibition and leaving the trade to run alone. They ask power, where necessary, to take over these houses, to make the men serving in them Government servants for the time being, and to keep them under Government control. I am satisfied that, except under
  1544
  the conditions enacted here, you will not get the control you desire. This is altogether apart from what you may do afterwards. Our good Friends here are so frightfully sensitive, so very anxious to prevent something which they dislike, that they are often found preventing things which would be very useful. But I feel you will have to give the Government this power if you are to exercise that real control which is necessary, without attempting to go in for anything like total prohibition, which would, I feel sure, result in a revulsion of feeling against you. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) suggested that the trade might be found very profitable. That is raising future issues. I would remind him in this connection that it was in Russia, where they did prohibit and where they derived such a large revenue, that they ignored the revenue. Therefore the suggestion of the hon. Baronet amounts to this, that the people here are not so patriotic and sensible, but are more selfish than the people of Russia. My fears do not run in that direction. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) suggested something about the military officer being put on duty in public houses, I presume to watch the publican and the trade.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: If it is necessary.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: That would not be an excellent arrangement. It would lead to considerable difficulty, and would be much resented by working men. It is a very different thing from carrying out regulations after a local vote or an expression of local opinion. This is not the time for that kind of thing. We are legislating under war conditions and at times when we are liable to friction and difficulty. We do not want to rouse severe controversy and difficulty in the localities. Therefore I suggest that we should do well to give the Government this power, because it is essential to the control they desire.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: The speech of the Attorney-General rather suggested that it was intended to supersede entirely all other supply or sale of liquor, except in canteens. Unless that speech is modified I shall be very much inclined to agree with the Amendment to strike out the words "selling or supplying." Although undoubtedly canteens are very desirable things, and I should be only too glad to see them at all the works with

  1545
  which I am connected, because you cannot have them to too great an extent, yet supposing you have canteens near the works, or, say, near the Liverpool Docks, are you going to establish half a mile away a number of canteens, or will the people there have to walk the half-mile to the canteen, or are the canteens to be established in the rest of the locality? If the Government get the power which they have of controlling the sale, the best thing they can do is to make use, as far as possible, of the facilities which now exist. Have control as much as you like, and keep that control in such a way that the moment you find a house is not doing its duty you can close it, but when you establish the principle of yourself selling and supplying, what will be the effect? Selling and supplying with canteens means closing the houses. The first thing you do is to render a number of honest men who are doing their duty very anxious about their livelihood. If canteens are to supersede these houses, these men will go out of employment. They will not necessarily be taken on for the canteens, and you will have to arrange to compensate the people for the loss of employment. You might put into the canteens men who are not so expert in their work as those who are now employed. An important point is, whose beer are you going to buy when you sell and supply. When I heard the speech of my hon. Friend below me (Sir G. Younger) and heard that he agreed with this proposal, I thought he must have made a nice little arrangement with the Government.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not rise to make any remark about that, but to point out to my hon. Friend that he entirely misunderstood what I said about the Attorney-General's speech on this subject. I do not think he is representing the Attorney-General's speech accurately at all, or that he said anything like that.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I thought the hon. Gentleman said that he came from the brewers, and that they were absolutely satisfied.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I did not say that.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I understood you to say that.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I said the Government control.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: The hon. Baronet said that the trade and the
  1546
  brewers were satisfied, and an hon. Member on my right heard the same thing. We were rather surprised that he should say so, because we did not know upon what system the Government were going to select the brewers from whom they were to get their supplies. Giving them the power of selling and supplying raises a very difficult question. If the canteen business is to supersede the other houses, it means that you close the other houses. To which brewery are you then going? Many of these houses are attached to breweries which are not in the area which is going to be dealt with. Many of them may be attached to the Burton brewery, and many of them in Liverpool may be attached to the Warrington brewery. Are you going to say you will buy your beer only from breweries in the area? If so, the breweries outside that area will have their property confiscated, because, as appears from the Bill, the compensation is to be limited to the area.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: No.
  Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: If my hon. Friend will look at the next page he will see it is confined to the area, and that there is no compensation payable in respect of those breweries which are outside the area. If the Amendment to strike out "selling or supplying" goes to a Division, I shall certainly vote for it. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division put the case very fairly, not at all from the teetotaler's point of view, but from a purely business point of view when he said that selling and supplying should not, and must not be in the hands of the Government. It means a lot of jobbery. The selection of employés, brewers, and wine and spirit merchants is a most undesirable thing for the Government to undertake. When the Government are taking powers of complete control and power to establish canteens—with which I am thoroughly in accord, and I will do my best to urge their use wherever I can—they should use existing interests and pay as little compensation as possible, and should keep those already in the trade still there to carry it on, and thus do what we are all agreed should be done, namely, deal fairly and rightly with the various interests involved.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am a little astonished at some of the speeches made from the benches around me. When the Bill was before us on a previous occasion, I ventured to support the Motion that the consideration of the Second Reading should

  1547
  be adjourned, and I was surrounded for the time being by howling remonstrances from a good many Members who are now getting up and making Second Reading speeches directed against this Bill. I quite see the purport of this Amendment. It is no use hon. Members getting up to ask why these words are in the Bill. This is a deal between the two Front Benches. When I supported the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) in his motion for an adjournment for a few days, I said then that if the Debate were adjourned it would be seen that there would be a large amount of opposition manifesting itself. The Prime Minister saw fit to differ from me. As on some other occasions when the Front Bench have differed from me, I proved to be correct. I knew exactly what would occur. I complained that the voice of the teetotalers had not been heard in the land. We are hearing it to-day. Strange to say, it was not heard very frequently on the Second Reading of the Bill, where it ought to have been heard. I should have voted with them if they had gone to a vote against the Second Reading, but I cannot understand why there should be a unanimous Second Reading of the Bill, and then hon. Members should try to defeat its foundation principle. It is quite true the foundation principle is a bad one, but it was agreed to unanimously.
  I am more than astonished that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker), whom I have often heard in my youth on temperance platforms, laying down the law and waxing eloquent on the devilish and destructive drink traffic, should support this Clause on the ground of disinterested management. The whole object of the Bill is interested management. We are told by the Government that it is necessary for a critical object that they must have the power to buy and sell their own beer. That is interested, and not disinterested, management. The Government are going to be publicans and bar-tenders. Why should they not invent a cocktail? Why should we not have a new "Cabinet Cocktail" or a "Temperance Government Gin," or "Haldane's Lager of real German taste," or "Wines from McKinnon Wood," or anything else? That is what the Clause is for. They are to have the power of selling or supplying, and if you take those words out the Bill is gone. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] Certainly
  1548
  that is so. I do not mind voting for them to go out, because I do not think this Bill will do much for the munitions of war—it will certainly not make for an increase of 1 per cent. If you carry this Amendment, you will be like vetoing the Second Reading. You can now control the sale and supply, because, in that respect, the present Act gives as great powers as this Bill gives. The Government can put a man in khaki in every public-house where it is suggested that men are loitering. They could have done that under the present Act six months ago. Directly the trouble began they ought to have nipped it at once, and they could have done it with courage. Any officer in khaki who had seen the workmen sitting down drinking could have persuaded them to go to work, but could have been given ample power to arrest a man who was acting against the rules, and arrangements could have been made for the supply of Bovril and other beverages and sandwiches. What they cannot do under the existing Act is to act as purveyors and publicans. The Government have set their minds on that. It is true that the whole of the party have to turn round.
  Mr. PRINGLE: No.
  Mr. BOOTH: Well, practically the temperance supporters must.
  Mr. PRINGLE: No.
  Mr. BOOTH: I remember a very keen contest in this House in which the hon. Member (Mr. Pringle) took part on the Scottish Temperance Bill when these very questions were discussed, and the Government stood firm against them.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Not very firm.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. BOOTH: I know that, after a great deal of wobbling, they eventually stood firm, and went round and told the hon. Member and others that they would make it a question of confidence in the Government and that the Government would stand or fall upon the question. While the hon. Member was busy in the House, the emissaries of the Government were interviewing me in order to induce me to appeal to my hon. Friends on the ground that the Bill would be wrecked. I remember the occasion very well. A distinguished Colonial Governor at that time was supposed to be his chief mentor. What is the position now? It is that the whole of the supporters of this Government are to vote for this Clause in order

  1549
  that they may act as publicans and stand behind bars. There is no doubt about it. It may be right, but, at any rate, let us know what we are doing. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do it, but I do not think he will do it by innuendo, but will do it direct. He will not pretend that it is something else. My right hon. Friend fancies himself as the manager of these houses—at any rate upon the Tyne and the Clyde—and I dare say he can do it a good deal better than the trade. The hon. Baronet opposite thinks he can.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not. I deny that.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am not surprised at the rebuke of the hon. Member (Mr. Swift). Actually we have the champions of the trade in this House appealing to the Government to come in and manage their own business because they can do it better. I do not know how the hon. Member can reconcile that to his conscience. He may reconcile it to his pocket.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: That is a most offensive remark. I have nothing whatever to do with it.
  Mr. BOOTH: I will certainly withdraw the remark. I mean that I do not think he can defend it upon the ground of loyalty to his trade. He may defend it for financial reasons—I do not mean personally to himself. I hope the hon. Baronet will accept it that I am withdrawing any reference to himself personally. With regard to the trade, I do not see how they can reconcile that with their advocacy that they are the people who know this business and know how to manage houses. If that be so, why did they so readily give them up to an authority that is ill-defined? I see very great danger in that. The one great danger is political. They are only willing to do it because they have been met on the point of compensation. That is the whole secret. If the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Swift) can speak for very many Members of his party he will get a certain amount of support on this side I do not think the time is ripe for the Government, in the midst of a great war, to plunge so very far into this drink business, and I think they have had a warning in the discussion to-night. I am hoping to hear from the Government an assurance of a different character. If they will say they are not going to plunge into it in this wholesale manner, but are going to administer this simply and solely from
  1550
  the standpoint of munitions of war, it puts a very different construction on it, but that has not been the debate in the House. Hon. Members who have spoken on both sides have not been taking that line at all. They have been discussing it simply and solely with regard to its effect upon the habits of the people and upon the trade, and if it is going to be administered from any standpoint such as that I think the Government will be in a great deal of trouble. But if the Government are to have the Bill at all it is no use stripping it down to mere control, which they have in the legislation already-passed Either we are going to trust them over this experiment or not.
  One warning in closing. I want to know how this legislation is going to be administered from the political standpoint. It is all very well to say it is important whose beer they buy. It is very important whom they put into the house or the canteen as managers, and if they are going to be nominated by Members of Parliament or by people who have a political interest we are in for colossal trouble. That is the one reason why I shrink from any national dealing with the question. The Leader of the Opposition told us that this was a huge Bill. It would deal with a very large part of the country, and I want to know, when it comes to appointing managers of public-houses, will they be politically nominated? Will a political Government have the power to nominate these people, or shall we have some independent board, like the Road Board, stepping in between? If they are to be political appointments I consider it will lead straight to disaster. I know that some of my hon. Friends on this side say that from the party point of view there will be improvement and that there may be a chance under this scheme of getting more favourable management. I am generally opposed to that. I shall be very sorry if one single man can be appointed to any one of these houses simply because he has political sympathy with the Government, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend to assure us that in this very complicated question he will see that no political consideration will ever apply to the management of these houses.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think my hon. Friend has been addressing himself rather to a great scheme of nationalisation. That is not the proposal here at all. This is a proposal merely to obtain complete control in munitions and transport areas

  1551
  during the period of the War where necessary. He asked me whether it was intended for that purpose alone. That is undoubtedly the purpose. Had it not been urgently necessary that we should establish this complete control, I can assure him that, in all the enormous responsibilities and burdens which are cast upon us, we should never have touched it, and I assure him also that I should not have proceeded with it in the face of all the difficulties and perplexities of which the drink question is always the centre had it not been that we are firmly convinced that we must have this complete control; otherwise we cannot be responsible for the successful conduct of the War. Some of my hon. Friends have objected to the words "selling or supplying." If they object to that and it is struck out, I say frankly that the Bill is no more. If the House of Commons took the same view, I should certainly at once withdraw the Bill. Either the House of Commons will allow us to make provision for the adequate reasonable refreshments for the men in these districts or they might as well withdraw the Bill altogether. I am fully alive to all the conscientious suggestions which my hon. Friends urge, but the idea that you are not to touch the unclean thing when, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer we are touching £60,000,000 and to that extent relieving the duties on tea, sugar, and everything else, I have never been able to appreciate. You will not touch it direct, but as long as it goes through the refining fires of the Exchequer you can take it. That is an argument which I do not care to describe. I am not going into that at all. We are proceeding with this scheme on the grounds of absolute urgent necessity during the War. The Bill comes to an end as soon as the War is over. It is purely a war measure. If we simply have control we have no power to make provision for supplying adequate refreshments in these areas, the Bill is perfectly worthless, and I hope my hon. Friends, after having made this protest, will not press it beyond that particular point. I can assure them that if they do they are accepting a very serious responsibility. The emergency is a grave one—we know how grave it is, and expedition is so vital—I hesitate to say how very vital it is, but any man who will look at the circumstances of the last few days will know for himself what it all means, and any man who impedes any measure which on due reflection is thought to be necessary in order to help
  1552
  along munitions of war and the transport of troops and material, is accepting a responsibility which I certainly should be very sorry to share with him. I hope the Committee will allow us to get this authority and not take the responsibility of destroying the measure.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, rendered a service to the Committee by calling our attention to the real gravity of the case and bringing us back to what is indeed the real subject matter of our Debate and away from theories which we shall have plenty of time to argue, discuss and quarrel about when the War is over but which we cannot afford to discuss and quarrel about now. If I had had any doubt about the course I was to take before the right hon. Gentleman spoke, I should have no doubt now. After such a statement as he has made with the responsibility which falls upon him as a Minister, and with the knowledge which is partially shared by all as to the urgency of the problem, as to which he has a knowledge much greater and much more immediate than any of us can possibly possess, I cannot believe that the House will refuse to him a power which he presses for with such urgency. Let me make one other observation. There have been discussed on this Amendment two questions which some people have said were the same and some have said were perfectly distinct, but which are at any rate related. The question we are immediately discussing is whether the Government should have power to supply and sell liquor in the licensed houses which they have taken over and the question which is related is whether they should be able to establish a canteen in which to supply liquor. I understand that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment wishes to have the public-house and the canteen discussed separately, but proposes to move an Amendment to refuse the Government the power to supply liquor in canteens, when he comes to the canteens, just as he now proposes to refuse them the power to supply in a licensed house.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I have that Amendment on the Paper, but I submit that it really has no relevancy to the sole question raised by this Amendment, whether the sale and supply of liquor in the house is to be Government sale and supply, or whether the Government are to be content with the power which they already have of allowing the sale and supply of liquor in places which they control.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was right in my facts though the hon. Member thinks I am wrong in my inference. On that point I submit myself to the Committee. If the question be not the same, there is relevance in it. The proposal of the hon. Member when completed is that neither in public-house nor in canteen shall the Government sell any liquor, but that is not the policy which commends itself to some of those who were inclined to support the hon. Member on this particular Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir T. Whittaker), if I understood him rightly, said he agreed with the hon. Member about canteens but differed from him on public-houses.
  Sir T. WHITTAKER: Canteens in works.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Canteens in works. He differed from him about public-houses. The Member for one of the Divisions for Liverpool took the opposite view. He did not like to see the Government selling liquor in a licensed house, but he was quite prepared to see them selling it in a canteen without licence. I confess that to my less acute mind the moral aspect of the question is the same in both cases, and the practical question is the same also. If it is permissible for the Government under the special circumstances of the case to do it in one case, it is permissible for them to do it in the other. The practical difficulties which my hon. Friend (Sir J. Harmood-Banner) spoke of are not slight; he put them very fairly. The practical difficulties are very great, but if they are insuperable in the case of a licensed house, they are insuperable in the case of the canteens. If I understand the proposals of the Government rightly, my hon. Friend was mistaken in a material point. He thought that if you interfere with the brewer's trade in a particular house which you take over by buying the beer from another brewer you cannot compensate the brewer for loss of his trade under this Bill unless the brewer himself has his brewery within the scheduled area. I do not so read the Bill. I think that is contrary to every declaration of policy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made, and my hon. Friend will find that the Government will confirm me, and that it is their intention and that they have the power to compensate for the trade which is lost by every interest.
  If that is cleared up, then I submit to my hon. Friend that if there be reasons sufficient for doing this thing at all, we
  1554
  have got to face those difficulties. The difficulties of deciding from whom you are going to buy your beer, and from whom you are going to buy your spirits, will arise as much in the case of the canteen as in the case of the licensed house, and I submit that it would really be absurd to say to the Government, "You may close a public-house which stands just outside the gates of some great works, you may establish just inside the gates of this great works a canteen in which you may sell liquor under conditions and regulations which you lay down, but you may not use the public-house which stands outside to supply the wants of those inside." I hope I have done nothing to carry the discussion away from the real issue raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or to invite the Committee again to go into questions which are of great importance and which divide us, no doubt, profoundly, but which, I think, are not really material at this moment, when our whole object is to provide a temporary remedy for a temporary evil, the urgency of dealing with which no one can deny, after listening to such an appeal as that just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: No one could listen to the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer without feeling the responsibility of pressing this Amendment. Certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought his very heaviest artillery to bear—the War, the national peril, and so on. Both the Chancellor and the Attorney-General, in speaking on this Amendment, have absolutely refrained from saying one word in defence of the merits of the proposals of the Government. The Attorney-General's speech, if I may say so, almost made it appear to me that he really did not understand the effect of the Amendment. It was some time before the House realised what was the real issue raised by the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared that it is absolutely necessary that the Government should have the right to sell and supply liquor themselves, not to sanction the sale and supply by others, not to regulate the sale and supply by others, not to limit or enlarge the sale and supply by others, but he has declared, on his authority as representing the Government, that it is absolutely necessary that the Government should sell and supply their own liquor. Why? Not one single reason has been given. Are we not entitled to have a reason? This does

  1555
  cut across the deepest convictions, and are not we entitled, before laying aside those convictions and turning our backs on the past record of the Government, to have some reason why this sale of liquor by the Government is absolutely necessary? I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for an answer, He may say: How can you run the canteen unless the Government can supply them with liquor. There are many canteens in the country now, and in not one of them do the Government supply liquor. [Ministerial indications of dissent.] Do not they contract out? I think in practically every case it is done by contracts with traders.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Does my hon. Friend consider that where the Government set up a canteen and supply through a contractor that that is not supplying liquor. Is that his view?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Not at all. Had the right hon. Gentleman been here he would have known that that was not my view. I have pointed out that in most cases where the Government are dealing with canteens they are not selling food there. It is not Government food. In most cases it is food that is contracted for.
  Sir J. SIMON: What is the moral difference?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I am not raising the moral issue. I think it very undesirable that the Government should supply liquor themselves.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am trying to get to know what is the view of my hon. Friend. Does my hon. Friend object to the Government selling direct, and will his objection be removed if we let it out by contract to somebody else?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Part of my objection will be removed. The hon. Member for Liverpool gives very good reasons for his views. I do not think the Government are fit to go into this liquor business. I think it is the most dangerous and difficult business in the world, and I do not like my right hon. Friend to become a purveyor of liquor in the country. Moreover, I do not understand the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) admitting that the trade is so incompetent.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I said nothing of the sort. Perhaps I had better explain my
  1556
  position, because it appears to have been misunderstood both by the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. My view is this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer met a deputation from the trade at which I was present. He told them that the Government ought to have control of these areas and control of the drinking facilities there, and he said he proposed to take over the particular licensed houses in those areas and to compensate every interest. There was no trader there who did not dislike the proposals, but they thought for patriotic reasons that they were bound to accept what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was necessary, and it is because of that that I said that I would vote against an Amendment which would destroy the Bill.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I am not sure even now that I understand the position of the hon. Baronet, whether he bows to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or whether he thinks the Government can carry on the business better than the present men do. I submit that no argument directly on the merits of the Government case have been addressed to the House, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend now to tell me the reasons why the Government themselves should go into this trade instead of controlling it from above. Why should they go into it as partners instead of ruling it as the country has ruled it for four hundred years with a strong hand from above? I cannot withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I regret very much that my hon. Friend has not seen his way to withdraw this Amendment. I thought that when he and his Friends accepted the Second Reading of this Bill that they were willing to do violence to certain very strong opinions which they hold in order to preserve the unity of the country for dealing with this great national emergency. I thought that on the Second Reading of the Bill they had accepted this principle, and that, under the special circumstances now prevailing, the Government would be allowed—first, to sell and supply as it is proposed in this Sub-section, and, secondly, to set up canteens as is proposed in a later Sub-section. Now, however, I find that my hon. Friend and certain other Members have reserved their opinions upon this matter. It seems to me somewhat difficult to understand the principles of this objection. My hon. Friend is quite

  1557
  prepared to allow the Government to let the supplying of these canteens to contractors and the contractors are to be allowed to sell, but the Government itself is not to be allowed to sell. That is surely an extraordinary refinement of principle on the part of my hon. Friend. We have heard a great deal as to the general principle underlying this proposal.
  Remembering certain actions which I have taken in support of this principle in the past, I welcome the attitude which the Government have taken up at the present time, and I am glad to find converts to that principle sitting on the Front Bench in the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) and in my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate (Mr. Munro). Holding the views which I do, I think that the proposal put forward by the Government both in this Sub-section and the proposal for setting up canteens can be defended on their merits, and if the defence of their merits had not been entered into at length in Committee this afternoon it has not been for want of a defence of the merits, but simply from a desire to obtain a speedy passage of this measure without any unnecessary controversy. The defence of the merits is simply this, that if it is necessary to continue this trade it can be continued with less harm to the public when there is no private motive in pushing the sale, as under Government management, than when a private motive exists in the trade, as in the case of the private licensee. That is a very simple principle and I did think that the lesson of last Thursday would have sunk into the minds of my hon. Friends when it was made obvious in this House that the one great obstacle to a comprehensive dealing with the liquor traffic in this country was the existence of the vast private interests of the trade. Having had that object lesson, I should have thought that there would be a tendency to modify even the most strongly preconceived opinions and to take also a lesson from the action of Russia, which shows there what we cannot see in this country, strong drastic action being taken in regard to the trade because the Government alone were concerned and no private interests had to be consulted.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I certainly hope that in the few words that I shall address to the Committee I shall help to get this matter settled and not to raise controversy. The hon. Gentleman who moved
  1558
  this Amendment has complained that no reason has been given for the particular proposal to which he objects. It is perhaps rather difficult for those of us who, like the hon. Member who has just sat down and myself—at all events it is true of myself—who have always been of the opinion that the only real chance of temperance reform in this country is some system of disinterested management, to put ourselves in the position of the hon. Gentleman who has always opposed that, and therefore to see as he sees and to judge the proposal solely on the ground of necessity. In other words, the fact that some of us like the proposal makes it more difficult for us to sympathise with the objections of those who thoroughly dislike it. We have no right to urge the Government to carry out their proposals because we like the principle. In the same way, I am prepared to say to the hon. Member and his Friends that they have no right to object to the proposal, if it is good in this particular emergency, because they object to the principle. I would like further to say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, if I may do so without offence, that one of the things that strike me constantly in this House is the length to which at all times my hon. Friends and myself are compelled to sacrifice our principles in the general emergency of the position in which we stand. And yet we constantly find on small questions that the supporters of the Government will not trust the Government. I do not think that that is right.
  In my belief the real justification for pressing this particular proposal is this, that without it you might as well have no Bill at all. I will tell the Committee why. One of the things which have been made perfectly plain in all the discussions about the drink evil is this, that the evil is not entirely due to the supplying of drink, but that it is due also to the want of facilities for the supplying of food which should be taken at the same time. What is the principle on which the Government are acting? They are setting out to meet with this difficulty and to supply food as well as drink. How are they to do it? The whole principle of the Bill is to set up a Board of Management to carry on that business. Would anyone who was looking at the thing on its merits as a practical proposal think that this managing committee is to be set up to supply food, and that they are to have all the machinery to buy food and sell it, but that whenever it comes to drink they are to be helpless, and that they will have to go

  1559
  hunting round for somebody else, and say, "at what price will you undertake the sale of drink in this canteen, or whatever it is?" That is the ground on which we must allow the Government to have this proposal. It is the only practicable way of dealing with this measure, so that the same general committee which controls the supply of food should also control the supply of drink.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has made a really helpful speech. If that is exactly what the Government mean, and no more than that, then a great deal of what I have said would fall to the ground. Would the Government accept that statement of their position?
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: May I make one more appeal to my hon. Friend below me, from a point of view quite different from that which the right hon. Gentleman has urged? Any proposal to give the Government or the country the power to supply and to provide intoxicating liquor is to me, as it is to many Members of this House, exceedingly distasteful. But I do agree with the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman made a minute ago. We are bound, more bound on this side of the House than hon. Members are on that side, to trust this Government in a time of emergency when they ask for powers in the way in which they do in this Bill. I appeal to my hon Friend for this particular reason, that if he goes to a Division the result of that Division must be to strengthen the opinions which are against him and to weaken those which he holds, because many of us who dislike this method, and who only accept it in an emergency, and during a war period, will be obliged to give a vote which will strengthen that view permanently and weaken the one for which my hon. Friend stands. Therefore, in the interests of fair play for his views when peace comes I respectfully urge him not to put this House to a Division.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I should not have risen were it not for the charge made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] He said that while Members on his side of the House sacrificed their private views in order to support the policy of the Government, hon. Members below the Gangway on this side have sought to embarrass the Government. The importance which attaches to this Clause in the
  1560
  mind of the Government is due to the fact that the Government were defeated on a wider scheme, which was opposed by the Leader of the Opposition from the other side of the House, and consequently it is necessary for the Government to stand by this Clause and promise the country something as they have been doing. But it does not lie with the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion to make such a charge as that which he has made.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: At the present moment I cannot take the House to a Division. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I beg to propose, in Sub-section (b), to leave out the words "and either."
  In dealing with the point raised yesterday on the Second Reading, as to the permanent acquisition of houses, and in moving to leave out these words "and either," I presume that that raises the whole question of the omission of the word "permanent" which comes up later on. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made very merry at my expense yesterday, because he said that he thought that I should have been only too glad to buy up public-houses and close them permanently at the end of the War, and he could not therefore understand my backsliding in refusing to accept a permanent settlement of this matter. I know my right hon. Friend well, and I know that he is most dangerous when he is happy and when he has got a victim at whom he can poke fun as he did yesterday at me, I must say to my own enjoyment as well as of that of the rest of the House. I know that at such moments as those the Chancellor of the Exchequer needs most careful watching. He said that he was surprised that I do not welcome prohibitioin at the end of the War. Is that what he means? Is he only going to buy up houses in order to prohibit them? If he will give me a pledge that he is not going to carry on trade after the War in any house which he buys up, that would in some degree modify my objection. I object strongly to buy any article unless I know what I am getting, what is the price which I have to pay, and what is to be done with the article when I have got it. I submit to my right hon. Friend that we do not know what we are going to buy, or what is the price to be

  1561
  paid, or what is to be done with what we have bought when we have bought it.
  Will my right hon. Friend answer me one or two simple questions? Is he going to buy up licensed values only? Or is he going to buy up houses and property? Or is he going to buy up breweries, and the right of manufacturing the liquor therein? I must point out to my right hon. Friend that in this matter he ought not to be the man to accuse me of backsliding. I turn again to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman which has always been an inspiration and a delight to me, and which was delivered a few years ago. This is the language used by my right hon. Friend on this very question after the defeat of Mr. Goschen's compensation proposals. [An HON MEMBER: "How long ago?"] Twenty-five years ago. My right hon. Friend has no reason to regret his words, and the House I am sure will enjoy hearing them now. He said:—
  "I do not understand the compensation question. I am not a man of the world. I do not know its ways. I do not profess to understand its principles."
  Mr. R. McNEILL: He is wiser now.
  Mr. LIEF JONES:
  "I am a simple Welsh lad, taught, ever since I first learned to lisp the accents of my wild tongue, that whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. This traffic having sown destruction and death, must reap for itself a fruitful harvest of desolation and ruin."
  The simple Welsh lad of that occasion spoke as eloquently as the powerful Minister to-day, and I think more truly. I cannot help wondering whether my right hon. Friend at this very moment may not be murmuring to himself the words of the poet Hood:—
  "And now, 'tis little joy
  To know I'm further off from Heaven
  Than when I was a boy."
  I am still where the simple Welsh lad was twenty-five years ago. I do not want to buy out this liquor traffic. I think that we in this country ought never to be put in the position of having to buy out the liquor traffic. At any rate, personally I do not want to buy out the liquor traffic. Therefore I ask that my right hon. Friend should not have raised this grave issue on this emergency measure. Let him be content to take the emergency powers which he has got for the period of the War and for twelve months afterwards, and not ask us to sanction the permanent acquisition of this trade. I think that my right hon. Friend might meet me upon this point in particular, having got his way so far as the emergency powers are concerned. I am well aware of the difficulty
  1562
  put yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, but I think that he will admit that it is not insuperable. It is said that the houses will be altered while the Government are in possession, that they will have their trade destroyed—that is the very object of it—and that at the end of the time there will be nothing to hand back to the traders. I am afraid that that is not true. Even a new licence in these districts would have a very large monopoly value at any time, and the value of that new licence will always be in the house even though it has been altered. Therefore it is not the case that although you might have done a certain amount of injury to a certain class of traders in this country you will have really destroyed the value of these houses for their purposes. I only want to impress upon my right hon. Friend that this is not the time in which to engage in liquor purchase, and that he should limit in every possible way the power which he is taking, and I would ask him to limit it if possible to the period of the War.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In reference to the concluding words of my hon. Friend, as to limiting during the period of the War the amount of capital expenditure as much as possible, I agree with him, but I think that the use of the word "permanent" is not at all inconsistent with that object. We shall only purchase what is actually necessary for the purpose we have in view. Supposing we have to acquire premises and we have to pay twice as much for them as you would pay by acquiring the whole interest and selling them at the end of the War, it would be better to take over possession and pay for them. After all, these matters must be considered from a business point of view. We might lose money heavily if we simply have power to obtain the premises temporarily, and it might be better to buy up the business and the whole of the premises, lock, stock and barrel, and be in the position to sell again at the end of the War. I want my hon. Friend to realise that under this Bill we cannot permanently acquire premises to trade. We might want to acquire premises which are not licensed premises at all, but which might be the best place for the establishment of a refreshment room. This applies to licensed houses. My hon. Friend says that we should not acquire permanently, but that we should acquire temporarily. That might be bad business from the point of view of the Government, and unfair to the

  1563
  man who sells, to buy, break up and tear to pieces the premises, and then at the end of the War say, "Here you are, take back your premises, and we will pay you compensation." He would say that we had actually destroyed his premises for the purpose for which he would be able to use them, and that we had destroyed his business. It would not be fair to the man himself and it would not be good business for the Government.
  Therefore, in some cases, it would be infinitely better to purchase out-and-out than to acquire temporarily. The thing my hon. Friend wants to be assured about is that we are not purchasing for trade purposes. We cannot do that under the Bill. If you look at the terms of the Bill you will see that we cannot possibly do it. I really think that he is unduly alarmed about it. He quoted some lines and referred to what I said a quarter of a century ago, but I can assure him that if he looks back at what has happened since then, and the progress that has been made, he will see that in proceeding along the road to heaven one is very apt to be shillelaghed on the way. I trust that my hon Friend will realise the difficulties which beset this question; we have to settle all sorts of interests. Everybody is agreed that somehow or other you must put a stop to excessive drinking, but it must not be the particular liquor that they are interested in; it must not touch the particular interest with which they are concerned, whether it is great or small. The thing ought to be done, but of every conceivable way of doing it you must not take some particular one. That is really quite impossible. The difficulties are not coming from the trade; I have said so once before. I have been met in the fairest possible manner by representatives of the trade, and they have not interposed insuperable obstacles. My greatest difficulties have been with those who have fixed ideas, and who think that in these munition areas it would be better to allow things to continue as they are than that we should depart in the slightest degree from those fixed ideas. I ask my hon. Friend on this occasion to realise that it is not good business to deprive the Government of the power to acquire premises permanently and to sell them again at the end of the War. If they acquire temporarily, at the end of the War they have nothing to sell and they might lose money. We should have full power
  1564
  in these cases to acquire temporarily or otherwise, and that would be undoubtedly fair to those who have to sell.
  Mr. CHAMBERLIAN: I agree with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, and I only want to say one word of caution to him. I think this is a business matter, and that we should regard it as a business transaction, taking premises temporarily, paying compensation, or buying them right out and not paying any compensation. You can conceive that this is not a very simple problem when you come to consider what these cases will be. Take the case of licensed houses which you want to close. You want to close some of them temporarily; you can close them without taking over the premises permanently, and then compensate. It may be that when the place is closed you hand the owner over the house at the end of twelve or eighteen months; in the meantime you have destroyed his goodwill, you have driven his trade from that district into other channels, and your compensation to him will not stop at the moment you return the house to him. You have got to compensate him for the necessity which he will be under to work up again the goodwill which you have destroyed. The hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones) will see that this is perfectly true.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I do see that perfectly. I quite see that at the end of the period there might be a difference in the value of the house from what it was when taken over. My point was that it was better to pay that difference in compensation than acquire the property permanently. I must confess, however, that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said has somewhat modified my view.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be of economic application to cases of which we do not know the facts. I would express the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not buy premises unless he feels that it is necessary, but I want him to have the power, other things being equal, to acquire properties, but the Government should not lay down money to acquire them unless it is necessary, and the less you have to buy the better it will be. I hope therefore, from a business point of view, that power will be given in those cases where, as a business proposition, it is clearly better to buy right out than to hold them temporarily and pay compensation.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: If the right hon. Gentleman really expresses the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), after the word "licensed" ["any licensed or other premises"], to insert the word "business."
  I should like to see that word introduced into the Bill. The premises generally belong to one man and the actual licensed business belongs to another. I should hope that it might be more desirable to buy his business, and not in the least necessary to buy his premises at all.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should have thought that the words as they stand give full power to buy under those conditions.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: You have to buy the license business, and there is no power, so far as I can see, under which you can buy the license without buying the premises.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The words are "licensed or other premises in the area or any interest therein." If those words do not cover the premises, I will look into the matter, which is rather a legal point.
  Sir R. ADKINS: Where the premises are bought it may be that the Government will carry on some business during the period of the War, and it may be where the premises are bought out and out that they are no longer licensed premises, and the licensing authorities will have to license them afresh.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In that case, of course, we should have to pay compensation for the full value.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I rather doubt, though the right hon. Gentleman's opinion is as good as mine, whether the words of the Sub-section would cover the license of business.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Unless we acquire the business as well, then it is no good, and therefore it is clear that the word must be put in, if that is not already covered. I will undertake to consult the law officers, in order to see whether the word should be inserted.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I am merely trying to limit your responsibility.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I beg to move, in paragraph (c) to leave out the words, ("including, if thought fit, the supply of intoxicating liquor").
  7.0 P.M.
  This raises the question of the supply of liquor in canteens, which the Government are to open. It does seem strange in fighting against an evil of this kind to adopt the homœopathic treatment of giving small doses. I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider the other Amendments which are on the Paper. There is one Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire East (Mr. Cowan) which provides that spirits shall not be supplied in these canteens. There is another proposal by an hon. Member (Mr. Raffan) which suggests that you should have a dry canteen alongside a wet canteen, and that 50 per cent. of the houses should be dry as against 50 per cent. of wet houses. That consideration is also worthy of my right hon. Friend's consideration. I venture to think that a great deal of drinking which goes on is due to the fact that there are not coffee or tea houses where the people can obtain tea or coffee. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider that proposal, and by no means to suppose that the Government is to sell intoxicating liquor in all the houses.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The suggestions made by my hon. Friend are worthy of consideration and acceptance, but not in the Bill, as I think it would pin us down too much. We hope to make an arrangement to induce bodies which have very successfully coped with difficulties of this kind to set up canteens. I can see how very important it is that you should give alternatives and attractive alternatives, and I have great hopes that they will be so, and very well done, and will succeed in those areas. But I think to deprive us of the power of selling intoxicating liquor would be to defeat its own object; it would drive men to go outside the area and we would lose their services altogether. There are many of them who would be perfectly satisfied if they knew they could get the beer, but if they were driven outside there would not be any control over them. I have got the same objection to the other Amendment. It is one of the points which I would rather the Board of Control would consider, that is, as to the supply of spirits. I am now referring to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen-

  1567
  shire East, because it is more or less germane to the Amendment we are discussing. I understand that in Government canteens they do not sell spirits, and that the same thing applies to military canteens, and that beer and porter are only sold. I dare say the same view will be taken by the Board of Control, but I should not like to express an opinion as that is a thing they have got to consider. I think it would be a mistake to deprive them of the power altogether, but I think the supply of spirits in the area ought to be completely under their control. I have no doubt at all it might be desirable to discourage the sale of spirits, but I should think my hon. Friend would be well advised to leave the Board of Control to consider it.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I have no desire to have a particular percentage of refreshment rooms set down in the Bill, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to carry his assurance further and to tell us that in every area provision will be made for the setting up of refreshment rooms, where intoxicating liquors will not be sold. I think it cannot be alleged that those who profess temperance principles have been unreasonable throughout this Debate. Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that there are many homes where young people are being trained and instructed under no circumstances to enter places of the kind. There are many cases where men are total abstainers, but are struggling with temptation. It is extremely desirable that there should be in every district some provision made for the wants of those men, so that they may not be compelled to enter houses where intoxicating liquors are sold. I should not, personally, press my Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman would give us the assurance that he would establish those dry canteens.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that anyone, of course, can provide refreshment rooms of the kind now. What he is asked to do is to run Government tea-houses against private houses, and that would be not only Socialistic legislation but a monstrous injustice to those people.
  Sir JOHN MacCALLUM: I desire to support the Amendment. The system of dry canteens is already in existence in Scotland. We have fifty different camps where we have refreshments without liquor being sold. I think an arrangement
  1568
  of that kind could be carried out on the some lines in England and Wales. It has been a great success in Scotland, and has prevented drunkenness.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should run the proposed new canteens in exactly the same way as the naval canteens, in that case we have certain rooms where no liquor is served, and men who earnestly and honestly wish to have nothing to do with the liquor can go into those rooms and have whatever else they like. That would meet the difficulty. It solved the difficulty we found in the Navy.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: A remark was made by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) that provision for those who did not intend to take intoxicating liquor might be looked upon as Socialistic.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I only meant separate, and not attached provisions.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: What I want to do is to meet the difficulty that exists. This is a point that concerns me. I have had a letter from Enfield Lock to which thousands of extra men have gone. There are people, it is true, who make some little provision for providing food and tea and coffee, but nobody here would suggest for a moment that anybody with a grain of common sense is going to build great institutions at Enfield Lock to make provision for those men when in a month, or six months, or a year, the whole necessity may disappear and the whole provision would instantly collapse, and all that those people have spent would be an entire and absolute waste. I suggest that the Government would be doing the right and proper thing to make provision of the kind. It is a very great grievance and a very great hardship on those people who are working enormous hours that they cannot get the food they want, as the Financial Secretary to the War Office will see from the letter which I have sent him to-day. With regard to the supply of spirits, I would say this: I am a life abstainer, and if I had my way I should not sell it at all. There is a difficulty here about the men. Looking at the thing from the point of view of a life abstainer, I would say, if you do not make this provision for those people, they will go somewhere else to get it or they will not work in the district. If you want those men to

  1569
  work you will have to make an arrangement of the kind; and you will not have their services in supplying munitions and building ships if you drive them away from lack of making this little provision.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I am rather surprised at the speech we have listened to, because I understood that the hon. Member was prepared to deal with the whole problem with a desire to avoid introducing any fresh element of danger. I cannot understand how he desires to put the canteens which are to be now adopted in a different position from those in the Army or in the Government dockyards. I would submit to the House that a real case has been made out, and which, I hope, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider, for at least excluding spirits. The White Paper and the whole facts of the case proves that there has been excessive consumption.
  Mr. COWAN: Is the hon. Member in order in discussing an Amendment which I have on the Paper, but which I have had no opportunity of moving?
  The CHAIRMAN: I was appealed to in order to allow those three Amendments to be taken together. It seemed to me it might save time.
  Mr. COWAN: I do not know whether my assent was required or not, but it certainly was not asked for.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member rises, he will probably catch my eye.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I understood we were discussing all the Amendments together. May I submit that this point is one which can be settled quite readily upon the mere statement of the case with regard to what exists in other canteens to-day? It would be an extremely retrograde step for the Government, in asking for powers to deal with canteens, to go further than they already go in the dockyards and in the Army and Navy. This is a matter which can, and ought to be, decided by this House and not left to any other authority. After all, the House is legislating in regard to the necessities of these cases and as far as possible laying down principles upon which the authorities ought to proceed. I appeal very earnestly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Cowan), because if he allows spirits to be introduced into these canteens
  1570
  it will be regarded generally throughout the country as a very retrograde step.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not accept any limit on the freedom of the Board of Control. I am not sure that hon. Members opposite realise how very objectionable this Bill is—to my feelings, for instance—quite apart from temperance considerations. I dislike almost every line in the Bill, and in ordinary peace times I should certainly put down Amendments considerably limiting the power of the State in undertaking a great piece of trading of the most socialistic character. My hon. Friend seemed to think that if it was confined to tea it was socialistic, but that as long as it was concerned with beer it was not. I think this is a very socialistic proposal—if you are to talk about Socialism at this time at all. I should be most reluctant to see such a measure tried on this scale in time of peace. But it is one of the advantages of the present situation that we can afford to allow the Government or the Executive to do whatever it thinks necessary for carrying on the War without compromising any of our opinions. I assent to this Bill, not believing in many of its principles, doubting extremely whether even in the present circumstances it can be made to work; but I am quite ready to allow it to be tried, and I wish it to be tried with the fairest possible chance of success. That can best be secured by giving the greatest possible elasticity to the Board of Control in the management of the business. I should regret to see any limiting Amendment. The best chance of making the Bill work is to leave it quite at large. I assure right hon. Gentlemen opposite that, as far as I am concerned, and I believe I speak in this matter for every Member of the House, we shall never quote or allow to be quoted anything done at this time as any precedent for anything that may be proposed in the future.
  Mr. COWAN: I had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after having massacred so many Amendments, most of them no doubt deserving the treatment, might have spared mine, not because I propose it, but because it is such a very little one and so peculiarly unobjectionable in character. The proposal in the Bill appears to be that intoxicants, including spirits, may be sold in these munition area canteens, and, I take it, within the munition works, whereas in military canteens

  1571
  spirits are not allowed to be sold. If there is an argument for excluding spirits from military canteens I think it applies even more strongly to munition area canteens, because it is intended to supply intoxicants in the canteens in munition works during working hours. It is well known that alcohol taken during a man's working hours is much more injurious to him than alcohol taken at any other time. I should like to quote Sir Lauder Brunton, possibly the greatest living authority in this country on the physiological effects of alcohol. He stated in a paper published in the "Lancet" in March last that alcohol enables a man to call on his reserves, and might enable him to make a spurt which he could not do without it; but if the exertion was to be long continued it simply accelerated exhaustion. He summed up the whole matter by saying that meat extracts and coffee, when they can be obtained, are not liable to the same objection as alcohol. I think, therefore, when you have on the one hand the established practice in military canteens of supplying only beer, and on the other the highest medical authority objecting to the use of spirits during working hours, a strong case is made out for excluding spirits. I see no reason whatever why it should be left to the discretion of any body or Board of Control; it is a matter which ought to be decided here and now in this House. I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is indisposed to make a concession which could not by any possibility reduce the value of the Bill, but would be very gratifying to many Members of the House, and would find support in many different quarters.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: It appears to me that some hon. Members opposite lose sight altogether of the object of the Bill. They seem to be afflicted with an incurable desire to do good. The object of this Bill is not to do good, but to do harm. Instead of doing good to our own people it is to do harm to the Germans. Authorities have been quoted as to the damage done by alcohol. It appears to me that the real common sense of the matter was put before the Committee by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. C. Duncan). What we want is to get more munitions and to enable men to work under conditions which will enable them to do their work well. What is the use when you are supplying the wants of the men, of not giving them what they want?
  Mr. COWAN: The whole object of the Bill is not to give the men what they want under conditions which will restrict the output of munitions.
  Mr. McNEILL: The sole object of the Bill is to see that men shall get what they want, but in such quantities as shall not do them any harm. If in a certain area men find that they can do their work better with beer, they are entitled to get it. If in another area another class of men get on with spirits, why should they be refused the right to have them? The whole administration is to be under the control of a Board appointed by the Government, and it will be the duty of those responsible to see that drink is not given out in such quantities as to incapacitate men for their work. In these circumstances ail the arguments which are relevant on the general question of temperance are entirly irrelevant on an emergency Bill, the sole object of which is to enable men to work exceptionally long hours under trying circumstances, and to supply them in reasonable quantity, not with the liquor which Members of this House may think best for them, but with the liquor which the men want.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. RAFFAN: I should like to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the assurance for which I asked?
  The CHAIRMAN: In that case the hon. Member had better move his Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I suggest that the hon. Member should put his question on the Clause.
  Mr. COWAN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2) (c), after the word "liquor" ["the supply of intoxicating liquor"], to insert the words "other than spirits."
  I do not know whether or not the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to give me my Amendment. He has not opposed it, and I still cherish the hope that he will agree to it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope my hon. Friend will not press it. I think we must leave this matter to the Board of Control. It might be in the interests of temperance that it should be under the control of the Board.
  Mr. COWAN: Under the circumstances, I cannot press my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Pratt)—["This Act shall not apply to Scotland"]—ought to come as a new Clause.
  Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move, in Subsection (2) (d), after the word "interested," to insert the words "or employed."
  My object is to make sure that the interests of employed persons are fairly covered and safeguarded by the regulations contemplated in connection with any Order in Council. I would therefore ask whether the words "persons interested" cover the interests of persons employed who may be disturbed in their employment as the result of any Order in Council?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is necessary to have this power in order that the Board of Control may be free from any existing tie in respect to the purchase of beer from any particular brewery or elsewhere. With regard to the question of persons employed, they certainly have no power to deal with those. That is a matter for the Commission to which I referred yesterday. It is not necessary to insert words giving them power in the sense intended by the hon. Member. At any rate, they would not come in here.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. RAFFAN: I am greatly obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the assurance he has given; but I would like to get the assurance carried to this point—that he will give instructions that in each district it is desirable that there should be set up rooms where intoxicants are not supplied.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I would like to ask whether, in the case of the destruction of a licence or the doing away with a public-house, it is the intention of the Government under this Bill to compensate the brewer for the loss of the sale of beer in that particular housed? Under the Act of 1904 compensation is paid for the
  1574
  value of the licence, but there is no compensation for prospective loss by the non-sale of beer or spirits.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In reply to the first question, arrangements are being made now to set up rooms of the kind referred to. I think it would be undesirable to give a pledge limiting the discretion of the Board of Control in any particular area. The question has been dealt with in a practical way in other directions. There is the suggestion made by the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) that you should have in a particular canteen a room where you sell tea, coffee, milk, and other temperance beverages, and relegate non-temperance beverages to another room. I am not at all sure that that is a desirable thing from the point of view of temperance. I should not like to express an opinion at this stage. I think it is desirable for those who drink nothing but alcoholic beverages to be accustomed to men in the same place at the same time ordering other refreshments. That has been the experience of the Army. The Army discarded the system of separate compartments. They found it was very much better, from a temperance point of view, that men should be accustomed to see the others ordering their milk, coffee, and so on; there is less sense of shame when they order things of that sort if they see other men doing it.
  Sir TUDOR WALTERS: It is like setting up a lot of elementary schools.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it is desirable, on the very important question of policy, that I should leave the Government unpledged. From whatever point of view we look at it it is desirable to discourage excessive drinking of alcoholic liquors. That is the point of view which those who organised these things in the Army took, and there is a very considerable improvement in that respect in the Army. Now I come to the other question put to me, with respect to setting up the Commission here for the purpose of considering the question of compensation. The only instructions we shall give to them is that they should pay fairly, the trade, and all those who lose by our action. If we began to lay down rules of compensation then, undoubtedly, the other side might say something. We should have discussion, and practically by means of that discussion would be settling at once the things that we have left to the Commission to decide. I hope the hon. Member will not press me for an answer to that particular question,

  1575
  otherwise I might be driven to lay down the whole principle of compensation, which is the last thing the Government wish to do when they have set up so able a Commission to consider it.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: There is no understanding?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not on that point.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Referring to the point mentioned by the hon. Member opposite, supposing an employé in one of these houses is discharged, as might very well happen, is it very certain that the question of compensation to him will be considered by this Commission? I entirely agree that the first matter to be considered is the better preparation of munitions of war, but it may be that for that purpose there may have to be discharged some of the employés who are engaged in the trade. Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer give us an assurance that in cases of that sort, where a man is discharged through no fault of his own, in order to make the working of this Bill more effective, that his right to compensation will come under the purview of that Commission that is being set up?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Commission will have the fullest powers to deal with that case.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of this Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Sir F. BANBURYhad given notice of the following:

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Compulsory Enlistment.)
  It shall be lawful to enlist men compulsorily for any work that may be required for the defence of the realm, and to bring such men under military discipline.
  The CHAIRMAN: The proposed new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member of the City of London is outside the scope of the Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that the title of the Bill is a Bill to extend the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914. My Clause deals with the Defence of the Realm; therefore all it does is to extend the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act. That is the title. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to stop an Amendment of this description he could
  1576
  have done it perfectly well by giving the Bill a different title. If he had entitled the Bill a Bill to extend the Defence of the Realm Act by dealing with the liquor traffic, or something of that sort, then my Amendment would have been out of order. My Amendment deals with the question of munitions of war. The object of the Bill is to facilitate the creation of munitions of war. My new Clause deals with that, and I submit it is in order, because it deals with what is the object of the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: The argument of the hon. Baronet would carry us a long way. Perhaps he would apply his mind to see under that doctrine what Amendments would be in order? As a matter of fact I had to decide this very matter only a short time ago. The Government desired to introduce at a later stage of the Bill, after the Bill had passed its Second Reading, an entirely novel question. They desired to move an Amendment, and I had to decide it was not a proper thing to do, as it undoubtedly raised a new issue at that stage of the Bill. What I applied to the Government I am afraid I must apply to the hon. Baronet.

  NEW CLAUSE.
  This Act shall not apply to Scotland.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. PRATT: I am moving this Clause because I am anxious to draw attention to one or two considerations which are peculiar to Scotland, as distinct from the southern side of the border. Further, I should like to say that nothing, I think, has done more mischief amongst the workers on the Clyde than the issue of the White Paper or, perhaps, not perhaps so much the issue of the White Paper, as the concentration in the discussions here and there upon one element that is contained in that Paper. I want just now to refer to one sentence that appears in the report of Mr. Harry Wilson which, I think, is the most excellent report in the White Paper. Mr. Wilson is a very experienced man who looks at the problem with a very experienced eye. He says in his report:—
  "There does not appear to be a noticeable increase in drinking since the War began."
  I think it is quite right and proper that that part of Mr. Wilson's report should be underlined, because while there is a

  1577
  drink problem in Scotland I must protest against the doctrine that there is any special problem of drunkenness amongst the workers on the Clyde. The present conditions, of course, only emphasise the results in the case of the minority who drink. But public opinion in Scotland, so far as I know it—and I speak as knowing it very well—has never asked for any special legislation for the workers or for the shipyard munition areas. What public opinion in Scotland has demanded, I think, is that there should be measures taken that would have restricted drinking throughout the whole of Scotland. The question of the drinking habits of certain sections came under discussion a month or two ago, and there was a constant expression of opinion amongst all sorts and conditions of people that whatever steps were taken should be taken in such a way as to apply to the whole community. I must express my own deep regret—regret, I think, that is shared by most in Scotland—that the Government have not been able to present us with some measure which would not apply to any section, but to the whole of Scotland.
  In regard to the report before us as to the Government canteens, it is amazing to think that that provision has not been made much earlier. In Scotland, for instances, most works are in private hands, and it is amazing that those employers of labour did not see the advantage of these long ago, and in the making of proper, adequate, and liberal provision in this connection for the workers in their yards and factories. There is one other point, and it weighs with me most at this present time. We in Scotland are not in the same position in regard to the licensing laws as is the case on the south of the border. The right hon. Gentleman confessed with, I think, some sadness and not without regret, that during the last twenty-five years nothing had been done in England towards temperance reform. That is true in regard to England. It is not true in regard to Scotland. We have fought our battles and we have won our victories, and while we are willing to give the Government everything that is necessary for the exigencies of the War we do feel that we must do everything possible to safeguard the principles for which the citizens of Scotland have fought so long and so earnestly. We are willing to give everything that as necessary, if it is proved to be necessary, but I do not think even the right hon. Gentleman should call upon us to make a bonfire of our principles,
  1578
  unless it is absolutely necessary for carrying on the War and for the provision of munitions of war. A suspicion which is very widespread in Scotland is that though the right hon. Gentleman has not presented us with a scheme of nationalisation as he would have desired, yet he has that ideal still before him. There is a widespread feeling that this measure that we are discussing to-day may conceivably be used to bring him nearer to that goal.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to rediscuss the proposals of the Bill on the question of a Clause excluding Scotland from its application. He must confine himself to some special point and not go over the whole ground.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. The position of Scotland in this matter is very exceptional, inasmuch as this particular point was discussed on the Scotland Temperance Act which has been alluded to. Therefore, I submit it is very revelant to the Scottish case, and to the pecularity of the law.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: On a further point of Order. Cannot the hon. Member give reasons why he thinks this Bill should not be applied to Scotland, one of which reasons is that in Scotland there is a strong feeling against nationalisation?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was stating arguments dealing with the whole Bill or the object of the Bill. Those, of course, could be stated on the Second or Third Reading of the Bill, but not on a limiting Clause.
  Mr. PRATT: I was taking the application of the Bill for Scotland. I did not say whether or not the principle of naturalisation would or would not be bad as applied to Scotland. I am not concerned in that for a moment, but I am advocating that it would be bad as applied to Scotland after public opinion in Scotland is very resolutely opposed to it. I will try to get my point in another way. This Bill, when it is put into operation in Scotland may, and likely will, apply to fully a third of the licensed property in Scotland, and certainly to more than one-third of the value of licensed property in Scotland. In the White Paper one of the Admiralty officials suggests that if an area is scheduled on the Clyde it should be an area which should come up on the north of the Clyde from Gourock and on the south from Dumbarton, right up to Glasgow. What is felt very strongly in

  1579
  Scotland is that such a proposal, if it is carried out, as there is every reason to think it will be—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, for instance, said to-day that in these districts you would have to take over and to close a large number of public-houses and manage all the rest in the area—will mean a great scheme of partial nationalisation.
  I do not wonder that the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) is giving this measure a warm welcome, as he has done to-day. He has asked that, in the carrying out of this arrangement, ample compensation shall be given to the interests involved. He has pleaded that the Government or the authority concerned should deal in a generous spirit with the interests involved, and, after hearing yesterday the names of the members of the Board who will have the Scottish part of the problem in hand, the hon. Baronet said that the authority suggested for Scotland would be found to be very satisfactory and one in which perfect confidence might be reposed. That is all very well from the point of view of the hon. Baronet, but what we dread in Scotland is that we should travel along the road of ample and liberal compensation to the goal of complete nationalisation. I am glad that we have had some assurances from the right hon. Gentleman already on that point to-day, but I do assure him that we who have followed him for years in Scotland are anxious about the possibilities of the situation. We do not feel that the measure, as it is before us to-day, will do much to improve the situation on the Clyde.
  We believe that a measure of general prohibition would have done far more, in addition to all those changes in the industrial conditions on the Clyde which are mentioned in the White Paper—that there should be a six and not a seven days' week, and that men should have ample food provided for them inside the works. If all these and other things are done, we believe that a great part of the mischief will be remedied, and we are anxious to do everything to help the Government during this period of stress while the War lasts. But we are concerned lest we should find ourselves at the end of the War in a position in which our principles have been compromised, because, after all, we have to live after the War. We shall have to tackle the enemies within our gates after we have defeated the enemy
  1580
  without, and we in Scotland are resolutely of opinion that by the working of the Scottish Temperance Act unencumbered by any new measure of disinterested management or nationalisation—that along that line salvation can be brought to Scotland in regard to the question of drink. I feel, after the solemn appeal which the right hon. Gentleman addressed to-day, that my resolution is certainly shaken in regard to the moving of the new Clause. But I do ask him, on behalf of the great section of Scottish people who are really anxious in regard to the point I have ventured to lay before him, to give us some assurance that when we get to the end of this War, and the period after, we shall, as far as possible, be left without any of our principles compromised in the work that lies before us.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend is very anxious that his opinions in regard to the nationalisation of the liquor trade should not be compromised by this Bill.
  Mr. PRATTmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not going to enter into a controversy on that subject, because my hon. Friend knows Scotland very well.
  Mr. HOGGE: It is not so in any case.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It shows how very dangerous it is to accept from any Member from Scotland the views of Scotland as a whole. Naturally, Scotsmen, like others, have their different opinions. However, it is not necessary to decide that question now. Whether my hon. Friend is right or wrong, this Bill is purely a temporary one, and it cannot be made permanent unless the House of Commons chooses to make it so, and the House of Commons, we may depend upon it, will not touch the question unless forced to do so—at least I can give him a guarantee that, until I have been driven to it, I will not. The House of Commons, my hon. Friend may depend upon it, will not undertake anything in the nature of a permanent extension unless convinced by overwhelming experience that it is desirable. After all, it is only a question of facts. If the Bill is a complete failure, as he anticipates it will be, then of course he will be able to say, "What a very good thing it was that this experiment was tried, because it has shown how completely right I was two or three years ago when

  1581
  I took that view." If, on the other hand, it turns out a success, my hon. Friend will be able to say, "Now that I see the facts in front of me I must say that I was wrong." That would require a great courage in my hon. Friend. I am sure he has it, and I am looking forward to my hon. Friend having that pleasant experience. If the Bill fails he will have one of the greatest satisfactions in life, and that is to be able to say, "Didn't I tell you so? Didn't I warn you?" If, on the other hand, it succeeds, he will be able to enjoy one of the highest spiritual experiences in life, and that is to be able to say, "I was wrong, and am prepared to admit it." He wins either way. He ought not to deprive himself of such an opportunity. There is no suggestion of nationalisation in the scheme. This is purely a temporary controlling of the liquor traffic in these areas. It could not be nationalised without another Act of Parliament.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am extremely surprised to hear the facility with which hon. Members pretend to speak for Scotland. As I have only risen once in this Debate obviously my remark does not apply to myself. It has been said that Scotland is against this and against that. I represent one of the divisions of Edinburgh—a Radical division—and one of my constituents is the Chief Patronage Secretary. He is an important member of the Liberal Administration which controls the affairs of this House. I have had no complaints from him against this Bill. He has not asked me as his Member to get up and put his objections to this Bill, and surely nobody in this House will deny that the Chief Patronage Secretary in a very special sense represents Scotland; so that hon. Members behind who say that they represent the view of Scotland are up against my hon. Friend, who ought to be a right hon. Friend, on the Front Bench, who agrees that this Bill ought to be applied to Scotland. The only person I can recollect who approached me on the subject was a man in my Constituency, who I have not the pleasure of knowing, but who wrote me a postcard, saying, "I object to Lloyd George's taxes." That is not unusual; I do myself, but I do it more politely when I tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer about it. Then I got a resolution from the Good Templars in Glasgow, who say they represent Scotland on this temperance question. All I have to say about the Good Templars is that my recollection of them is that they tried to keep
  1582
  me out of the House of Commons by addressing meetings in my Constituency to prevent my election, so that I do not value their opinion very much as Scottish opinion. That is all that has reached me as a Member of a fairly important constituency in Scotland. I do say it is preposterous of men to get up in this House and say that they represent Scotland on this question—that Scotland is against this and Scotland is against that. Why, in the city of Edinburgh, where the Lord Advocate resides, in addition to the Patronage Secretary, we had a plebiscite as to whether people should pledge themselves to abstain from the use of alcohol during the War. They did not get 40,000 pledges out of a population of 400,000. What is the use of saying they represent Scotland or that they represent Edinburgh? The House remembers possibly the fact that I fought the Bill with regard to Scottish temperance which deprived the people of Scotland of that very facility which they are going to get by tin's measure. The Scottish Secretary at that time, and the Lord Advocate and the Patronage Secretary, were all against any form of disinterested management. I remember that the Patronage Secretary wrote a pamphlet in favour of disinterested management, and that pamphlet can be produced. In that pamphlet, to his credit, the hon. Gentleman wrote in favour of an option which ought to be given to the people of Scotland. Really he prophesied this day, because the Government have promised that Scotland shall have the same opportunity in this matter as the rest of the Kingdom. I could have said a great deal more about this Bill, but I do not do so, because I believe if the Government come down here and say, "We want this thing," they ought to get it. Certain compromises have been made with regard to this measure, but I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been "had" by the trade over the question of the maturity of spirits, and when the opportunity comes I shall be ready to show the right hon. Gentleman where he has been "had," because he has been got at by the spirit trade. The main fact that emerges from this discussion on the drink traffic in the House of Commons is that at last we have a Government who are willing to give the localities throughout the country the opportunity of experimenting on the conditions in which they themselves are placed. That is the great merit of this particular Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to be making a Second Reading speech, and I would remind him that the whole Bill cannot be rediscussed now.
  Mr. HOGGE: I was arguing that if this Bill did not apply to Scotland, you would deprive Scotland of an opportunity which is being afforded to other parts of the United Kingdom of making those local experiments. I think that would be a great misfortune and would be against Scottish opinion, so far as I know it. I really rose to protest against hon. Members saying they represented this and that in Scotland, because, as a matter of fact at the present moment, we do not represent anything.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The hon. Member who has just spoken has expressed somewhat clearly the real reason he and others are supporting this Bill. They are supporting it in order that there may be an experiment made in regard to a scheme of social reform which may lead, no doubt, to certain results which they think will be worthy of consideration in the future, but which will not directly attain the object which we have understood this Bill was intended to attain in dealing immediately with the serious position which has arisen in munition areas. The longer I have listened to these Debates the more convinced I am that this purpose is less likely to be attained, and that there is in the minds of hon. Members who are pressing forward this measure a different purpose in view. I am glad this question has been raised, because the circumstances are different in Scotland from what they are in England in regard to the application of this measure. I think we are entitled to some very definite assurance from the Government that in regard to this measure Scottish law, Scottish feeling, and Scottish conditions will be specially regarded. The hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) has continually informed us that we have no problem of tied houses in Scotland. We have a separate law for Scotland with regard to compensation, and we have never recognised the same claim of the licence holders as in England. In Scotland the problem to be tackled by this Bill is a very large one, as the areas which are likely to be affected, if you are going to include all the munition areas, are very large ones. This is a serious problem for the Government to tackle, and I think we are entitled to know what are the powers of
  1584
  this Central Committee and who they are going to be.
  We were told at first that this Committee was to consist of Army and Navy representatives, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it is going to consist of representatives of the War Office, the Admiralty, the Home, Office, representatives of labour and employers of labour, and a few other well-intentioned persons are to be added to the Committee. Where does Scotland come in? Is the Central Committee which is to be appointed to have any regard to the special conditions of Scotland, and is the Scottish Office to be represented upon it? Are any Scottish employers of labour or Scottish representatives of labour to be associated with it, or is it to be a separate Committee for Scotland? We have never been told that yet, and we have been left entirely in the dark as regards Scotland. I think that is a fair question to put to the right hon. Gentleman. What about the local committees? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us yesterday—I confess I was rather surprised when I considered his statement afterwards—that these local committees would be acting for the Government and that he proposed to set up a Central Committee, and that that Committee was to set op local committees in each district. Surely we are entitled to know what are the powers of these local committees. Are they to control the sale of liquor in each district? They are to do so according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because in reply to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) the right hon. Gentleman stated that the whole control of the supply would be in the hands of the Government, and the clubs would only be able to get their intoxicating liquor through the local committee. I think we are entitled to know what these local committees are to be, and what their powers are to be. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to let us know what is really in the mind of the Government on this matter. How are they going to work out this scheme? Can it be applied to Scotland, and how, and are the local conditions and local opinion to be taken into account?
  Sir J. SIMON: I do not want to give a formal reply to the hon. Member's speech, because I admit that the questions he has raised are of first rate importance, and I should be very sorry to give a perfunctory answer which did not deal in detail with

  1585
  these matters. I suggest that the right coarse to pursue would be that a question should be put down to-day, and then a proper answer would have to be prepared that would give the hon. Member the information which he seeks. Meantime, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we recognise that the Scottish case in some respects is a different one from the English case, and no doubt special consideration will have to be given to it in the constitution of these Committees.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I am much obliged for the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given, because I feel that in this matter in Scotland we stand upon an entirely different footing. We have been told throughout that this is an emergency measure, and that at the end of twelve months after the War we shall revert to the status quo. If that is so no one can have any objection to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement. But at the end of the twelve months' period we are not necessarily to revert to the status quo, for the Government may find itself in possession of a large number of houses in the country which have been used for the sale of liquor. I respectfully submit, if that is so, the taking of the powers under the Bill may raise a very serious question with regard to the alteration of the Scottish Temperance Act. Under Clause 1, Sub-section (2), paragraph (e), power is given to modify as far as necessary or expedient the provisions of the Act relating to licensing and the sale of intoxicating liquor in their application to a particular area. In other words, yon can do anything you like with these Acts of Parliament. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me a further assurance that nothing is to be done or is contemplated which will in any way alter or affect the provisions of the Temperance (Scotland) Act. I think it would be a great breach of faith with the people of Scotland if that were done, and we ought to be assured that in the exercise of the powers under this Bill nothing will be done to alter in any way the provisions of a Statute which has been passed with the assent of the great majority of the people of Scotland. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh has challenged the claim of some hon. Members to represent Scotland on this matter. What I claim is that Scotland spoke on this matter when the Scottish Temperance Act was passed, and the great majority of Scottish Members then refused to accept the principle
  1586
  of private management, much less of nationalisation. I urge upon the Government that we should not be placed in any position of doubt at the end of the twelve months' period, and that the views of the people of Scotland should be considered in regard to this question.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) questioned the right of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Pratt) to speak for Scotland—
  Mr. HOGGE: I did not question any man's right, but I questioned whether in making that statement he was representing the actual fact.
  Mr. PRICE: My hon. Friend has been a magistrate for a good many years in one of the leading cities of Scotland which has to deal with this matter, and he can therefore speak with great experience. This Bill has raised a very important point in connection with the Scottish Temperance Act, and I am sure the Government does not realise how a great many districts in Scotland will be affected. In this matter I think I am expressing the opinion of a great majority of the people of Scotland, and I know a great deal more about Scotland than the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.
  Mr. HOGGE: I was born there, and you are a Welshman.
  Mr. PRICE: I think that is a very offensive expression. The hon. Member questioned whether we had any right to represent the people of Scotland.
  Mr. HOGGE: I never said so.
  Mr. PRICE: What I wish to bring out is that this Bill contains principles which we fought out in the Committee Room upstairs, which were fought for by the Secretary for Scotland, and he represented the people of Scotland. Therefore, I say, inasmuch as this does interfere with some of the principles which we fought then, and which we thought would not be introduced again, that I am extremely sorry these Clauses are in the Bill. The great object in introducing it so far as Scotland is concerned is to apply it to the district of the Clyde. It is a great pity that this matter should have been allowed to remain so long before it was brought before the House.
  The CHAIRMAN: The proposal is that the Bill should not apply to Scotland, and the Debate must be kept to that point.
  Mr. PRICE: There is no doubt that this Bill is largely intended to apply to the Clyde. Some time ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a deputation from the shipbuilders on the Clyde pointing out the conditions under which they were suffering, but none of them approached the licensing authorities, or any of the sheriffs, and they did not do anything to induce the authorities to put into operation any of the powers which they at present possess. I therefore very much regret that they should have waited so long before raising this question. This Bill raises a great many questions, and I am quite sure that the great mass of people who take an interest in temperance in Scotland will be very much hurt by its passage.
  Mr. COWAN: The hon. Member, like one or two other Members representing Scottish constituencies, in criticising the application of this Bill to Scotland, laid special emphasis on the objection of Scottish people to disinterested management, and referred to the Debate on the Scottish Temperance Bill. I say emphatically, as a supporter of disinterested management then and now, that the hon. Member, and those who have spoken in the same sense, have no right to say that Scotland has ever made any declaration on the subject. Scotland has never been consulted, and, if it were, I believe that its answer would be a very different one from that suggested.
  Mr. WATT: I am very glad that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Pratt) has proposed this Clause, and I hope that he will persist in it at all stages of the proceedings. The fact is his Motion was not treated seriously by the Front Bench; it was treated with derision. Scotland has a grievance in having this measure applied to it, because it strikes Scotland in a different manner from what it strikes England and Wales. The munition areas in Scotland are much larger, proportionately, than in any of the other three countries—England, Wales and Ireland. The munition areas in Scotland cover at least 50 per cent., if not up to 75 per cent., of the whole of Scotland so far as population is concerned. The City of Glasgow has over one million inhabitants, and there are two or three very populous districts coterminous with Glasgow. It is impossible to tell when one passes out of one area into any of the others. Therefore, at least 50 per cent. of the people of Scotland are living in the Clyde area, and the
  1588
  Cldye area is practically entirely devoted to the manufacture of the munitions of war, so that this Bill will be more severe upon Scotland than upon any of the other nations of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Secretary for Scotland realises that fact, and that he is taking a serious step in allowing the measure to be passed practically without discussion so far as Scotland is concerned, because if he closes the public-houses of 75 per cent. of the people of Scotland he may realise sooner than he anticipates that he has "caught a tartar," that he has tackled a very difficult problem with a very light heart, and that the consequences to himself, as well as to us all, will be serious indeed.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: Feeling in Scotland, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) has said, is generally very much against disinterested management.
  Mr. HOGGE: You do not know anything about it.
  The CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
  Mr. BRYCE: In my own Constituency the feeling is very strongly against it. There was a very remarkable plebiscite in Inverness, at which over 80,000 people voted for total prohibition, and only thirty-nine against it. It is a great pity that in Scotland the experiment of total prohibition with compensation is not to be tried. There has been numerous telegrams, as hon. Members doubtless know, from very powerful organisatins in Scotland to the effect that this is not merely a local question. It applies to the whole of Scotland, and the feeling is universal that total prohibition would have a better chance of working properly than this limited scheme which the Government propose.
  Sir J. SIMON: The fact that so many Members from Scotland have spoken in the sense of the hon. Member who spoke last is, of course, a circumstance we should all bear in mind in considering how far this measure should apply to Scotland. This is not a Bill which applies these proposals anywhere. It is only a Bill for taking powers and for giving the opportunty of exercising those powers in cases where it is needed. From most of what has been said it seems to be clear that whatever may be done in Scotland there are only certain areas—I am not attempting to say what areas, or how many—where any question could arise, but, if the general sense was that

  1589
  for the purpose of the War and in connection with the War it was necessary to exercise these powers in Scotland, then I am sure that the general feeling in Scotland, as elsewhere, would be that they would like to have the matter considered. The question was put as to whether the inclusion of Scotland within this Bill—that is to say, within the areas in which we may exercise the powers under this Bill—would in any way prejudice the provisions of the Scottish Temperance Act? I can give a very direct answer to that question. I do not see how it would. The Scottish Temperance Act is on the Statute Book. This Bill does not in the least affect it. I have communicated with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland and we neither of us can see how, having power to extend this Act in case of need to Scotland, will in any way prejudice the Scottish Temperance Act.
  Mr. PRATT: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported.
  As amended, considered.
  Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Clause 1, at the end of Section (1), to leave out the words "be proved to be necessary," and to insert instead thereof the words "be declared by Order in Council to be necessary in view of conditions connected with the termination of the present War."
  This is an alteration of the words inserted at the end of the Sub-section at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman did not wish us to make the Bill apply for a period of twelve months after the War. He wanted it to apply during the period of the War and for such further period not exceeding twelve months as "shall be proved to be necessary." But I have pointed out that in such circumstances someone must be the judge. So long as we make it plain that the extension must be justified solely by conditions that arise when the War has come to an end, that, I think, would meet the right hon. Gentleman's point, and I therefore propose these amended words, which I have taken an opportunity to show to the right hon. Gentleman, who approves them.
  Question, "That the words 'proved to be necessary' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Proposed words there inserted.
  Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (b), after the word "premises" ["licensed or other premises"], to insert the words "or business."
  I move this Amendment in accordance with the suggestion thrown out by more than one hon. Gentleman on the other side. I do not think it will affect the Clause in any way.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time to-morrow (Wednesday).

ARMY ACT (AMENDMENT—No. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

ARMY ACT (AMENDMENT—No. 2) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Powers of Transfer and Posting.)
  Where for the purposes of the present war it is necessary in the interests of the efficiency of His Majesty's military forces to do so, a soldier belonging to the Regular Forces may, notwithstanding anything in Section eighty-three of the Army Act, be transferred without his consent to any corps notwithstanding that that corps is not of the same arm or branch of the Service as the corps in which the soldier was previously serving:
  Provided that where a soldier is under this Section transferred without his consent to a corps of an arm or branch of the Service other than that in which he is serving, he shall not by reason of such transfer be deprived of any pay or allowances of which he was in receipt at the date of transfer should such pay and allowances be more advantageous to him than the pay and allowances of his rank in the corps to which he is transferred.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Forces," ["Regular Forces"], to insert the words "other than the Army Medical Services."
  I should not rise to move this Amendment at this hour and under these circumstances if I did not feel that I am dealing with a point of substance of very considerable importance. I do not wish to express any dogmatic view, but I want to state in a word or two the case for this Amendment in a way which, I hope, may enable me to carry with me the assent of the Committee and of the Government. In this time of war a great number of citizens have had to decide for themselves—each

  1591
  man for himself—how best he can serve his country, and many men have deliberately chosen to enlist in the Army Medical Service because of their sincere desire to assist in healing the ravages and unavoidable sufferings from war. They have enlisted in a service which exposes them to even more danger probably than if they had enlisted in the ordinary fighting branches of the Army. I think we, as a House, are bound to respect the convictions and feelings that have led so many men to offer their services in this special way. If I understand the Bill correctly, the War Office is now taking power under this Bill to transfer men who have enlisted for this purpose from the medical services to the fighting branches of the Army, and for us to accede to a measure giving that very serious power to the War Office would be repugnant not only to many Members of this Committee, but also to a great number of people outside, and it might even be attended with consequences other than those which the War Office seek to achieve. I wish to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War to respect the motives—the very highest motives—that have led these men to enter the Medical Service. I do not believe that the War Office intends to use this power, and if that be the case, and if they will say so, they will relieve the anxiety of a considerable number of people. I think they can achieve their end in a far more satisfactory way.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I am, of course, sympathetic with the arguments laid before the Committee by my hon. Friend as to the respect which ought to be paid to conscientious motives, but I would remind my hon. Friend that it is not always possible to pay that respect to convictions in the case of men who have joined a special service as part of an Army taking the field. In other words, I would remind him that we are at war. I stated, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for St. Augustine (Mr. Ronald McNeill) in a Debate the other day, that it is the intention of the military authorities to employ some of the men who have enlisted in the Royal Army Medical Corps in the combatant forces of the Crown. We have done it intentionally, and therefore I do not want my hon. Friend to go away under any misapprehension. I do not say it is going to be done wholesale by any means. Of course, men will be required in the
  1592
  Army Medical Service in large numbers, but where there is a sufficiency of officers and men, and circumstances demand it, I think it is right there should be power in the hands of the General Officer Commanding in the field to make this transfer. My hon. Friend spoke of the placing of this power in the hands of the Government, or of the Commanding Officer, as an act which would be repugnant—to whom I do not quite know, but probably he meant to the men themselves. I do not believe that the great bulk of gallant fellows who have enlisted in this and other corps will find that the power is at all repugnant to them. I am confident they are very anxious to serve their country where they believe the service can be most effective. I may inform the Committee that this morning I had a conversation with the Director-General of the Army Medical Service (Sir Alfred Keogh), who represents them so admirably—any words in his praise would be an impertinence on my part—and he is strongly of opinion that this power should be vested in General Officers Commanding. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The right hon. Gentleman has reminded us that we are at war. I am glad that the War Office are realising that, because his arguments favour something of which I am strongly in favour, namely, a mobilisation on a compulsory basis on a very much larger scale than anything the War Office has done at the present time—a mobilisation which in time may come, not necessarily with regard to fighting in the field, but for making preparations for fighting in the field and which will probably be required from the Government. Although I am strongly in favour of the principle of the Bill, probably the worst form of applying it is to apply it simply to the people who, on a certain definite condition, have entered a particular branch of the Service and, contrary to their consent, to remove them to another Service. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a very large number of the men of the Royal Army Medical Corps are willing to join the combatant forces the moment they are asked to do so. In their case it is not necessary to ask them to volunteer to remove to a particular branch. But if there are people who hive joined the Army Medical Corps because they know they will not be brought into the firing line but will be kept doing hospital and similar work, the Bill practically amounts

  1593
  to a breach of faith with them, and it is somewhat hard upon them to compel them to join any other particular branch of the Service. I am afraid my speech is contradictory to a certain extent. I am in favour of a much wider form of compulsion; but I think this Bill is a mistake in one direction. Probably the right hon. Gentleman knows that some of the men who have gone out at the present moment have not received the slightest military training. That is a very extraordinary thing. Men who have been in the Service since October or November have never had a rifle in their hands or been trained for combatant work at all. I speak with knowledge of particular cases. They have been trained for the duties of hospital work to a certain extent, and are waiting embarkation at the present moment. If these men are called to go into the fighting line they are absolutely without training for it of any sort or kind. Unless they are willing to undertake the duty it would be very hard on them if they are suddenly called upon, contrary to their wishes, to leave the work for which they have been trained during the last six months and be drafted to some other branch. Of course, if the Government insist upon the Bill, they must have it, but I hope that if they do take the Bill they will adopt a much wider scheme of mobilisation which will be more effective than this Bill, and which will be free from any taint that it is breaking a contract with a man who has engaged to do particular work.
  Mr. GODFREY COLLINS: The Under-secretary for War has told us quite frankly that the War Office intend to operate this Bill in connection with the Royal Army Medical Corps. For the War Office to single out for compulsion members—
  Mr. TENNANT: We do not single out.
  Mr. COLLINS: Perhaps I may be allowed to finish my sentence. For the War Office to single out for compulsion members of the Royal Army Medical Corps and to put on one side every member of the Territorial Force appears to be distinctly unfair. In the first Bill introduced in this House the Territorial Force was included, but in view of the opposition raised in this House, or, perhaps, for other reasons, the War Office cut out the Territorial Force from the operation of that Bill. This Amendment seeks to cut out members of the Royal Army Medical
  1594
  Corps from the Bill. Generally speaking, the men who joined the Royal Army Medical Corps have some particular knowledge of that service and, in their wisdom, decided to help their country at this time by offering their services for a particular work. For the War Office to force these men to transfer their services from one branch of the Army to another is unfair and unjust to the men who have offered their services in this manner. I hope the Under-Secretary will reconsider the decision he has announced to the Committee.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: My opposition to the Amendment is based on practically the same grounds as those stated by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson). The mover of the Amendment laid down a principle which he appeared to think was almost an axiom, and that would be accepted by all of us. He said that a great many persons had recently been called upon to decide for themselves how best they could serve their country. As a general principle in a time such as that we are passing through, that is the exact opposite of what ought to be. No man ought to be allowed to decide for himself at a time of this sort how best he can serve his country. If we were a properly organised country, with a competent Government to guide it—I hope we have both—it ought to be the function of the Government at a time like this, through their organisation, to decide for each man what work he could best do for the country. It is because we have never adopted that principle, which is being and always has been, adopted by our enemies, that we are at the present time less strong—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. Member is new going into a subject which is outside this Bill. The Bill deals with men who are already rendering service in the military forces, but it has nothing whatever to do with those who have not yet joined the Army.
  Mr. McNEILL: I will not pursue that further. I am in favour of the Bill as it stands, because I hold the principle that the men having offered to serve their country it is for the authorities to decide in what particular branch their service might be most usefully employed. I entirely agree with the Bill as it stands, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not give way to the mover of the Amendment.
  Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I hope the Government will not insist upon their opposition to this Amendment. It is a very serious thing when a man has volunteered for service in the Royal Army Medical Corps that he should be transferred to the fighting part of the Service. It is well known that many men have conscientious objections to taking part in fighting in the ordinary sense. I do not share those myself, but I respect them. Many of these men have felt that, nevertheless, they desired in this great crisis to serve their country to the utmost of their power, and they have joined the Royal Army Medical Corps, and it is a very undesirable thing from every point of view that the Government should now take the power to compel these men to fight in the military part of the Army. It is contrary to the spirit of our institutions altogether. If a man is transferred from one regiment of fighting men into another, or even from Artillery to Engineers, or anything of that sort, it is more or less a detail, but to transfer a man from a part which is saving life to a part which is doing the fighting is a much more serious thing, and it ought not to be done in defiance of men who conscientiously object to it. It may be that there would not be a great many who would object—I should not object in the least myself. I would take part if I were of military age in any part of the Service, but we ought to respect the consciences of those men who feel that they can risk their lives in the Royal Army Medical Corps for the good of their country, but cannot conscientiously fire upon their fellow men. We have been told that our enemies do this. Our enemies do a great many things that I hope we shall never do, and I hope that even in time of war we shall adhere in the spirit and the letter to that great voluntary principle which has given us such splendid results hitherto in this War.
  Mr. SANDERSON: It seems to be an extraordinarily strong order that as long as you have your Army based upon the voluntary system, when a man joins the medical branch of that Army against his will you should convert him into a fighting soldier. It seems to me to be quite a different thing to transfer a man from one branch of the fighting Army to another. For instance, you might take a man, if the necessity really occurs, from the reserve battalion of one regiment to the reserve battalion of another. He has enlisted as a fighting man. But, on the other hand, a
  1596
  member of the medical branch of the Service has not enlisted as a fighting man. He has enlisted because he has special knowledge. He has been trained for a considerable number of years, and has become a valuable asset, and is willing to give the advantage of his experience and knowledge to his fellow countrymen. It appears to me, as long as you have your Army on a voluntary basis, and insist on keeping it on a voluntary basis, to be an extraordinary thing that you should treat this branch of the Army in this way. You must remember that the members of this profession are about as fine a lot of men as you would find in the whole world. They are noble men. They regard their calling as a sacred trust put into their hands.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member is referring to the officers—to the qualified medical men.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I am aware that this does not apply to officers, but to the men in that particular branch of the Service, who rank as soldiers. They have not gone in as fighting men. They have gone in as people who are particularly fitted for this branch of the Service. In all probability they have given up a considerable part of their lives towards fitting themselves for it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: it is perfectly well known that the ordinary orderly has not given up part of his life to do anything at all. He comes from the same condition of men as the common soldier.
  Mr. SANDERSON: I dare say there are some of them who have no special knowledge, but, on the other hand, there are some who have special knowledge. They cannot all get commissions, and there are many of them who are really in the same position as those who are holding commissions. For these reasons it is certainly a strong order to take these men out of a branch which is not a fighting branch and put them into a different branch altogether. The Government would do very well to consider this question again. I do not believe it is going to affect the efficiency of the Service at all. If the right hon. Gentleman says it is absolutely necessary, there is nothing to be done except to reject the Amendment, because we are not behind the scenes and do not know all the facts. Unless he can tell us that it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the efficiency of the Army that this should be

  1597
  passed, I shall be very glad indeed if the Government can see their way to reconsider it.
  Mr. HODGE: I desire to associate myself with the hon. and learned Gentleman who last spoke, and to express my astonishment at the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson). I have so often heard him in the past talk of the sanctity of contracts that one is amazed that he should try to put contracts aside in this instance. I know great numbers of men who have joined the Royal Army Medical Corps. They have done so in some instances because they have had certain training in ambulance work. I know of other instances of men who have joined because they have conscientious objections against fighting, but they do not object to succour others who have been wounded, and those who have taken any interest in the War at all know the gallantry that these men have displayed in facing the firing line. Is it that they have too many men for the Army Medical Corps? Is that the reason why they seek for these powers? If it be so, why cannot they ask for volunteers? I am perfectly satisfied that if these men were appealed to that their services were more required for the fighting line than in the corps that they have been serving in, they would only be too willing to listen to the appeal of their commanding officer. When the Territorials were appealed to to go upon foreign service, we all know how readily they responded, and I think the Government would be well advised to accept the Amendment. I do not think we should accept every proposal of this kind that the Government makes. It is a case of shut your eyes, open your mouth, and swallow whatever they give us, and I hope my hon. Friend will press this even to a Division, because of the doctrine that we have so often heard preached in this House of the sanctity of contracts.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: May I say as a matter of personal explanation, that the hon. Member misunderstood my remarks as to contracts. My remarks were in favour of his point of view. The Bill as it stands, without this Amendment, upsets a distinct contract made with men who have enlisted in the Royal Army Medical Corps.
  Mr. HOGGE: I hope my right hon. Friend will stick to his guns. I look at this proposal in this way. We want to get this War finished, and we want to concen-
  1598
  trate all our energies as a nation on getting it speedily completed. The more speedily it is completed, the better for all of us, and the more the nation will be saved. The Bill gives the Government power of elasticity in dealing with the forces at their command. Somebody comes along and puts down an Amendment—
  The CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is whether members of the Army Medical Corps should be exempted?
  Mr. HOGGE: Yes, Sir, that is what I am addressing myself to. This Bill gives the Government elasticity, and somebody comes along and says we should have deprived them of some of that elasticity by excluding a particular unit. We might all put that kind of Amendment down in respect of any body of men we are interested in, and say "except so-and-so." But we do not want to except anybody; we want everybody to turn his ability to the best and quickest use in order to get rid of the German Emperor and the German nation. Anything that will give the Government that power is what we ought to give them straight away. The hon. Member on the Front Bench below me (Mr. Hodge), who has a name somewhat similar to my own, says this is a case of opening our mouths and swallowing whatever the Government send us. But if you are going to oppose the Government, do not oppose them with a niggling little Amendment; oppose them on general policy. To attempt to interfere with the efficiency of our forces in the field by discussing tin-pot Amendments is really playing with business, while we have got the most serious thing on hand that we have ever had as a nation.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. CREAN: I know men who wish to serve their country, but do not want to fight. They have a serious objection to taking life. You have many men, excellent men, who are willing to risk their lives in the service of their country but who cannot take up any weapon of war. I know of many of them in my own district who have joined the Army Medical Corps. They are excellent men on whose help the doctors are glad to rely in the field. They have no objection to go to the front and take all the risks of war, but they have serious objection to act as fighting men. If the Government allow these men to enlist in the Army under the conviction that they will not be called upon to fight. I do not think the Government is justified in afterwards using them as fighting men, for to do so would be to deceive them.

  1599
  I would not object to the Bill if it proposed general conscription, but I do object to using conscription in the case of the man who is doing something, and not using it in the case of the man who stops behind and does nothing. No single Member can be in favour of this kind of conscription towards men who are doing great service to the State, many of them in the fighting line or the hospital. Wherever they are, they are necessary. Instead of making conscription operative against these men, let the right hon. Gentleman bring in a broad scheme of conscription in order that the war might be speedily terminated. I certainly object to the use of this partial conscription in the case of men in the Army Medical Corps, just because there is a necessity to change men from horse regiments to foot regiments, or from one corps to another. I do not object to the Bill as a whole, but if the Government insist upon it in its present form and do not introduce some Amendment such as would meet the conscientious objection of these men to take up weapons of war, then I must oppose it.
  Question put, "That the words 'other than the Army Medical Services' be there inserted."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division. Mr. Hodge was appointed a Teller for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as the Second Teller, the Chairman declared the Noes had it.
  The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the names of Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Sir F. Banbury: At the end of the Clause to add the words "Provided also that so soon as convenient after the conclusion of the present War any soldier transferred under the provisions of this Act shall, if he so desire, be re-transferred to the corps in which he originally enlisted."
  Mr. TENNANT: I think that I may save the time of the Committee by saying that we are willing to accept this Amendment with one slight alteration.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I would suggest that the Amendment should be altered so that instead of the words "in which he originally enlisted" there should be the words "in which he was serving at the time of the transfer."
  Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add the words "Provided also that so soon as convenient after the conclusion
  1600
  of the present War any soldier transferred under the provisions of this Act shall, if he so desire, be re-transferred to the corps in which he was serving at the time of the transfer."
  Mr. GOULDING: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has met us in this matter. I am perfectly certain that it will remove a great deal of heart-burning outside.
  Colonel YATE: In thanking the right hon. Gentleman, may I on behalf of the Army express an earnest wish that this Bill may be applied most considerately, as it has never been the custom in the Service to transfer officers or men against their will. Take the case of officers. There are many officers in the regiments in which their fathers and grandfathers were before them and, if their security of tenure is taken from them, it will be a great disappointment to them. Nothing makes these men so proud as to serve in the regiments in which their fathers served. This Bill is brought in, I believe, to turn Cavalry into Infantry, and I hope that it will receive very careful consideration in reference to the question of transferring large numbers of men. I speak as representing a great hunting county. All those hunting men as we know are at the front at present, and are the finest Cavalry leaders in the world, and their servants and grooms have also all enlisted. A stud groom who has enlisted told me the other day that he never knew what real joy was until he joined a Cavalry regiment. That man has been all his life among horses, and if he is transferred against his will to an Infantry regiment he will not be able to give his best services. It may do harm if you turn Dragoons and Lancers into Infantry against their will. Ask them to volunteer, and they will all go. Treat them as you treat the Territorials. Do not transfer them by thousands into Infantry regiments and call them the 13th battalion of something else. Do not say "I am in favour of voluntary service, and one volunteer is better than ten pressed men." We have all heard that saying. All these men transferred against their will will be pressed men. I only ask that the greatest consideration will be given to these Cavalry men, and that the Bill will be applied most carefully.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 2 added to the Bill.
  Bill reported, with an Amendment.
  Mr. TENNANT: I would ask the House to allow me to take the Report stage now, as there was only one Amendment moved from the other side, and that has been agreed to.
  As amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Mr. SANDERSON: Personally, I am not so familiar with our forces as my hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Colonel Yate). I would ask the right hon. Gentleman—who will be responsible for the transfer of the soldiers from one branch of the Service to another? I think that there is a great deal of doubt about that in the country. I was asked to-day by an influential person who would be responsible in future for seeing that these transfers were carried out in the way which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has represented so forcibly. I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider carefully whether the desire of those who now wish to transfer their services will be carefully and jealously considered? I have many instances, and I think that I have written to the right hon. Gentleman about one or two of them, in which a man brought up as a motor fitter and expert driver finds himself in an Infantry regiment, and feels that he is not doing his best for his country, and that in all probability he would be doing far more good for his country if he was engaged in the transport branch of the Army Service Corps. I know that there are some cases of that kind, and that men who are anxious to transfer do not get the transfer which they desire. They desire it, not because they want to shirk, but because they want to do their level best for the country. If the right hon. Gentleman can give us an assurance that those questions will be considered carefully it will be a great satisfaction, not only to the House, but also to the country.
  Mr. TENNANT: I desire to say a word in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, and to the hon. Member who has just sat down. I have already given an assurance that there is no intention of using this Bill, which I recognise is somewhat of a revolutionary nature, in anything like a wholesale manner, nor in anything like a ruthless manner. The in-
  1602
  tention is to use it as sparingly as possible. As I have told the House, it is a power which we think ought to rest in the hands of the authorities. That is the whole point. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman may take that assurance from me. Of course, the Secretary of State for War is responsible to the country, and, as his representative in this House, I am responsible in this House. But if he wants to know who will be the officers upon whom will devolve the responsibility of selecting the persons to be transferred, I say at once, in the first instance, the commanding officers of the particular soldiers or officers, and, of course, the Divisional General, and the Commander-in-Chief—the regular military hierarchy. But naturally the Secretary of State is the person ultimately responsible to the country. There is no intention of doing anything violent, for it is not necessary. I would remind the House once more that we are at war. In spite of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge saying, most unfairly, that the War Office have only just arrived at that conclusion, I say that we have always been alive to that fact.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Why did you not mobilise the country?
  Mr. TENNANT: The country might disagree with us on a political question.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: It is not a political question.
  Mr. TENNANT: I am sorry that that spirit has been dragged in. I regret having alluded to it, but the hon. and learned Member brought it up. Having given the assurance which I have given, I trust that the House will now agree to the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

FISHERY HARBOURS BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): This Bill deals with a very small matter, though it is important to those whom it concerns. It deals with a disorganised industry, namely, the fishing industries, and seeks, as far as possible, though in a very small way, to help the

1603
supply of fish. The measure has the approval of the Admiralty with a view to helping the Coastguard in certain small places. There are two points to which I will call the attention of the House. The first is under Sub-section 2 (b) of Clause 3, wherein the powers of borrowing are subject to the consent of the Treasury until the period of one year after the end of the War; and, secondly, it is only to last for two years, so as to cover any emergency it is required to meet.
Bill read a second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House for tomorrow (Wednesday).

WAYS AND MEANS [29th April].— REPORT
Resolutions reported,
WAYS AND MEANS [29th April].— REPORT

  SPIRITS (CUSTOMS).
  1. That, in addition to the duties of Customs now payable on spirits imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall, on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen, be charged the following duties (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon computed at proof of spirits of any description except perfumed spirits

  0

  14

  9

  For every gallon of perfumed spirits

  1

  3

  7

  For every gallon of liquors, cordials, mixtures, and other preparations entered in such a manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested

  1

  0

  0

  And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect, under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.

  SPIRITS (EXCISE).
  2. That in addition to the duty of Excise now payable for every gallon computed at proof of spirits distilled in the United Kingdom there shall, on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen, be charged the following duty (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon of spirits computed at proof

  0

  14

  9

  1604
  and so on in proportion for any less quantity.
  And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.
  Mr. WALTER REA (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to move, "That the consideration of these Resolutions be postponed till To-morrow."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I understood that these Resolutions were to be negatived by agreement to-night.
  Mr. REA: I ought to explain that it is desirable to keep the Spirit Duty in being until the other Bill in regard to immature spirits has been passed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Consideration of Resolutions 1 and 2 accordingly postponed.
  Resolutions reported,

  WINE.
  3. That, in lieu of the duties now payable on wine imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall, on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifteen, be charged, levied, and paid the following duties (that is to say):—

  Wine:

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding 30 degrees of proof spirit the gallon

  5

  0

  Exceeding 30, but not exceeding 42 degrees of proof spirit the gallon

  12

  0

  And for every degree, or part of a degree, beyond the highest above charged, an additional duty the gallon

  1

  0

  Sparkling wine in bottle, an additional duty the gallon

  15

  0

  Still wine in bottle, an additional duty the gallon

  1

  0

  And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.
  In this Resolution the word "wine" includes lees of wine; and the word "degree" does not include a fraction of the next higher degree.

  BEER (CUSTOMS).
  4. That, in addition to the duties of Customs now payable on beer imported into Great Britain and Ireland, there shall, on and after the third day of May, nine teen hundred and fifteen, be charged, levied, and paid, in the case of every description of beer (other than beer called or similar to mum, spruce, black beer, or Berlin white beer, or other preparations, whether fermented or not fermented, of a similar character), the following duties on heavier beers (that is to say):—
  For every thirty-six gallons of beer brewed at a gravity

  £

  s.

  d.

  Of more than 43 degress, and not exceeding 48 degrees

  0

  12

  0

  Of more than 48 degrees, and not exceeding 53 degrees

  1

  4

  0

  Of 53 degrees and over

  1

  16

  0

  And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.

  BEER (EXCISE).
  5. That in addition to the duty of Excise in respect of beer brewed in the United Kingdom, there shall, on and after the third day of May, nineteen hundred and fifteen, be charged, levied, and paid the following duties on heavier beers (that is to say):
  For every thirty-six gallons of beer brewed at a gravity

  £

  s.

  d.

  Of more than 43 degrees and not exceeding 48 degrees

  0

  12

  0

  Of more than 48 degrees and not exceeding 53 degrees

  1

  4

  0

  Of 53 degrees and over

  1

  16

  0

  And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.
  Resolutions read a second time.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolutions," put, and negatived.
  Postponed Resolutions to be further considered To-morrow.

ALIEN ENEMIES.
Whereupon, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean), pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: In pursuance of a notice I gave at Question Time this afternoon, I rise to mention the question of the Government treatment of alien enemies. I am sorry that it has not been found possible to so arrange the Government business that we cannot have more than an hour to discuss the matter tonight, but I hope we may have another opportunity at no very distant date. I understand the Government has issued a notice to the hotel keepers in the country, and also to boarding-house keepers, to ask alien enemies—
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Aliens.
Sir H. DALZIEL: Aliens may presumably stand also for alien enemies. The notice is to ask them, on arrival at an hotel or boarding-house, to give full particulars of their residence and where they arrived from and where they are going. I congratulate the Government on their belated action in this matter. I confess I find it somewhat difficult to understand why it was not found necessary that we should have particulars of these aliens arriving at our great hotels throughout the country six, eight, or, shall I say, even nine months before? Personally, I should have thought that the movements of aliens in this country at a time of war were of some importance, and might be of very considerable value to the Government in view of the times through which we are passing. However, I desire to take the opportunity also, as they have altered their policy on this particular point to which I have referred, to ask them whether they would deem it desirable to revise their whole policy with regard to the treatment of alien enemies in this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State has said two or three times in the last hour or so that we are at war. I heartily agree with him in the object with which he made that statement, and when we are at war we ought to deal with our enemies, whether they are abroad or whether they are at home. My view is, and I say it frankly, so far as the Govern-

1607
ment treatment of these alien enemies is concerned, that I have absolutely no confidence in them whatever. I have supported them now for nearly a quarter of a century, and if anybody deserves the description of "party hack," I think I have deserved it, for I have very seldom departed from it. But in this matter I have absolutely no confidence whatever in them, and I believe I am expressing the view of men of moderate opinion, and I believe of every political party outside the House.
Take the position as it stands at this moment. We have seen the Government do little with regard to this question until there has been public violence. There was an internment of aliens when the bakers' shops at Deptford were sacked. I deplored that. We all deplored that; but I also deplore the state of things which enables the Government to take no heed of public opinion outside. Those German bakers may be perfectly innocent, but it is regrettable that violence of that kind is necessary in order to move the Government in a matter of this kind. We have seen violence again in Liverpool last night, and what is the result? The result is that every alien enemy is interned tonight in Liverpool. Surely that is an indication to the people outside that you have only got to break the law, and the Government will listen to you. I think the Government ought to look about, and secure a policy on this question. I do not think they have ever had a policy on it. They have left it to different Departments, and have not had a central authority to deal with it in all its aspects. For my part I would not go so far as to say that every alien enemy should be interned, without an opportunity of presenting his case to some tribunal. I believe that public opinion to-day would certainly support the Government in interning every alien enemy of military age. You can even give them the right afterwards to state their case why they should not be interned. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the women?"] I will leave the women to my hon. Friend, as he is a greater authority on that subject than I am. For the moment I am simply suggesting that we should deal with male alien enemies. When we get that far, my hon. Friend will probably put forward his position, and I will hear what he has to say. We have got to move very slowly on these questions, and I think if at the moment we ask for the internment of alien enemies of military
1608
age we are probably asking as much as we are likely to get. It seems to me there is no reason whatever for this exhibition of inaptitude which has been shown.
Public opinion on this point, I think, is very nearly at breaking-point with regard to the patience that has been exhibited. I think we are asking our British working men to stand a great deal when we ask them to work at the same bench with Germans who are sniggering and laughing and congratulating themselves on a great tragedy such as we witnessed during last week. I think we are asking more than flesh and blood can stand. I know on my own personal knowledge of young men who joined the Army and who saw their positions, after they had gone, taken by Germans, and, of course, very little likelihood of getting those positions back again. Is it just that a man should give up a position, and see a German taking it from him when he has gone to fight for his country? I say there is something wrong. I say that this whole policy will have to be reconsidered, and changed. I met a deputation during this evening consisting of four eminent City men representing thousands of people, of Britishers, men of standing in the City, many of them with the Freedom of the City, and two or three thousand were, I believe, outside the House in their desire to impress on the Government the necessity for action being taken, not only in the public interests, but in the interests of the Germans themselves. There is every indication that unless something be done very serious results may follow. No one desires those serious results, but I appeal to the Government to take such steps as are necessary and to deal with this question in a complete and very serious fashion. I consider that unless they do so, the situation will become much more serious than it is at the present time.
We ought to consider in this matter what Germany has done to our people who are over there. I, personally, do not believe in reprisals; I am utterly opposed to reprisals, but this is not a case of reprisals, because all the Britishers of military age in Germany are interned. We in London here have very nearly 20,000 of them who have practically their complete liberty at present. In my opinion that is a very serious matter. You have got to wait and see what their importance is when you see, as I personally believe we shall, a Zeppelin attack on London. I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that thousands

1609
of those men have already got their positions allotted to them, and that they will be willing to occupy them when the time comes. Surely we all agree that Germany in this matter will stick at nothing. There is no rule which she is going to observe. We know further that whether a German changes his nationality or not nominally, he is still a German. We know that those men consider that they would be doing great service to the Fatherland if they were able to deal us a death blow in the heart of the Empire. I do not personally blame them for it. I think a Britisher would feel the same in Berlin for his country, even if he had changed his nationality. We must take these facts into consideration, whether we like them or not. I plead with the Government that they will at least take a new and a broader view of this whole question. It is useless to ask the Government to set up a central authority. I have asked that often, and have been refused. I ask them to look into this whole question, otherwise I am afraid they will see results which we would all deplore.
This is not a question which can be easily set aside. I venture to say if this House itself were asked to express its opinion freely, with no danger of Ministerial complications as to the policy to be pursued in regard to this matter, the Front Bench would find itself almost alone. Why treat the opinion of the House of Commons with contempt in a matter of this kind? We have supported the Government loyally, and we shall continue to do so, but there must come a time even in the history of this great War when the House of Commons is to count for something. In many questions they have paid no heed to the opinion of the House of Commons. I beg them on this question to find a new policy; they cannot pretend to have a policy at present. A policy which puts twenty or thirty thousand people in internment practically without inquiry, and leaves, I suppose, scores of thousands outside simply for no reason, or because they had no accommodation, is no policy at all. If the Government have a definite policy, let us hear it; but they have no policy at present. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, who I know has many responsibilities at present in connection with this great War, to promise us to-night that he will find time to take a fresh view of this whole question, and give us some assurance that something will be done in the interests of the State.
Lord C. BERESFORD: I wish to support strongly the views which the right hon. Gentleman has just expressed. I think it will be within the memory of the Home Secretary that many months ago I pointed out that if the Government did not govern in this case, the mob would take the law into their own hands, which would be deplorable. The right hon. Gentleman agreed with me that that would be deplorable. I think that has come about. I am absolutely convinced unless there is some policy and some definite policy which is understandable, with somebody responsible and not four heads of Departments responsible, there will be very serious doings in this country, which we shall all regret. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) spoke of the possibility of the visit of the Zeppelins. I have always thought we underrated Zeppelins in this country. They have got the power to lift a very heavy weight. I am convinced, unless something very strong be done, and very soon, if they drop fire bombs on this City you will find many of those twenty thousand Germans, who are now enjoying our hospitality, lighting up this City in twenty or thirty different places, and we shall say, "What ruffians they are," and so on. It will be the Government's responsibility if that occur. It is the Government's responsibility that the people are getting ahead of the Government. I have heard to-night that there are very serious riots. Directly you begin rioting, all sorts of innocent people suffer. It is the business of the Government to look after these matters—not the business of the mob to dictate what is to be done. It is like discipline; if you have bad discipline, you have a mutiny. If you have bad laws, or no laws at all, the people will take the law into their own hands.
Mr. McKENNAmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
Lord C. BERESFORD: There is the same sort of thing again!
Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord is not entitled to say that. I have repeated again and again that the sole responsibility for the internment, or for the release of enemy aliens, rests, not with the Home Office, but with the War Office. The Noble Lord is not justified at this late stage of the discussion in forgetting that statement.
Lord C. BERESFORD: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will give me credit

1611
for not wishing to impugn anything he has said. What the House wants to know is, Who is responsible?
Sir H. DALZIEL: The Cabinet.
Lord C. BERESFORD: If the War Office is responsible, let the Under-Secretary of State for War answer. We do not want four heads; we do not want, when we apply to one Minister, to be referred to another. We shall not get this business properly done under ordinary common-sense rules until we have a bureau such as has been suggested. People are getting really angry over this question, and they will get much more angry, particularly when that sort of argument is adduced. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that it does knock the bottom out of what we say if we are told, "It is not I; it is somebody else." If it is the business, not of the right hon. Gentleman, but of the Secretary of State for War, to intern these people, let the Under-Secretary tell us what he is going to do.
Mr. TENNANT: I will when I have the opportunity.
Lord C. BERESFORD: I hope he will. What we want is to stop all this nonsense, and have something definite done, in order to save the lives of these people themselves. I go so far as to say that. It is very unfair to our working men that they should have to meet these men. They are being insulted; they have borne a great deal; they will not bear much more. They will take the law into their own hands, which would be a very serious matter. I hope the Under-Secretary will tell us that there is a new policy. Up to the present, there has been no policy with regard to these enemy aliens. I want no reprisals. Let us be gentlemen and chivalrous, as we have always been. But, as far as Donington Hall and all that sort of thing is concerned, do you think the Germans are grateful? They treat it with contempt, smile at us, and think we are afraid of them. I want to see these people locked up. I do not want to see the poor waiter, the scavenger, the chiropodist, and the hairdresser locked up. Get hold of the people in high social positions, who are laughing at us, and will turn against us the first moment anything happens, such as an invasion or a Zeppelin attack.
We want fair play. We do not want to injure these people, but we want to put them behind barbed wire; and the first
1612
people to take are the people in high social position. France has done it. Germany has done it with gross brutality. I saw the other day a man who had come over—a fine strapping man he had been, only fifty-five years of age, but absolutely broken in health. He had neuritis in his leg, and you might have taken him for over seventy. I am not saying this to get reprisals. I want ordinary consideration for our own people, and not so much for aliens who would turn against us at the first opportunity. As to the "Lusitania," see what the Germans have thought about that—the most cold-blooded and brutal assassination ever perpetrated in any reign! Our working men do not like it, and they are not going to stand it. I am in sympathy with the working men, and with the whole of my countrymen. I am totally opposed to this cowardly policy. I reiterate it—this cowardly policy. It is against our people. We have been hospitable to these people. Do they come here for our good? Look at the way they treat our prisoners! When have the people in high position expostulated against the brutality to our prisoners in Germany? If they do that, I will believe them. What do they do? They smile and sneer, like the officers did when they saw those poor fellows who were "gassed." Let us take this question up strongly, fairly, with chivalrous sentiment, but with an iron hand. Intern these men as soon as possible, and before the people make you do it. Let the Government govern, and not let the people indulge in outrageous performances because the Government has not done their work. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us a different answer from those we have hitherto received on this all-important question, which is getting graver every minute.
Mr. TENNANT: I am the first to recognise the gravity of the question raised by my right hon. Friend, but I would like the House to realise—and I see the Leader of the Opposition is present—that I had no notice of its being brought forward to night until half an hour ago, when I was engaged in the conduct of a Bill in this House. Therefore, I am not in a position to make any exhaustive speech on the subject, nor to announce any new policy, because I have had no opportunity—
Sir H. DALZIEL: I gave public notice this afternoon after I had asked questions in reference to the alteration of policy as far as hotels are concerned, and also

1613
brought to the notice of the Government the question of rioting and other minor points. Surely the right hon. Gentleman might regard that as sufficient notice? I also informed the Secretary some hours ago.
Mr. TENNANT: I am sorry I did not happen to be in the House at Question time, my own questions being over, when the right hon. Gentleman put his question. I only regret that he did not tell me personally that the matter was coming on.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I told the Home Secretary. I did not know who was going to answer.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Would it not be better to postpone the matter till tomorrow?
Mr. TENNANT: I will just say what I have to say; it will not take many minutes. I hope my right hon. Friend will not misunderstand me. I am only saying this by way of excuse in the difficult position in which I find myself. The Noble Lord, if I may say so, has used rather unguarded language—
Lord C. BERESFORD: Not unjustifiably.
Mr. BONAR LAW: May I make a suggestion which may make the right hon. Gentleman's task easier? The right hon. Gentleman has said enough to show that he is not really prepared to deal with this question from a new point of view until after Cabinet consideration. I think the position has really become so serious that it would do harm if a statement which was purely perfunctory were made by the Government. Therefore, my suggestion is that the whole matter should be put off until to-morrow, when the right hon. Gentleman may be in a position to show that the Cabinet have considered the question, and are prepared to make a definite statement as to their intentions.
Mr. R. McNEILL: It so happens that I have given notice of Motion on this very subject to raise it in its largest form. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see that I should be provided with the opportunity of discussing that Motion, so that we may not be limited or restricted to the time of adjournment?
Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid I cannot give an answer to the hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister is the only person to give that. I am obliged to the right hon.
1614
Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for his suggestion, which I quite recognise would be for the convenience of everybody, and in the interests of our countrymen. I think that his suggestion, if I may say so, is quite an excellent one, and one which I am most ready to accede to, but I would remind the House that notice has already been given that on the adjournment of the House to-morrow another question is to be raised.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that if the Government regards this, as I think they must, as a serious matter, they will give us the opportunity before they come to the end of Government business to enable the question to be discussed with some sense of its importance.
Mr. McKENNA: That to a certain extent will depend upon the business put down for to-morrow. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend would much rather deal with the question after he has had an opportunity of considering it than suddenly at a moment like the present. Perhaps, also, I may say that on the question of notice, that, as my right hon. Friend will remember, he asked me a Private Notice question upon a subject which related to an Order in Council dealing with all aliens, friendly as well as enemy aliens, a subject which had nothing whatever to do with the internment of aliens. The question of the registration of aliens is under the Home Office, and I answered it therefore as a Home Office question. Directly the right hon. Gentleman told me that he wanted to deal with the internment of aliens, I told him that that was a matter for the War Office. Unfortunately my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was engaged till somewhat late with other matters, and therefore I hope my right hon. Friend will be prepared to accept the statement that there was no discourtesy intended when his notice was not communicated earlier to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. TENNANT: Inasmuch as the new policy must be, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite quite properly says, a matter for Cabinet consideration, and inasmuch as any large additional internment of aliens involves the very big question of accommodation and so forth, would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to agree that we should have to-morrow in which to consider it, the matter to be brought up on Thursday on the Adjournment?
Mr. BONAR LAW: I shoud be perfectly ready to do that, but I am quite serious and alarmed at the prospect of what may happen during the next few days. I should like, if the suggestion is adopted to put it off till to-morrow, that some statement should be made by the Government to show us and the country that they do realise the seriousness of the position, and are prepared to reconsider the subject.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I do not blame anyone in regard to what they say as to not being prepared to meet this case. It is for the House to judge. But I gave notice to the Government that I would pursue the matter, and that was sufficient notice, I think; and it was their business to be prepared and to find out who it was that should be prepared to answer.
Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend gave no notice as to the internment of aliens at Question time. He only mentioned the subject in order—
Sir H. DALZIEL: No, no, that is not so! Surely the question of the treatment of aliens arises. The word "treatment" covers all, especially when as I mentioned the sacking of shops is taking place. I
1616
do not wish to press that, however. I am I quite sure that the course recommended I by the Leader of the Opposition, under all the circumstances, is the best course. The question as to how and when the matter shall be raised can be settled later, except that I think the sooner the better; and I give formal notice to the Under-Secretary for War that I shall ask either himself or the Prime Minister to-morrow whether they are going to have any new policy in regard to this question. If the answer is unsatisfactory, I shall ask them to give us the earliest possible moment to discuss it.
Mr. TENNANT: I quite recognise that new circumstances have arisen, and that there is a feeling abroad which requires, and demands, some different treatment from that which has been adopted. That being so, and inasmuch as the Cabinet must decide what is to be done, and inasmuch as it is desirable that a statement should be made with as little delay as possible. I should prefer that the matter should be left over till to-morrow.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes before Ten o'clock.

WAR.
  DEATH DUTIES ON OFFICERS' ESTATES.
  DEATH DUTIES ON OFFICERS' ESTATES.
  MEDICAL OFFICERS (ADMIRALTY).
  MEDICAL OFFICERS (ADMIRALTY).
  MEDICAL CONSULTANTS.
  MEDICAL CONSULTANTS.
  BRITISH EAST AFRICA.
  BRITISH EAST AFRICA.
  COPIES OF NEW TESTAMENT FOR TROOPS.
  COPIES OF NEW TESTAMENT FOR TROOPS.
  VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS (BRASSARD).
  VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS (BRASSARD).
  PARCELS FOR PRISONERS OF WAR IN GERMANY.
  PARCELS FOR PRISONERS OF WAR IN GERMANY.
  CENSORS OF MAILS.
  CENSORS OF MAILS.
  WAR DEPARTMENT VESSELS.
  WAR DEPARTMENT VESSELS.
  WAR OFFICE (EMOLUMENTS).
  WAR OFFICE (EMOLUMENTS).
  COLONIAL PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  COLONIAL PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  ALIEN ENEMIES IN UNITED KINGDOM.
  ALIEN ENEMIES IN UNITED KINGDOM.
  POSTAL WAR SERVICES.
  POSTAL WAR SERVICES.
  WOUNDED AND SICK PRISONERS (EXCHANGE).
  WOUNDED AND SICK PRISONERS (EXCHANGE).
  Crown Property (Treasury Minutes).
  Crown Property (Treasury Minutes).
  Income Tax Returns.
  Income Tax Returns.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Kanhai Ram v. Durga Prasad.
  Kanhai Ram v. Durga Prasad.
  China and Japan.
  China and Japan.
  Declaration of Alienage.
  Declaration of Alienage.
  Sugar Commission (Purchases).
  Sugar Commission (Purchases).
  WEEKLY LIST OF SALES TO REFINERS AND OTHERS.
  WEEKLY LIST OF SALES TO REFINERS AND OTHERS.
  National Penny Bank.
  National Penny Bank.
  Export of Balm.
  Export of Balm.
  London Sorters' Overtime.
  London Sorters' Overtime.
  Clerk to Lanarkshire Justices.
  Clerk to Lanarkshire Justices.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR 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:

Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway.

Bury and District Joint Water Board.

Methodist Church in Ireland.

Also the Certificates that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petitions for the following Bills:

London and North Western Railway (Redeemable Stock).

Port of London Authority.

London Electric Railway Companies Facilities.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (REDEEMABLE STOCK) BILL.
(Petition for Bill.)
PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY BILL.
(Petition for Bill.)

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
(Petition for additional Provision.)
Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
Reported, without amendment.

DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.
PRESCOT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

STREATLEY AND GORING BRIDGE BILL.
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
ABERDARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS, &c.) BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COPYRIGHT (BRITISH MUSEUM) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Strachie). (No. 62.)
FUGITIVE OFFENDERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Islington). (No. 63.)
MARRIAGE OF BRITISH SUBJECTS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow (The Lord Islington). (No. 64.)
POLICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to he read 2a Tomorrow (The Viscount Allendale). (No. 61.)
STATUTORY COMPANIES (REDEEMABLE STOCK) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 65.)
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee. (No. 66.)

TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 67.)
BARNOLDSWICK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
CHELMSFORD CORPORATION GAS BILL.
DEWSBURY CORPORATION BILL.
FRIENDS' PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL.
RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS EXTENSIONS, &c.) BILL.
SOUTHEND WATER BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.

THE DARDANELLES.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, with the permission of the noble Marquess opposite I wish to ask him a Question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether he is able to give us any further information with regard to the progress of operations in the Dardanelles.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Marquess for giving me notice of his intention to ask this Question, and I will give him what information I can although it is not very copious in amount. The noble Marquess will remember that a few days ago an official communiqué was issued, I think from the Admiralty, stating the general trend of the operations down to the time of its publication; and I am able to supplement that by some information received from the General in command, Sir
970
Ian Hamilton, stating what happened down to Thursday last.
On the night of May 2 there was a violent attack by the enemy all along the line held by us, and fighting went on from 8 p.m. to midnight. The attack was repulsed with, on that occasion, inconsiderable loss to us and heavy loss to the enemy. Their reserves came under the searchlight which was working with the French 75-millimetre guns, with the result that they suffered very heavily. On every succeeding night up to the 6th the enemy renewed the attacks, but they diminished in intensity and on each occasion were repulsed without difficulty and a certain advance was made by our troops. During the whole of this time the positions as we gained them were strengthened and consolidated and further supplies were brought up. It is reported that in front of the position occupied by the 29th Division a very large number of dead of the Turks were found, and some company states were picked up which showed that the losses of the enemy were very heavy indeed. The French on their side gained an important point on the left, and are stated to have inflicted with the bayonet very heavy losses on the enemy.
The operations all through have been supported by the Fleet, but there is no special information to give as yet from the naval point of view, although the Fleet has been rendering, as before, most valuable assistance to the land operations. The Australians and New Zealanders have also been engaged, and have fulfilled a most important function in containing powerful forces of the enemy towards the narrow neck of the Peninsula. That, I think, is all the information that I am in a position to give the noble Marquess. But if before we rise for the recess I am able to make a further statement, I shall be happy to do so.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Am I right in understanding the noble Marquess to say that the information which he has just given carries us up to the night of the 5th instant?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: And that there is no later information?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: That is so.

THE SHOOTING OF BRITISH PRISONERS.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Marquess a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether His Majesty's Government have any further information regarding the statement furnished by His Majesty's Minister at The Hague as to the order given by Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria in reference to the shooting of British prisoners, and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take with regard to the gross violation of the usages of war disclosed in that communication.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Viscount will remember that this communication was received in the form in which it was published through an official source. He will therefore understand that we have no other confirmation of the statements which were made by the German soldiers who gave the information to our representatives, but we have no reason—as, indeed, the noble Viscount will have gathered from the manner in which the information was conveyed to us—to doubt the authenticity of the statements or to question their truth.
As regards the latter part of the noble Viscount's Question—as to what steps it is proposed to take—I would refer him to a reply which was given by the Prime Minister yesterday to the hon. Member for the Carmarthen Boroughs in another place. That hon. Member asked what steps, having regard to the continued breaches of The Hague Convention by the Germans—and then he gave a list, beginning with the poisoning of wells in Africa and proceeding through all the items which are only too well known to us—what steps it was proposed to take, and whether the Government intend to continue to allow Germany to pray in aid the articles of The Hague Convention when it suits her purpose. The Prime Minister replied that Germany began the war by a flagrant breach of a Treaty, and it has since been carried on by her with continual disregard of the previously accepted rules and conventions of warfare. In the Prime Minister's opinion there is no object in approaching neutral Governments unless and until the latter are prepared to take some action in the matter, and he expressed the hope that neutral nations generally are growing more and more sensible to what is involved in these actions,
972
and are beginning to realise that the issues affect the whole of the civilised world and the future of humanity. I do not know that I can add anything to what was here expressed by the Prime Minister.
I recollect that in the quite early days of the war, speaking of the invasion of Belgium and the atrocities that accompanied it, I expressed the opinion that sooner or later, by one means or another, those who were guilty of such acts would have to pay for them, and pay to the uttermost farthing. Many things have happened since then to confirm me, and I believe also others, in that opinion. Of the particular form which such payment must take it is, I am sure, premature to attempt to speak; and in some ways I think the less said the better in the direction of expressing intentions, and still less is it desirable to utter anything in the nature of threats. There are various possibilities, some of which have been mooted in debate, which would occur to any of us of the manner in which those responsible may in the long run be called to account. Suggestions have been made, at any rate with regard to some of these breaches of the conventions of war, of various forms of pecuniary indemnity. Others have suggested that whenever the terms of peace come to be decided these things will not be forgotten. Others, again, have expressed the hope that individuals, especially those who must be held to be ultimately the most responsible, may have to give personal account of what has happened. I will not attempt to discuss those possibilities or to express any opinion, either on my own behalf or on that of the Government, as to what course it may be well to pursue, or which, if any, of those alternatives it may be preferable to take. But I do most confidently repeat the opinion that before it is all over, proved excesses either of this kind or of many others which have occurred, will have to be paid for, and paid for, as I said, to the uttermost farthing.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on the 4th instant.
Moved, That a Committee of Five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session (The Lord Chancellor); agreed to.
The Lords following were named of the Committee—

E. Harrowby.

E. Loreburn.

L. Parmoor.

L. Sanderson.

L. Wrenbury.

Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint
974
five members of that House to join with the said Committee, and to propose that the Committee do meet in Committee Room A on Monday next, at half-past Three o'clock.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL. [H.L.]
Referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Foul o'clock.