Sitting of 7 August 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (no Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Craven Estate Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Private Bills (no Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd day of August, no Standing. Orders are applicable, namely:—
Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
Gore's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
River Glen Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Rhodes Estate Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the undermentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—

City of Birmingham;

City of Exeter

[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order 9,777, dated 28th July, 1916, postponing the operation of the two Orders described in the Schedule thereto until the 1st November, 1916, [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND) ACCOUNT.
Copy presented of Return showing payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account for the financial year 1915–16 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1913.
Copy presented of Second Annual Report of the General Board of Control for Scotland [by Command]; no lie upon the Table.
LIQUOR TRADE FINANCE COMMITTEE (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Report of the Advisory Committee on Proposals for the State Purchase of the Licensed Liquor Trade [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
Copy ordered "of Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure, with Balance Sheet for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1916."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      ME. JUSTICE YOUNGER'S COMMITTEE.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his communications since 21st June with Mr. Justice Younger's Committee enable him to promise the publication of further Reports drawn up by

      645
      that Committee; and can he say what use is made by the Government of the evidence taken from returned prisoners of war by that Committee?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): Mr. Justice Younger's Committee has been consulted, and I am not able to make any definite promises as to publication. The matter is not free from difficulty, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the greater the publicity in these questions the better provided the interests of our prisoners are not thereby injured. The information furnished by the Committee to His Majesty's Government has proved of great value, and may be of even greater value later on.
      Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider as to whether they could not publish some reports, though I do not unduly press the matter?
      Lord R. CECIL: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Anything that can be published without detriment to our prisoners' interests will be published.

      SWITZERLAND.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state what, if any, arrangements are made in Germany for wounded prisoners discharged from hospital as convalescent; how many of such wounded prisoners have been sent to Switzerland, and what proportion such number bears to the total number of wounded prisoners in Germany; and are those who recover in Switzerland sent back to Germany or sent to this country in exchange for German prisoners?
      Lord R. CECIL: Wounded prisoners in Germany are sent when convalescent to an internment camp. In theory, they are not expected to work until they have recovered their strength; 452 British prisoners have so far been sent to Switzerland. I regret that we have no information as to the total number of wounded British prisoners in Germany. British and German prisoners sent to Switzerland remain there until the end of the War.
      Mr. STUART-WORTLEYAre there any prisoners going from Germany to Switzerland next week?
      Lord R. CECIL: I think, I speak from recollection, there are some more going this week.

      CIVILIAN EXCHANGES.
      Mr. CROOKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any consideration has been given to the possibility and advisability of exchanging all interned German civilians for all British civilians now interned in Germany; and whether, although the number of the former may be much greater than the latter, steps will be taken to secure this exchange in view of the charge for maintenance thrown upon this country?
      Lord R. CECIL: This matter is the subject of active negotiations, and I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I point out that the public discussion of terms of exchange does not facilitate the task of the negotiators.
      Mr. CROOKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the names of the repatriated British and German subjects who have been individually exchanged since 25th May; and will he state in regard to each case what distinct public advantage has been gained by each such exchange?
      Lord R. CECIL: The names of the British subjects are Sir Timothy Eden, Captain Heaton-Armstrong, and Messrs. H. H. Holland, S. H. Urry and J. Moresby-White. They were exchanged as a group for the following German Consular Officers: Veit, Frendenberg, Suhl, Ottens and Harnack, in pursuance of a specal agreement for the release of British and German Consular officers concluded early in the War. It was provided that as the number of German Consular officers in our hands exceeded that of the British Consular officers detained in Germany, the balance should be made up with British civilians. The difficulty of making a selection in such cases is very considerable, and I do not think a public discussion of the names would be likely to lead to public advantage. But I shall be happy to discuss the matter fully with my right hon. Friend or any other Member of the House in private.

      SHOOTING PRISONERS AT LIMBURG.
      Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any further information respecting the shooting by their German guards of two Irish prisoners of war at Limburg?
      Lord R. CECIL: No further information has been received. We requested the

      647
      United States Embassy on the 4th August to endeavour to obtain the information asked for as soon as possible.

      KUT-EL-AMABA.
      Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been able to obtain any further information respecting the British prisoners who fell into the hands of the Turks at Kut-el-Amara?
      Lord R. CECIL: On June 9th the United States Representative at Constantinople reported that notwithstanding repeated inquiries he had been unable to ascertain the whereabouts of the British prisoners of war taken at Kut, excepting General Townshend. The United States Consul at Bagdad had not been allowed to get into touch with the prisoners. The only information which General Townshend had was that they were being brought northwards across the desert. The United States Representative sent £T2,000 by telegraph to the Ottoman Red Crescent at Aleppo for the prisoners, and pressed the Porte to allow the Consul at Bagdad to visit them and supply their needs The Porte refused on the ground that the men were being moved and stated that they were being treated according to the established rules.
      On receiving this information we requested the United States Representative on July 6th to protest strongly and to press the Porte to state the names of the camps to which the prisoners were being sent and to allow a member of the Embassy to visit them immediately on their arrival. The Embassy have so far received no reply to their representations made at our request.
      We have heard that 12 officers have arrived at Broussa well, 45 officers and men at Afion Kara Hissar, 6 officers at Bagdad, 75 officers at Kastamouni and an equal number at Yozgat. On June 26th 1,000 prisoners were at Bagdad too weak or ill to travel, 40 British officers were at Adana ill with dysentery. Medicines and nourishing food were being sent them. On June 21st 62 prisoners arrived at Angora. On July 28th the United States Representative telegraphed that 50 Indian officers and men were at Konia and 23 Indians at Eskishehir. He states that as soon as the arrival of prisoners at a camp is notified he sends them clothing, comforts and money. The names of all officers and men mentioned in the reports received have
      648
      been communicated to the War Office for the information of the relatives.
      The failure of the Porte to reply to our Note of the 6th July is most unsatisfactory and inspires considerable misgiving, having regard to the fact that the prisoners are compelled to cross the desert in this season of the year and are obviously in no condition to endure hardship.

    MURDER OF CAPTAIN FRYATT.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received the names of the officers composing the Court which tried Captain Fryatt and of the War Council which ratified the sentence; and if all the information asked for through the American Embassy will be published when received?
    Lord R. CECIL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative; the information when received will be published if the United States Government consent to that course.

    CONTRABAND.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say what steps have been taken since the adoption by the Government of the Paris economic resolutions to unify the lists of contraband and of export prohibition; and what arrangements have been, or are being, made for prohibiting throughout the Empire in conjunction with our Allies the export of all commodities declared absolute or conditional contraband?
    Lord R. CECIL: The list of goods declared to be contraband of war and of goods of which the export is prohibited are, so far as the British Empire is concerned, already co-extensive for all practical purposes. His Majesty's Government are in constant consultation with their Allies with the object of obtaining complete uniformity in these matters.

    TUBE CONTRACT (MANCHESTER CORPORATION).
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Manchester Corporation have been compelled to accept a tender for

    649
    boiler tubes from a German-owned firm, owing to the fact that these tubes, which are essential to their electricity and gas undertakings, cannot be obtained from any other source; if the English works of this German company are a controlled establishment under the Munitions of War Act; and if steps will be taken to extinguish the German interests in this business and place it entirely under British control?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): If the hon. Baronet will furnish me with the name of the firm to which he refers I will have the matter looked into at once.

    BELFAST GOODS TRAFFIC.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if, notwithstanding the assurances given on behalf of the railway companies, he continues to receive evidence from traders that goods traffic for Belfast is still greatly restricted owing to the refusal of railway companies to accept goods for transit; and if he intends to put pressure upon the railway companies to fulfil their obligations to the public?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The hon. Baronet has forwarded to me certain complaints regarding Belfast traffic, and I am sending him copies of communications which I have received from the Lancashire and Yorkshire and Midland Railway Companies on the subject.

    ENEMY EXCHANGE RATES DEPRECIATION.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the statement by the Public Trustee that no decision of the Court has been given that a debt due to a British creditor and payable in Marks by an enemy debtor who has property in this country should be paid at the present depreciated value of exchange of Marks into sterling, the Public Trustee will pay all British creditors of enemy debtors at the normal rate of exchange ruling at the date of the outbreak of war so as to avoid loss to British creditors to the advantage of enemy debtors?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Public Trustee will no doubt act in accordance with the
    650
    directions of the Court in ascertaining the amount to be paid to a British creditor in respect of a debt payable in Marks.

    ARMY MEDICAL EQUIPMENT (INDIA).
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for India what Committees or Commissions have been instituted within the last six years to inquire into the medical equipment and organisation of the Army in India; what action was taken upon their Reports; and whether these Reports will be laid before the Mesopotamian Special Commission?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): In 1912 a Committee, of which Surgeon-General Sloggett was chairman, inquired into the system of field medical organisation and equipment of medical units of the Army in India. Its recommendations were approved by the Government of India, and are now in force. The station hospital system for Indian troops was the subject of inquiry by another Committee. Its recommendations were under discussion when the War broke out, and as they related solely to peace arrangements their further consideration has been postponed. The Reports will be laid before the Special Commission, if the Commission should call for them.
    Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask if the Committee, the name of the chairman of which he did not mention, recommended certain important additions to the medical equipment in India which have not been carried out?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not myself read the Report of the Committee, and I do not know what it contained. My information is it referred to peace conditions, and consideration was suspended under pressure of the War.

    MICA EXPORTS (INDIA).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has made any arrangements for restricting the export of mica from India; and, if so, who are the Government agents and have they any German connections?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The export of mica from India to countries other than the United Kingdom and British Posses-

    651
    sions is prohibited save under special licence. At the request of the Minister of Munitions, Messrs. Chrestien and Co. have been appointed Government agents for the purchase in India of such grades as are specially required for the manufacture of munitions. So far as I am aware there is no German element in the firm.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I inquire whether one of the managers has already been interned, and whether he is let out again?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have made inquiries since the hon. Member sent this question. My information does not confirm it. In any case this firm was appointed by the Ministry of Munitions, and if he desires to pursue the matter further, perhaps he will address his question to them.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will.
    Sir J. D. REES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where this firm has its offices?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot answer that without notice.
    Sir J. D. REES: If not in Southern India, will there be any agency in that quarter, as mica prevails in the southern State of Travancore?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that that would necessarily be a reason for having two agents in control of the work.

    ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS {SUNDAY ADMISSION OF SOLDIERS).
    Major NEWMANasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he could arrange with the Fellows of the Zoological Gardens, in view of the number of soldiers at present on leave in London, who are left without opportunity for recreation on Sundays, to allow soldiers in uniform to have access to the gardens on Sunday on payment of a small fee; or, if not, whether soldiers of the Oversea Dominions could be admitted free on Sunday afternoons?
    Mr. WALTER REA (Lord of the Treasury): The Council of the Society arranged more than a year ago, and the arrangement still holds good, that officers and men in uniform, of the Navy,
    652
    Army and Colonial forces, and also all wounded soldiers and sailors, shall be admitted free and without tickets on Sundays by the office entrance to the gardens.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    ME. SHEEHY SKEFFINGTON.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is aware that of the papers and other effects taken from Mr. Sheehy Skeffington's house by soldiers of the Royal Irish Rifles on 28th April, two days after his murder, none were returned till some days after the court-martial of his murderer Colthurst on 6th June; why were not more than about one-third of the things then returned; why were those things returned torn, dirty, defaced, rain-stained; whether the two-thirds of the effects which were not returned are still in the possession of the military authorities; if so, why are they still retained; if not, why were they destroyed; in view of the fact that no breath of accusation has been uttered against the murdered man or any charge preferred against his widow, will an apology be offered to Mrs. Sheehy Skeffington, and will a proper offer be made to her for the loss and damage done to her property; and (2) whether he is aware that among the things returned to Mrs. Sheehy Skeffington about two and a half months after her husband's murder were khaki clothes and other garments blood-stained and with bullet marks, papers of P. H. Pearse, counterfoils from the Sinn Fein bank, notebooks of an Enniscorthy prisoner, and other documents from different houses raided in Dublin; whether these things were placed among the things of the late Mr. Sheehy Skeffington in order to raise suspicion or to excuse his murder; if not, how they came to be mixed up with his effects; and whether he is now in a position to state that the Government will show their sympathy with the families of victims of Captain Colthurst's murders by some public announcement, at once declaring the innocence of the murdered men and freely offering such full apology as they can give?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My hon. Friend put to me on the 3rd August several questions with reference to the effects of the late Mr. Sheehy Skeffington, and I fear that with reference to these questions I can

    653
    only repeat the substance of what I then said. It seems to me premature to inquire seriatim into these various points independently of and prior to the inquiry. I will also refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for East Mayo on the 31st July, and I would add that any question of compensation or reparation if and to the extent that that question might properly arise, can certainly not be the subject of any announcement until the inquiry is over and its conclusions are available.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is the hon. Gentleman in possession of the terms of reference of this inquiry? We have not seen them. I should like to ask how these matters must necessarily, as he says, come within the purview of the inquiry?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think I said that. What I said in the answer to which I have alluded was that I thought they would come within the scope of the reference. I have not yet seen the terms of reference.
    Mr. KING: If they do not come within the scope of the inquiry they will be gone into by the War Office, no doubt?
    Mr. FORSTER: Then I am quite sure my hon. Friend will put a further question.

    LORD DECIES.
    Mr. LUNDONasked whether Lord Decies has been acting as military censor; and, if so, what were his qualifications for the post; has Lord Decies been in France since the outbreak of war; and what powers of censorship he really has?
    Mr. FORSTER: Lord Decies was appointed Press Officer on the Staff of the General Commanding-in-Chief, Ireland, 11th June, 1916, after having been employed on similar duties for two months to the satisfaction of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief. Lord Decies has not held an appointment in France. In regard to censorship, he carries out such instructions as he may receive from the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief.
    Mr. KEATING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the censor stopped the sending of newspapers from Ireland without giving the newspaper proprietors any notice?
    Sir J. D. REES: Is not Lord Decies well known as an able officer, capable of anything from cricket to censorship, from polo to politics?
    Mr. LUNDON: Where did Lord Decies act as Press censor previous to his appointment at Dublin?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that he had been employed on similar duties for two months to the satisfaction of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief.
    Mr. LUNDON: Where?
    Mr. HEALY: Why has he not been made Lord Lieutenant?
    Sir J. D REES: He would make a very good one.

    PRISONERS AT FRONGOCH.
    Mr. FIELDasked the Home Secretary whether he can state the intentions of the Government respecting Irish prisoners now confined in Frongoch; whether an opportunity of having their cases tried by civil tribunal with legal assistance will be afforded, or whether it is proposed to keep them in confinement; and, if so, for what period?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am not in a position to say how long it may be necessary to detain those persons whose cases have been reviewed by the Advisory Committee with the result that their internment is continued. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin on the 2nd August.
    Mr. HEALY: Have the prisoners who are being kept in detention been informed individually of the result of the inquiry?
    Mr. SAMUEL: They either have been or are about to be.
    Mr. FIELD: Are we to understand that no civil trial will be accorded to these prisoners?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is a question which I have answered repeatedly, and it has also been subject of debate.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Home Secretary whether he will state if James Hannigan, Patrick Roche, Patrick O'Sullivan, and Michael O'Sullivan, of Mitchels-

    655
    town, county Cork, were brought before the Advisory Committee, and, if so, with what result; why were these men interned seeing that no trouble of any kind took place in this district; is he aware that some thirty-five men were arrested in this district immediately after the rebellion and all of them released except six; that the release of the latter was promised if four rifles which were known to have been in the possession of the local Volunteer corps were given up; whether these rifles were handed over; if so, why were such hardships inflicted or these men by deporting them to Frongoch camp and keeping them away from their business, as well as creating a bad feeling in the district; and will he, if these four men are still detained, order their release as soon as possible?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The four persons mentioned were brought before the Advisory Committee, who made inquiry into their cases, with the result that they recommended the release of Patrick Roche and of Patrick and Michael O'Sullivan. These three persons have been released. With respect to James Hannigan the Committee recommended that he should be retained in internment, and he accordingly remains in the camp at Frongoch. The case has been carefully considered, and I cannot now re-open it.

    LADY PRISONERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary when it is proposed to grant the Irish lady prisoners a civil trial; if they will be allowed to instruct counsel for the defence; if he is aware that they have now been three months in English prisons without trial; and if he will say whether it is the Government's intention to release them at an early date?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have nothing to add to the replies I gave to the hon. Member on the 17th July and subsequent dates.
    Mr. BYRNE: When do the Government intend to give the Irish lady prisoners a sample of what you boast about—British justice?

    SUSPENDED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES.
    Mr. BYRNEasked whether any of the suspended employés who were engaged in Government Departments in Ireland have been reinstated; when it is proposed to allow them to resume duty; and why they have been victimised?
    Mr. SAMUEL: So far as I am aware the reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The resumption of duty by those Government employés who have been suspended by the responsible heads of their Departments on suspicion of complicity in the rebellion must depend on the reports received in individual cases from the Commissioners who are at present engaged in investigating them.
    Mr. BYRNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is anybody in the places of these suspended men?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot, without notice.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary if he can state the amount of expenses involved in importing to Dublin 600 Royal Irish Constabulary men to take the place of the Dublin Metropolitan Police; if he is aware that these men have been drafted from all parts of Ireland at considerable expense to take the place of the Dublin Metropolitan Police who are engaged in a struggle for a living wage; if the Government will reconsider their decision and allow the men a reasonable increase in their wages; and if he will state the wages and bonuses paid to the London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, and Birmingham police forces, and in other cities similar to Dublin?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member has been misinformed. Royal Irish Constabulary have not been drafted into Dublin to take the place of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. I will make inquiries as regards the present emoluments of police in other places, but I would remind the hon. Member that it was only in 1914 that the Dublin Metropolitan Police received a substantial increase of wages, now supplemented by the war bonus of 3s. 6d. a week recently sanctioned both for the Dublin Metropolitan Police and for the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Mr. HEALY: Does the reply deny that 600 men of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been drafted into Dublin as stated?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, completely.
    Mr. BYRNE: The right hon. Gentleman refers to a substantial increase. Is he aware that that increase is one of 2s., granted after thirty years? Is that substantial?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not sure that that is so. I have not verified the figure.
    Mr. HEALY: What is the difference between the wages of the Irish police and those of the police of the towns mentioned? Have not the Dublin police recently had much more laborious and terrible duties to discharge than the police in these other towns?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I could not possibly make a comparison of that sort except by circulating the figures with the OFFICIAL REPORT. During the rebellion the Dublin Metropolitan Police had to be withdrawn from the streets, as they were unarmed.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Home Secretary (1) if he will say from what country districts 500 members of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been drafted into Dublin city; whether this is to be taken as evidence that their services are unnecessary in the districts from which they were withdrawn; if so, whether there is any reason why they should not be transferred to the Regular Army for military service; and (2) whether some 500 members of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been drafted from the country districts into Dublin city; if so, whether he will state the reason why they have been so drafted; and whether it has any reference to the dissatisfaction existing amongst the Dublin Metropolitan Police because of the refusal of the Government to grant them an adequate war bonus and an increase of pay sufficient to enable them to meet the increased cost of living consequent upon the War?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer to the reply on this subject which I have given to-day to the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin.
    Mr. NUGENT: For what purpose have these men been drafted in from their respective districts?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member has been quite misinformed. There has been no such movement of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Mr. NUGENT: There has been!
    Mr. SAMUEL: No!
    Mr. HEALY: Does that mean that it may be in the county? Phænix Park is, I believe, technically outside the city of Dublin and in the county?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My information is that there has been no large movement of 400 or 500, or any large number of the Royal Irish Constabulary, with a view to replacing the Metropolitan Police.
    Mr. HEALY: Everybody in Dublin says so!
    Mr. SAMUEL: That does not of necessity make it accurate.
    Mr. NUGENT: No police have been drafted in within the last week?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir; no large body of police have been drafted into Dublin.
    Mr. HEALY: Or the county?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Not that I am aware of. A very small number—ten or fifteen, a mere handful—of men have come into Dublin for some special duty; but there has been no movement of the kind suggested.

    MAJOR PRICE.
    Mr. LUNDONasked how long it is intended to keep Major Price, chief detective in Ireland; what are his duties; does he draw a double salary and, if so, what is the total amount of the same; is it a portion of his duty to try and connect the Irish Parliamentary party with the outbreak of Easter week; and, in view of the attacks made by him upon private individuals in Ireland who had no connection whatever with the Sinn Fein movement, will he be sent back to discharge his ordinary duties as county inspector of police?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The position and emoluments of Major Price were explained at length in reply to questions of the hon. Member for the Leix Division of Queen's County on the 23rd March and the 20th July last. No such duty as is suggested in the third inquiry in the question has been imposed on Major Price. I cannot say when the military authorities will be in a position to dispense with his services.
    Mr. LUNDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to the allegation that he offered to release one of the leaders of the rebellion provided he could connect two hon. Members of this House with the Sinn Fein movement?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to send me the information on which he bases that statement.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is this the same Major Price as ordered the constabulary some time ago to fire on defenceless people?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No; it was another officer of the name of Price. But I am not sure that the account of the hon. Member of the occurrence is strictly accurate.

    ARRESTS.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Home Secretary how many prisoners from county Clare are still in detention on account of the Dublin rising; whether he can give their names and the charges against then; and whether he can hold out hope of their early return to their families?
    Mr. SAMUEL: One prisoner from county Clare named Eamon Waldron is still in detention. The order was made on the ground that he is of hostile associations and a member of an organisation called the Irish Volunteers or of an organisation called the Citizen Army, which have promoted armed insurrection against His Majesty, and is reasonably suspected of having favoured, promoted or assisted in armed insurrection against His Majesty. The Advisory Committee have recommended that he should be retained in internment.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Was there any direct evidence that these men were of hostile association beyond the fact that they belonged to the Irish Volunteers, which, before the rising, was not an unauthorised or illegal body?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have no doubt there must have been some evidence or the Committee would not have recommended detention. The great majority of those who merely belonged to the Irish Volunteers have been released.

    GERMANS RESIDENT IN GREAT BRITAIN (POST-WAR POWERS).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Home Secretary if he has considered what legal authority he will need after the War, when his powers conferred by the Defence of the Realm Act are abrogated, effectively to deal with those Germans who have hitherto been resident in this country, but who are now known to be and to have been enemies in disguise?
    Mr. SAMUEL: This is one of the questions which are engaging the attention of
    660
    the Government, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Are we to be at the mercy of these people after the War?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say yet whether fresh legislation will be necessary, or whether a continuance of the existing powers will be sought.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Home Secretary if any arrangement has yet been made for the payment of a war bonus to the Royal Irish Constabulary; and if he can state the terms of the arrangement?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer to the reply which I gave on Monday last to a question of the hon. Member for the College Green Division of Dublin.
    Mr. LOUGH: Will the officers be included in the arrangements made?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.

    LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the late Chief Secretary for Ireland was anxious and expressed a wish that the rents of labourers' cottages should be reduced during the period of the War; if he will explain why the Local Government Board have refused to carry out his wishes; and, in view of the services rendered to the Empire by the enlistment, in the Army of tens of thousands of the sons of these poor cottiers, will he take steps to have the wishes and pledge of the late Chief Secretary redeemed?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to his question of the 25th July.

    ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that until some three years ago the full address of all aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation had been granted was regularly included in the annual Return, but that during the last two or three years only the towns of their residence are included in the Return and all other means of identifi-

    661
    cation omitted; and if he will take steps to have in future full particulars inserted as formerly?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member will find all the information he desires in the lists published monthly in the "London Gazette." The change in the annual lists was made before the War for reasons of economy and convenience, and I am not prepared to reverse it at the present time.

    DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Home Secretary what was the total amount received from the Dublin Metropolitan Police rate for the years 1880, 1881, 1882, and 1883, respectively; and what was the actual cost of the Dublin Metropolitan Police for each of these years?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The amounts received from the Dublin Police rate in the years ended on 31st March, 1881, 1882, 1883, and 1884, were £31,504, £32,611, £32,060, and £34,116, respectively, and the total expenses of the police establishment (including Police Courts) were £136,164, £136,957, £167,640, and £154,907, respectively?
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Home Secretary on what date the last increase in wages was granted to the Dublin Metropolitan Police; whether that increase was preceded by a strike or a threatened strike of the men; what were the total amounts received for the years 1914 and 1915, respectively, from the Dublin Metropolitan Police rate; what was the total cost of maintenance of the Dublin Metropolitan Police force for the years 1914 and 1915; and what is the estimated return from the Dublin Metropolitan Police rate for 1916 and the estimated cost of maintenance of the Dublin Metropolitan Police force for this year?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Apart from the recent war bonus the last increase of pay granted to the Dublin Metropolitan Police took effect under the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act of 1914 from the 1st October of that year. I know of no foundation for the statement in the second part of the question. In the financial year 1914–15 the net produce of the Police Rate was £46,489, and the cost of the force under the heads, Pay, Pensions, and Clothing, was £149,791. The corresponding figures for 1915–16 were
    662
    £47,258 and £142,394 respectively, and the estimated figures for 1916–17 are £47,626 and £142,439 respectively.
    Mr. NUGENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in the messing was 2s., and could the right hon. Gentleman give information to the House as to what was the increase in the cost of the messing of these particular men during the last three years; has it not been consideraby increased and beyond the 2s. per week which is given?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say what has been the increase. The cost of living has risen for everyone. The Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary have been in receipt of a war bonus.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to secure that all interned enemy aliens shall be deported on the termination of hostilities in order that our disbanded soldiers and sailors may not be exposed to undue competition in seeking re-employment at the end of the War?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The consideration suggested is one of the many connected with the wide question of the treatment of enemy aliens in this country at the end of the War, which, as I stated in answer to a question on the 29th June is engaging the attention of the Government. I cannot make any statement on the point at present.
    Colonel YATE: Is the consideration now being given to the question an official or a genuine consideration?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, it is official— and genuine!

    NON-POISONOUS DOPE.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Home Secretary whether there has been a large increase of jaundice amongst the persons working with poisonous dope; if he will say what progress has been made with the experiments to produce non-poisonous dope; and is there a probability of it being supplied to the various works at an early date?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I am pleased to be able to say that not only has there been a considerable decrease recently in the number of cases of jaundice due to dope, but that satisfactory dopes which are free from tetrachlorethane are now available in sufficient quantity, and that the War Office and Admiralty have directed their contractors to use only the approved dopes of this kind. It may be taken, therefore, that the danger from tetrachlorethane poisoning in this class of work has now been removed.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: I take it that that dope is now being circulated to the manufacturers?
    Mr. BRACE: Certainly!

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    YIDDISH POPULATION (EAST LONDON).
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the alarm felt by the Yiddish population of East London, who dread deportation to Russia, and that the Yiddish protection societies are endeavouring to calm excitement, to disseminate correct information, and otherwise to assist in the maintenance of order and good feeling; and whether he will remove the warnings given by the police to East End newspapers not to advertise the meetings which the Jewish protection societies are holding for these lawful purposes?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Many false reports have been disseminated on this subject, partly, no doubt, through honest misunderstanding, but partly also from perverse motives. I am informed that in one instance the police have found it necessary to warn the editor of a journal that he was responsible for advertisements as well as for editorial matter and news.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Home Secretary whether he is able to give any further information as to the work to be undertaken by those conscientious objectors to military service whose cases have been referred to the Home Office Committee appointed by him?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Committee have in hand several schemes for the employment
    664
    of these men. The scheme for their employment under the Road Board is farthest advanced; and it is probable that, for some little time to come, most of the men released will be found work under the Board, who will make the necessary arrangements for housing and feeding them.
    Mr. HARVEY: Have any, and, if so, how many, of these men been employed up to the present under these schemes?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think any rcommendations have yet been made.
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINSasked the Secretary of State for War whether any information can be supplied concerning P. B. Jordan, of Harrow, a member of the International Bible Students' Association and a conscientious objector, who was sent from Seaford on 30th May to Henriville Camp, Boulogne, and was court-martialled some time afterwards; what was his sentence; and will he say from what effects of his treatment this man is suffering?
    Mr. FORSTER: I understand that this man is undergoing a sentence of ten years' penal servitude, but the War Office does not possess any other information with regard to him and is unaware that he is suffering any physical effects from this sentence.
    Mr. KING: Is it intended that this man shall finish his sentence of penal servitude before being sent to the Central Tribunal?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I think not.
    Mr. KING: Then why cannot he be treated in the same way as others who are let off on furlough until their cases can be tried?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think they are treated in the same way.
    Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of these conscientious objectors are now off on furlough until their cases can be decided by the Central Tribunal, and why should there be this discrimination in one case, which is treated with so much greater severity than others?
    Mr. FORSTER: I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend has been misinformed.

    STATIONERY OFFICE CLERKS.
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury the ages, length of service, qualifications, and condition,

    665
    whether married or single, of the temporary clerks and temporary second division clerks who have been declared indispensable in the Stationery Office, while established clerks of considerable seniority are being released for military duty; how many clerks of the established staff, besides Messrs. Ribton and Griffiths, have been declared dispensable since the passage of the Military Service (No. 2) Act, 1916; and whether, both in the interests of economy and justice, it can be arranged that single temporary men should be released for military service before married established clerks, by allotting the work now being done by temporary clerks to the established clerks whom it is proposed to release for military service?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am at present inquiring into the matter referred to in the question.

    ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War how many temporary majors there are in the Royal Garrison Artillery and what is their average length of service; and what are the special qualifications held by these temporary majors which entitled them to this rank, in preference to Regular Artillery captains who might otherwise have been thus promoted?
    Mr. FORSTER: There are forty-seven temporary majors, and their average length of service is over ten years. It is impossible to find all the battery commanders required from among Regular officers and it is necessary to make use of all temporary officers in any capacity for which they may be qualified. They are, of course, only appointed to command batteries after they have been reported as suitable and possessed of the necessary experience.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: In regard to these appointments of temporary majors, by whom are they made?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Commander-in-Chief has full power to appoint officers of temporary rank.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will say how many batteries of the Royal Garrison Artillery there are now at the front previously commanded by majors now commanded by captains; and why these
    666
    captains, who have successfully commanded batteries, should not be promoted to majors?
    Mr. FORSTER: I cannot say how many batteries are in the position mentioned as the number varies from day to day. The Commander-in-Chief has full power to promote captains to the temporary rank of major to fill vacancies if he considers they are suitable.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it possible to get a report from the Commander-in-Chief as to promotions in the Royal Garrison Artillery, and is he aware that there is great dissatisfaction in that corps?
    Mr. FORSTER: I should be very reluctant to trouble the Commander-in-Chief at the present moment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Later on.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the captains who are doing a major's work receive a major's emoluments?

    RECOVERY FROM WOUNDS (RETURN TO TRENCHES).
    Mr. WINGasked the Secretary of State for War if he will assure the public that wounded soldiers after recovery are not hurried back to the trenches until all the members of their unit at the base have been called to the front, and thus destroy an impression that is abroad that the wounded soldier when recovered is sent to the trenches irrespective of the reserves at the base?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend will see that it must be impossible to make any statement on this matter which shall not be open to exception in exceptional cases. As between men recovered from their wounds who might be in this country and men in the base depots in France it would obviously be natural to take the latter first, especially in any emergency suddenly arising, but all men waiting as reserves at the base in the base depots would, of course, be equally available for drafting to the front, and if more men were wanted than were in the depot all those present would doubtless be taken, but if the numbers present were greater than the draft required some selection would have to be made, and this would doubtless be made upon the principle of selecting the fittest and most suitable men.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will state what proposals, if any, will be made to enable old age pensioners to meet the increase in the cost of living; and if he will cause the proposals to be made for Great Britain to be extended to Ireland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As I stated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Houghton-le-Spring) on Thursday last, I hope to circulate this week a statement describing certain administrative measures which the Government have taken in connection with old age pensioners. These measures apply to old age pensioners in Ireland in the same way as to those in other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. HOGGE: In what form does the right hon. Gentleman propose to circulate that statement?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: You will see it.

    INDIAN TROOP TRAIN (DEATHS OF SOLDIERS).
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Prime Minister if, when the Government is considering what adequate pension or allowance shall be given out of public funds for the benefit of the widow and children of the late Captain Fryatt, he will consult with his colleagues in the Cabinet as to the propriety of giving pensions and allowances on the fullest scale to the widows and children of those British soldiers who were negligently killed in a troop train in India; and if, in these cases, he will take the necessary steps to have these widows and children treated as though their husbands and fathers had been killed in action?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the case of these Territorial drafts in India has any connection with the case of Captain Fryatt. My hon. and learned Friend will remember that on the 1st August I dealt somewhat fully with the case of the Territorials. In accordance with that the widows and children of those of the soldiers referred to who belonged to the Territorial Force will, under rule, be granted the same rates of pension as they would have received had the soldiers been killed in action. The widows and children
    668
    of those who did not belong to the Territorial Force are not entitled under rule to these pensions, but I have asked the concurrence of the Army Council to a proposal that all should be treated alike.

  MUNITIONS.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether thy body of gentlemen who are at present engaged in the compulsory purchase of houses of refreshment, public offices, political clubs, and other places out of public funds and converting the same into State-owned public-houses are responsible for their activities to any Government Department; and, if so, will it be possible to discuss these activities on any public Vote before the Adjournment of the House?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): The conditions under which the Central Control Board work are laid down in the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 3) Act, 1915, and the Defence of the Realm (Liquor Control) Regulations of 10th June, 1915. I would also refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to three questions on this subject on Thursday last. If the hon. Member desires to discuss the question of the Central Control Board, it would probably be convenient to do so on the Vote for the Ministry of Munitions.

    TIME (IRELAND) BILL.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Home Secretary whether it is his intention to proceed further with the Time (Ireland) Bill?
    Mr. SAMUEL: This Bill cannot proceed if it proves to be controversial, and I regret to find that Notices on the Order Paper indicate that it meets with opposition.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every chamber of commerce and every mercantile association in Ireland, regardless of politics, has asked for this Bill?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am aware of that, and stated it on the First Reading, and, although public opinion in Ireland is, I believe, generally favourable to this Bill—

    669
    [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]—apparently it meets with some opposition, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will, of course, be well aware that a Bill of this character can hardly proceed. I am most anxious to pass it if possible.
    Sir E. CARSON: May I take it that that will apply to all other Bills, and not merely to a Time Bill for Ireland?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot answer for all Bills
    Mr. HEALY: As the right hon Gentleman has consulted the hon and and learned Member for Waterford before bringing m the Bill, could he not invite the hon and learned Gentleman to use his great authority with those opposing it?
    Mr. JOYCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Corporation of Limerick and other public bodies have passed resolutions against this Bill because it will mean that working people will have to go to work in the dark?

    SCOTTISH BANK NOTES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury what are the objections to English post offices paying one at the face value of a Scottish bank note?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As the notes are not legal tender in England any such notes cashed by an English Post Office would have to be transmitted to Scotland for collection, and the proceeds would in most cases have to be remitted back to England.
    Mr. HOGGE: What is the difficulty in a simple arrangement of that kind; if it is a convenience to Scottish soldiers in England?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is an expense to the Post Office.

    FOOD PRODUCTION (IRELAND).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), if he is aware that in view of the proposed after-the-war policy of the Government as regards the question of food products, etc., various committees
    670
    have been appointed by the Board of Agriculture and other Government Departments in this country; and will he state if the Irish Department of Agriculture have set up, or propose to set up, any similar committees in Ireland to see that, when the proper time comes to deal with this all-important question, Ireland's economic interests will not be neglected?
    The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT Of AGRICULTURE, IRELAND (Mr. T. W. Russell): There is in each Irish county a Statutory Committee of Agriculture whose duty it is to develop and foster agricultural production. A large number of instructors and overseers are employed by these bodies. Each county in Ireland strikes a rate which, with Department's funds, finance a great variety of schemes. The Irish Department are fully alive to the importance of increased production, and there has in the past year been a considerable increase, both as regards crops and livestock. It is fully expected that the figures for 1915–16 will show a further improvement on the previous years.

    HAY PRICES (IRELAND).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), the prices paid for hay last year in Ireland as compared with England; why a bigger price was allowed for hay on this side; and will he take steps to see that such a thing will not occur this season?
    Mr. RUSSELL: This is a matter for the War Office to deal with.

    EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Munitions how many soldiers are employed at the Llanelly Steel Works; whether for the first three days these soldiers were paraded at the drill hall and marched to and from the works; whether this practice is still kept up; whether the men are paraded on Sundays; what wages are paid; and whether he can give an assurance that the amounts received by the men are not less than would be paid to them if they were similarly employed as civilians?
    Dr. ADDISON: A military working party of 102 soldiers, under an officer, was

    671
    supplied to the Llanelly Steel Company. These men were all strange to the neighbourhood, and for the first few days were paraded and marched from the drill hall, which was a convenient centre, to the works. The roll call is now taken at the works. On Sunday, 30th July, a special parade was held at 8 a.m. to inspect the men and their equipment. These men, like all soldiers temporarily lent by the War Office as working parties, remain in the military service of the Crown, and are under military discipline. They receive no wages, but continue in receipt of their military emoluments. The contractor to whom they are supplied is prohibited from making any payment to the men, but pays to the military authorities a sum equal to the wage of the men at the rates current in the district for civilian labour of the kind in question.
    Mr. HODGE: Is it not foolish for the Army to take away capable men and send soldiers who are incapable in their place?
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether it is a fact that the War Office or the Munitions Ministry charge the full rate current in the district for these men, and pay the men only a certain amount of the money, and is, in fact, making a profit out of these men's labour?
    Dr. ADDISON: There is no question of making a profit out of the men's labour, but the Regulation of the War Office require that the wages that would be paid to the same number of civilians are paid over to the military authorities. The amount paid by the employer is still the same.
    Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the War Office or someone in authority gets the difference between what these men get and what the employers pay to other men?
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not know what the War Office does with the money when they get it. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question to the War Office.
    Mr. THORNE: It is exploiting the soldiers' labour absolutely.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Was there not an understanding on this question that when soldiers were brought back as workmen in these establishments they would be paid not less than the standard rate of wages paid to other people?
    Dr. ADDISON: I should like notice of that.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I, and a great many others, went down and said so on those instructions many months ago?
    Dr. ADDISON: So far as the military authorities are concerned, they are under the Regulations of the War Office.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that soldiers are being employed in Woolwich Arsenal on work formerly done by civilians, such as unloading large shells and load trucks, without any extra pay; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to the customary extra pay being granted?
    Dr. ADDISON: Soldier working parties are temporarily employed at Woolwich Arsenal in connection with the inspection bond and the stores department under an arrangement with the War Office for the supply of such working parties in cases of extreme urgency when civilian labour is not availaible. The conditions as to the pay of soldier working parties are laid down in Army Council Instruction 707 of 1916, and provide that in all cases where troops are lent for such work they should continue in receipt of their military emoluments, working pay, when admissible, being granted at appropriate rates according to the work performed.
    Mr. CROOKS: What is the proper rate?
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Why is it that soldiers are employed at Woolwich Arsenal when only recently some 5,000 men have been discharged? Why are you discharging men and taking on soldiers?
    Dr. ADDISON: We wanted 20,000 in steel works and blast furnaces, and a large number of unskilled men. Many of the men referred to in Woolwich Arsenal have been drafted off in process of the dilution of labour to other work, and they were skilled workmen.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Seeing that these men are working at very laborious work, does he expect that they are going to work for military wages?
    Dr. ADDISON: These men work under the Regulations of the War Office, and they are only supplied because in those cases the state of affairs was so bad that application had to be made to the War Office to lend working parties.

    ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITAL, GREAT YARMOUTH.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the recent advances of 3s. per week given to the dockyard workers will apply to the attendants at the Royal Naval Hospital, Great Yarmouth; if he is aware that the men in question only receive 3s. per day and are on duty for not less than sixteen to seventeen hours per day; and if he in tends to take any action in the matter either to have their pay increased or their hours of labour reduced?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The total pay of these attendants now amounts to 29s. 2d. a week, and, in addition, they receive provisions and uniforms. The average working hours are 9¾ a day. The question of pay and conditions of employment have been fully considered recently, and it is not proposed at present to make any further modification.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    STATUTORY COMMITTEE.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now approved the Regulations made by the Statutory Committee on Pensions for supplementary pensions, so as to allow the Committee to proceed to put their scheme into operation? I am aware of the letter addressed to the Committee since this question was put down, but I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman desires to make any further answer?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The answer is in the affirmative.

    FLAT RATE.
    Mr. RUTHERFORDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the capital sum of £6,000,000 announced by him as a supplement to the flat rate of war pensions, grants, and allowances has been arrived at on the basis of a scale; if so, whether he will publish the scale or such figures and calculations as were before him when he fixed the amount; and (2) whether the Government is prepared to admit the principle
    674
    that national funds should provide the whole of the amounts necessary to cover the flat rate and the supplement administered by the Statutory Committee in accordance with an approved scale, and also admit the principle that in such administration there shall neither be taken into account nor deducted gifts or allowances from employers or from unions or local or other sources?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper now issued and to the reply given by the Secretary to the Local Government Board on the 3rd August. It would, I think, be impracticable to adopt the suggestion contained in the second part of Question 78.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be the strongest opposition to appropriating private benefactions in relief of State obligations and that this will meet with great opposition from the committee of lord mayors and provosts and municipalities, and also from the trade unions?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is no intention of appropriating private benefactions for the relief of State obligations.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the Regulations that have just been issued it is quite clear that private benefactions and also trade union allowances will be taken into account and deducted from the amount of the State pensions?
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Was there any intention on the part of the Government of suspending the payment of supplementary grants and pensions when the funds were exhausted?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes; it was always intended to pay the whole of the supplementary allowances. The £6,000,000 is merely paid on account in order to meet the charges made upon the Statutory Committee. As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rutherford), the obligations of the State are a matter which has not been definitely determined, and the question in the form in which he puts it has no possible answer except the one which I gave.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of discussing the matter of principle involved in Question 78?
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand that the Debate to-morrow will cover this question. Of course I am not the authority to determine that point.
    Mr. HOGGE: Before we debate this matter to-morrow, will the right hon. Gentleman produce the actuarial report upon which he based his sum of £6,000,000 apart from the figures which are known to be accurate from the casualty list up to the present moment?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a long way from the question on the Paper.
    Mr. McKENNA: It is a question which should not be addressed to me at all.
    Mr. HOGGE: The question is dealing with the scale which will be discussed to-morrow. That scale was arrived at upon actuarial calculations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's calculations are different from those of the Statutory Committee, and I want to know if we can have them to-morrow?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a very proper question after notice has been given, but not now.
    Mr. RUTHERFORDasked whether the Statutory Committee have submitted to him their suggested scale for the administration of the supplement to the flat rate; and whether such scale is the same as his scale; and, if not, in what particulars it differs?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not clear what scale my hon. Friend has in mind. If it is for the administrative expenses of the local committees, it has not yet been decided; if it is the scale for grants, the Treasury has approved the Statutory Committee's scale.
    Mr. M. BARLOW: Will there be any right to review the scale in this House?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir; because the House will be called upon to approve the granting of £6,000,000.
    Mr. BARLOW: When will the matter be reviewed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

    GERMAN AND BRITISH PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can furnih any estimate of the value of German pro-
    676
    perty and investments in the British Empire, and also of the value of British property and investments in Germany?
    Mr. HARCOURT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I regret that I am not in a position to give any satisfactory estimate.

    SUGAR SUPPLY.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that co-operative societies in various districts are finding it practically impossible to obtain supplies of crystallised, granulated, or lump sugar whilst multiple shops in the same district are getting a continuous and full supply; and whether he will state what steps are taken to ensure fair distribution between all traders of the available supplies?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Commission has no information to this effect, and the Cooperative Wholesale Society, which buys from the Commission and distributes to its members, the retail societies, is, of course, being treated on exactly the same basis as all other buyers, both as regards quantities and qualities. The sugar supplies available are being divided amongst all those who bought from the Commission last year in the same proportions as then, and these buyers are in turn to pursue the same policy.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (PROMOTION).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether lieutenants in the Royal Army Medical Corps have been given three years' acceleration of promotion after six months' service, but captains of ten years' service have so far been given no acceleration; and whether, having regard to the work done by the Royal Army Medical Corps captains at the front, he will consider the possibility of acceleration of promotion in regard at least to some of them?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend is misinformed in thinking that no captains of the Royal Army Medical Corps have received accelerated promotion. As a matter of fact 148 captains have received such promotion, and each of them had between ten and twelve years' service. The

    677
    acceleration of promotion given to lieutenants does not in fact amount to as much as three years. I am informed that in the majority of cases it has amounted to less than twelve months.

    FURLOUGH.
    Mr. WINGasked the Secretary of State for War if he can give an assurance that, as far as military exigencies will allow, furlough will be granted, short, if necessary, to the men who have been at the front since the commencement of hostilities and those who have served at the front twelve months without leave?
    Mr. FORSTER: The present moment, when large numbers of our men in France are daily in close contact with the enemy, is not, I think, one when those of our troops who are not at the moment offensively engaged will expect to be granted leave. But I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that it is the desire of the Commander-in-Chief, with whom in this matter absolute discretion lies, to give all possible leave which the military exigencies will permit.

  AIR SERVICE.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUNS.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if his attention has recently been called to another instance in this country of our anti-aircraft guns firing at our own aircraft; whether in an official communiqué, which was issued for publication, the instance was described as a flight of enemy aircraft arriving over our shores and successfully driven off by the effective fire of our anti-aircraft guns; if he can say whether this official communiqué was with drawn, and by whom; if a second but entirely contradictory communiqué was issued to take its place; if he can give the reasons why this change was considered necessary; if he will inform the House whether the details of this incident, as described in the first communiqué, were found to be untrue; if so, whether the real truth was disclosed in the second communiqué; if not, if he will explain the reason, and issue a full Report of the incident referred to; and (2) whether, when our own aircraft were fired upon on a recent occasion by our anti-aircraft guns, our airmen were in any danger of their
    678
    lives; and, if so, whether the communiqué describing the incident as enemy aircraft successfully driven off by our anti-aircraft guns may be relied upon as true, so far as the efficiency of these guns is concerned, or whether the airmen concerned were never in any danger, in spite of the firing, owing to the ineffective range of the guns?
    Major BAIRD(representing the Air Board): Rare instances have occurred, as in the case referred to, of our anti-aircraft guns firing at our own aircraft, and are, it is to be feared, occasionally to be expected in aerial warfare. They have been adequately dealt with by the competent authorities, and no one but the enemy would gain by their being discussed in public. No such communiqués as are referred to were issued for publication, the incident being discovered before official notification could be made.
    Mr. BILLING: Would the hon. Gentleman mind telling me who gives the order for firing the aircraft guns, or is it independent firing?
    Major BAIRD: The officers commanding the battery give the order?
    Mr. BILLING: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the question whether it is independent firing?
    Major BAIRD: I cannot say what orders are given, but the officers commanding the battery give the orders.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman find out?

    ZEPPELIN RAIDS.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to make a statement with regard to the recent Zeppelin raids; whether he will state how many hours they were actually over this country in their recent visits; and at what stage of the attack does the responsibility for the defence fall upon the War Office?
    Major BAIRD: It would not be in the public interest to add to the information already published regarding recent hostile air raids. As regards the last part of the question, the responsibility for dealing with air raiders rests with the Navy, while they are over the sea, and with the Commander-in-Chief Home Forces as soon as they cross the coast line. It is scarcely

    679
    necessary to add, however, that there is close co-operation between the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps, and that in practice both Services seize any opportunity of attacking the enemy whether he is over the land or over the sea.

    LEAVE OF OFFICERS AND MEN.
    Mr. ASHLEY(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that an official statement was made in this House on 1st August, that a proportion of officers and men serving at home should be allowed leave on 5th and 6th August, he will state why no such leave was given this week-end in the Southern Command?
    Mr. FORSTER: I received the notice of my hon. Friend's question this morning. In the time available it has not been possible to ascertain whether, in point of fact, no officers or men received leave, as was intended and promised and, if not, exactly what the reason may have been. I am informed that the necessary Orders were sent from the War Office and were distributed from the Southern Command Headquarters to all units.
    Mr. ASHLEY: In view of the importance of this question, I will raise it on the Adjournment to-morrow.

    House of Commons Police (Sunday Leave).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the House of Commons policemen are not getting their Sunday leave in accordance with the promise made by the Home Secretary in a reply to a question put by the Member for South West Ham, concerning the policemen's leave, on 28th October, 1915; if he is aware that some of the policemen of the House of Commons have had no Sunday leave for some weeks past; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed that no police-constable of the House of Commons performs duty on more than two successive Sundays. Sunday leave is given as freely as circumstances
    680
    admit, and I understand that all police at the House of Commons are in a better position in this respect than the police detailed for ordinary duty.

    Housing Accommodation (Dublin).
    Mr. FIELDasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the need for funds to erect housing accommodation in Dublin on sites already acquired by the corporation; whether he is aware of the discontent and ill-health arising from the present lack of suitable dwellings for the workers; and whether, in view of those conditions, he will arrange that any moneys available from the National Health Insurance Commissioners for Ireland, or from any other source, shall be loaned or granted to provide workers' dwellings in Dublin City?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North Dublin on the 2nd instant.
    Mr. NUGENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of producing a small Bill which would enable all approved societies to invest their surplus savings, as well as the amount in the hands of the Insurance Commission, in view of the fact that the majority of these people are willing and anxious that the money should be invested by the Insurance Commission for building houses?
    Mr. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when this suggestion was made two years ago by the hon. Member for Cork it was opposed by all the hon. Members on the benches behind me?

    Civil Service Boy Clerks.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if it is intended to take any action in response to the prayer of a petition addressed to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury on 24th May last on behalf of boy clerks who have passed examination for positions as assistant clerks in the Civil Service; will he say how many candidates were successful in the examinations held in July, 1915, and January, 1916, and how many of the successful candidates have received permanent positions; and are steps being taken to increase the number of appointments of boy clerks to positions now occupied by temporary clerks at a much higher remuneration?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, Sir. The matter is under consideration, and I hope an announcement of the arrangements proposed will be made very shortly. The numbers declared successful at the examinations of July, 1915, and January, 1916, were 397 and 317 respectively. Of the former 192, and of the latter six, have received permanent positions. In reply to the last part of the question I do not think it will be necessary to make any special arrangement for the retention of boys who have been unsuccessful in the assistant clerks' examination.

    National Health Insurance Fund (Ireland).
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Secretary to the Treasury the amount of money invested up to the present date on behalf of the National Health Insurance Fund (Ireland) in Local Loans Stock; what is the annual income from those investments, and what has been done with that income?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The amount of money invested up to the present date on behalf of the National Health Insurance Fund (Ireland) in Local Loans Stock is £45,352. The annual income from this investment is £1,625. This amount forms part of the general income of the National Health Insurance Fund (Ireland) and is dealt with in accordance with the Regulations dated the 12th August, 1912, made by the Treasury under Section 54 (3) of the National Insurance Act, 1911.
    Mr. NUGENT: May I ask if there is a single penny of this money invested in Ireland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member really must give me notice of a question of that sort.

    Venereal Diseases.
    Major ASTORasked the President of the Local Government Board how many councils of counties and county boroughs have submitted to the Board complete schemes for the diagnosis and treatment of venereal diseases; how many of these schemes have been approved by the Board; and how many are already in operation?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The Regulations and Circular were only issued about three weeks ago and no complete schemes have yet been submitted to the Board.
    682
    Numerous negotiations and conferences have, however, already taken place, and I am glad to observe that considerable activity is being displayed by local authorities in carrying out the duties imposed on them.
    Major ASTOR: May I ask, in view of the urgency of this question, and the fact that the Royal Commission reported six months ago and the President of the Local Government Board stated four months ago he was going to deal with the question, why there was such delay in issuing the circular to the local authorities?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: There have been many reasons for that; I cannot give them in an answer. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well how depleted the staffs have been, the difficulties in carrying on negotiations and the many difficulties which arise in asking local authorities to do anything more at the present moment. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member my right hon. Friend is as zealous as he is to carry out the work, and we have every reason to believe the local authorities are extremely anxious to do all they can.

    Oil Extracted Meals (Ireland).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will attend or send some responsible official to attend a conference of the representatives from Limerick, Cork, Kerry, and Clare county councils to discuss the question of what should be done to prevent the oil being extracted from the Indian meal and stop what undoubtedly is nothing short of robbery and fraud by some millers in Ireland?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: The question of oil extracted meals has been for some time past, and is still, receiving the Department's attention, but these inquiries are not sufficiently complete to enable the Department to make any definite statement. No such conference as is referred to in the question has been notified to the Department.
    Mr. LUNDON: If the conference is called will the right hon. Gentleman send an official to it?
    Mr. RUSSELL: Yes.
    Sir E. CARSON: May I ask whether this is an illegal practice?
    Mr. RUSSELL: There have been two cases in the King's Bench, and in both cases there were convictions.

    Income Tax (Demand Papers).
    Sir H. CRAIKasked whether, in order to avoid the suspicions aroused against the bona fides of the Inland Revenue, he will authorise the printing in large type or in distinctive characters of the note on the back of the present Income Tax demand papers, which conveys an intimation as to the abatement claimable where income is diminished by more than 10 per cent.?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think I can usefully add anything to the explanation given by my right hon. Friend in reply to the hon. Member on the 2nd August.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Would it not be possible to print this notice, which is at present quite unobserved, in such a form that it would attract attention and make them aware of the exemptions to which they are entitled?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am most anxious that the taxpayers should be made aware of their proper claims to exemption. I have not seen the paper myself, but I will look into the matter, and if the result of my inquiry confirms the view expressed by the hon. Member I will see if anything can be done in the matter.

    PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
    Mr. HEALY: I ask the indulgence of the House that I may make a short statement by way of personal explanation. About ten days ago I complained and, I think, justly complained, of the omission by Admiral de Robeck in his despatch of any reference to the gallantry of the Irish regiments. I naturally attributed that omission to the gallant admiral, but since that time I have had evidence that the gallant admiral whom I blamed, was not responsible in the way I suggested, and I wish to say that henceforward when I have any complaint to make of the omission of reference to the gallantry of Irish regiments I shall in no way connect the name of the gallant admiral with that omission.
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill [Lords],
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): I beg to move, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the business for the rest of the week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The business for Wednesday will be Scottish Estimates. As to the business for Thursday, the Prime Minister will make an announcement tomorrow.
  Mr. LOUGH: Will the second Order, the Finance (Exchequer Bonds) Amendment Bill, be taken to-night?
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will we be taking any more than the Second Reading of the Army-Act (Amendment) Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: After my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd George) moves the Second Beading of the Army Act (Amendment) Bill, if the House permits, we will take all the Orders, with the exception of No. 5 [Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provsions) Bill], down to Order No. 10.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Home Secretary told us a short time ago that if there was any opposition to a Bill that it would not be taken. Now, there is very considerable opposition to the Municipal Savings Banks (War Loan Investment) (No. 2) Bill. In these circumstances, in view of what the Home Secretary says, I presume, at any rate, the Colonial Secretary will not persevere with that Bill at the present time. There was a meeting on Thursday in the City in connection with this Bill, and a very prominent person in the City was asked to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to express to him the practically unanimous feeling of the City that this Bill should not be proceeded with.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: By whom in the City?
  Sir F. BANBURY: By the bankers of London. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer received that representation from the meeting in the City last Thursday?
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Army Act (Amendment) Bill makes very great changes, and that very strong objection may be taken to its proceeding beyond the Second Reading stage to-day? The Bill was only placed in Members' letter boxes this morning.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that it was available on Saturday. As to any opposition to the Bill, we will judge that as we proceed.
  Sir E. CARSON: The Home Secretary said that Bills will not be proceeded with if opposed in speaking of the Time (Ireland) Bill.
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I think I said that a Bill of this character will not be proceeded with if opposed.
  Sir E. CARSON: The Bill in question for altering Irish time is for the benefit of commercial people in Ireland, and the Home Secretary says that if it is treated as controversial, as he concludes it is because a few angry politicians have put down Motions against it, it will not be pressed. May I ask him whether, on the same rule, a much more important Bill, the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill, will be withdrawn? I can assure him that if that rule is to be laid down that the commercial men in Ireland are not to get a slight concession of this character, when every chamber of commerce and every single commercial association of every kind in Ireland have asked for it, and which was carried on the Second Reading the other day by an enormous majority in this House—if such a Bill must be treated as controversial and not proceeded with because a few Members below the Gangway put down Motions to reject it, then I say none of these Bills can be allowed to go through. These are not political matters at all, and I can assure the Government and my right hon. Friend that nothing gives less confidence towards any rapprochement in Ireland than if it is found that commercial matters are treated as though they were great questions connected with politics of some kind. Although I should be very glad to join with my fellow countrymen below the Gangway in any of these measures necessary for the general convenience of traders and commercial men in Dublin, we hope and expect that the same justice will be meted out to these

  697
  commercial men when they put forward this kind of claim. I suggest to them that under present conditions, if legislation is wanted with a view to setting up certain measures for getting over the disastrous results of the rebellion in Dublin, that they should not put forward petty objections, amounting to no real objections, to such legislation as this Bill. But if that course is persisted in, none of these Bills, so far as I am concerned, can be allowed to go through.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The Colonial Secretary exempted the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill from amongst those which he hoped to take tonight, and I notice on the Paper that there are in italics after the title of the Bill the words "(to be reported upon by the Examiners)". I would like to state that this Bill is of a most unusual and controversial character, and I would like to ask the Government if this Bill is to be taken. As I understand it, it is proposed by a public Bill to confer private Bill powers on the Corporation of Dublin. To that I am entirely opposed. Would the right hon. Gentleman state why it is necessary for the Bill to go before the Examiners? As regards what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin said as to the Time (Ireland) Bill, certainly before the Daylight Saving Act I should not have been in favour of this Bill. But the Daylight Saving Act threw an entirely new light upon the question, and I think the hon. Members below the Gangway, to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred as angry politicians, will see that the daylight saving legislation has made an entire change in the position of Ireland. I wish to ask when the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill will be taken effectively, and to express the hope that it will be put down at such a time as to prevent us having to sit up late to discuss what is really a revolution in Parliamentary procedure.
  Mr. CLANCY: I also wish to ask the Colonial Secretary when it is proposed to take the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill, and whether or not it will make any difference in his view as to when it ought to be taken to know that the Examiners have reported that this is a public Bill?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the time for taking this Bill, I cannot give a definite reply now. That will be announced, I think, to-morrow.
  Mr. HEALY: The Bill will not be taken to-morrow then?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think so. As regards what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend, I am sure he and the House will recognise that at this time of the Session the possibility of carrying a Bill will depend upon the amount of opposition it receives, unless it is one of a character so urgent that it must be taken. I shall be very sorry if this Bill does not pass, but what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says is that, in view of the fact that there is likely to be persistent opposition in this House, at this period of the Session it will be impossible to press the Bill through. As regards the other Bill, the same course must be adopted by the Government if there is the same kind of opposition, unless the matter is of such importance that it is essential that it should be carried before the House adjourns. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not agree with the statement of fact made by the right hon. Baronet opposite.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): In reply to the right hon. Baronet opposite, I have to say that I have received no representations with reference to the Municipal Savings Banks (War Loan Investment) (No. 2) Bill. But as regards the views of the bankers, I saw the bankers before introducing the Bill, and I had a letter from their representative to say that they would not oppose it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I make a personal explanation, because my veracity has been called in question. I quite accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he does not know, but I have handed him a paper now informing him that I was present at a meeting in the City of London when the Governor of the Bank of England was requested to see the Secretary to the Treasury in opposition to this Bill. But as the right hon. Gentleman says that he has not received representations and was not aware of that fact, all I can say is that, in common civility to the City of London, the Bill should be postponed for a day or two to enable him to find out.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend quite agrees. If there is this opposition of which he is not aware, he quite agrees that the Bill ought not to be pressed forward to-day, and for that reason it shall not be.
  Major WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Small Holding Colonies Bill meets with very serious opposition?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps the House will agree with me in thinking that our best method of judging the extent of the opposition will be to wait until we discuss the Bill.
  Major WEDGWOOD: In that case you will not get on very quickly with the other Bills ahead of it.

  Division No. 30.]

  AYES.

  [4.1 p.m.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Alden, Percy

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Astor, Hon. Waldorf

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Hendry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Hodge, John

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Barren, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Back, Arthur Cecil

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Prothero, Rowland Edmund

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Home, Edgar

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Bird, Alfred

  Jackson, Sir John (Devonport)

  Rowlands, James

  Boyton, James

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Brace, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Broughton. Urban Hanlon

  Keating, Matthew

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Bull, Sir William James

  King, Joseph

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Shortt, Edward

  Byrne, Alfred

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r., E.)

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Thompson, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolvernampton)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. (Falkirk B'ghs.)

  Tickler, T. G.

  Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Fell, Arthur

  Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

  Wortley. Rt. Hon. C. B Stuart-

  Field, William

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Morgan, George Hay

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Morison, Hector

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Mr. Gulland and Lord Edmund

  Goldstone, Frank

  Nicholson, Sir Charles M. (Doncaster)

  Talbot.

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  NOES.

  Joyce, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Mr. Hogge and Major Wedgwood.

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W, Derby)

  Mr. CLANCYrose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
  Mr. CLANCY: I only wish to ask a question.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Then: are other hon. Members who have also asked questions. The hon. Member has exhausted his right. We are debating a Motion.
  Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."
  The House divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 3.

ARMY ACT (AMENDMENT). BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move, "That the Bill be to read a second time."
This is a very simple Bill which does not require much explanation. It remedies two obvious defects in the Army Act which has been forced upon my attention by recent circumstances. The first is with regard to civilian witnesses. In regard to a court-martial, there is power vested in a court-martial to summon civilian witnesses to give evidence. It is quite obvious that in an investigation into the conduct of officers, civilians may have all the evidence that is relevant. It is rather remarkable that although that power is vested in a military court where there is a court-martial, there is no similar power vested in a court of inquiry into the circumstances which proceed from a prosecution of that kind. It is therefore proposed by this Bill to give power, on the certificate of the Secretary of State, to make provision for the summoning of civilian witnesses before a military court of inquiry under the Army Act, where their testimony is essential for arriving at the facts.
The second proposal deals rather with the constitution of the courts. There may be circumstances where not merely the conduct of officers is concerned but where the conduct of civilians may be implicated. Under the present powers, the constitution of the court of inquiry must be confined to officers. That is obviously unfair if civilians are implicated, perhaps much more seriously than the officers. It is therefore obviously fair that there should be a power vested, in conditions of that kind, to say not merely that the court should consist of officers who are there to adjudicate on matters upon which their experience and training would necessarily qualify them to express an opinion, but that there should also be civilians present in reporting on facts which involve civilians and officers alike. For that reason I propose that there should be a power, in cases where civilians are implicated, to set up a mixed court. It has been suggested, in order to meet the views of the Army, that the civilians should be confined to Members of either House of Parliament, because obviously the Houses of Parliament are
702
the legislature, and have the power at any moment to set up a Select Committee to investigate the conduct of anybody, be he civilian or be he an officer of the Army or the Navy. Therefore, it is stated, in order to meet any possible misgivings on the part of officers, that if mixed courts should be set up to investigate the conduct of officers, in those cases the civilian members of the court shall be confined to members of the Legislature. Those are the two provisions of this Bill.
Very deep interest was felt in this Bill by the late Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham). I am perfectly certain that men of all parties, whatever their views may be with regard to his actions or his opinions, have heard of his death with regret. There were many who differed from him in views; there were, perhaps, still more who differed from his methods, but I do not think anyone for a moment doubted his sincerity, his patriotism, his utter fearlessness, and a courage which I have never seen equalled in the most trying circumstances. He discussed the matter with me under very great anguish and pain, but always with the greatest courage. I am sure it will be the feeling in every section of the House that we have lost an honest and courageous representative of the people at a time when the nation needs those qualities more than ever it did. I ought to tell the House that I am introducing this Bill under circumstances brought to my notice very largely through his instrumentality, and there is one reason why I am exceedingly anxious that it should get through at the earliest possible moment. There are circumstances which involve imputations upon officers and upon others. I may say at once that all the officers concerned not merely welcome but court inquiry and the fullest investigation, and they are naturally very anxious that whatever court is set up shall proceed without any loss of time to investigate these circumstances, and I trust the House will see its way to allow me to get this Bill, if possible, to-day, because it is not in the public interest that a matter of this kind should go uninvestigated for a moment more than is absolutely necessary. I trust while the matter is sub judice there will be no reference or discussion either in Parliament or in the Press of the f circumstances. It is not merely very unfair to distinguished officers who have rendered great service, but it is also unfain

703
to the Army, and therefore I trust there will be no further reference inside or outside to the matter until the court investigates it. Then it will be considered by the Army Council, by the Secretary of State, and by the Government, and, if necessary, by the House of Commons, but I trust meanwhile the House will enable us to put an end to this at the earliest possible moment by letting us get this Bill.
Sir E. CARSON: I should like to join in saying one word as to the loss the House has sustained in the death of Sir Arthur Markham, who took such a great interest, and, indeed, was the originator of this Bill. I believe he had the respect of every man and every party in the House, and he certainly had the affection of a great many. As I understand this Bill, its object is to enable courts of inquiry, which hitherto have been composed only of military judges, to summon before them witnesses and call for documents in the possession of persons who are not under military law. That, of course, is an innovation, and if it had been in any wise an attempt to set up a court to make these people amenable to the judgment of a court of military inquiry, I think the House would have a great deaf to say before it allowed such a procedure. But the object is alone to compel them to attend as witnesses and bring documents which may be necessary in the interests of justice, and then I understand what the right hon. Gentleman proposes as protection to these witnesses is that some members of the court should consist of persons who are not subject to military law, preferably Members of either House of Parliament. I think that is a satisfactory arrangement and a proper protection to those who are not under military law, and certainly I shall make no opposition to the right hon. Gentleman getting his Bill.
Mr. HEALY: While I am entirely in favour of the Bill passing in one sense, in another it involves a tremendous innovation and, I think, a breach of the privileges of Parliament. I welcome everything the right hon. Gentleman has said as to Sir Arthur Markham, who was worth a dozen of us, and whose death I deeply deplore in the interests of the House and in the interests of the vigorous prosecution of the War, and I was delighted that the right hon. Gentle-
704
man paid him a very handsome and an entirely well-deserved compliment. Let me point out the constitutional innovation that you are now making—first, as regards the Army and Navy, and, secondly, as regards this House. In the past court-martials have been called by a convening authority, and that convening authority called men under discipline—in the words of the Scripture, "men under them"—to serve as courts. Are we under the Army and Navy? What convening authority has power to place me upon a court-martial? [Interruption.] Then these are not courts-martial. If they are not, and are mere courts of inquiry, why should we then, this being a matter affecting the House of Commons and Parliament, surrender any portion of our authority, namely, the right to set up inquiries independently, because really it comes to that? Of two things one, either a pure military or naval court, which will be a court, or else, as we did in the Mesopotamia case, and in the case of Gallipoli, let us all surrender our rights, and the right of Parliament to nominate a particular inquiry. Who is to be the selector of the tribunal? Is it the War Secretary? I respectfully demur to that arrangement. I am sure these gentlemen have not committed an offence from the fact that they welcome this inquiry. We are clearly not now dealing with what I may call a matter for a court-martial. If it is not a matter for a court-martial, no crime has been committed. If, then, this is simply some suggestion of favouritism which has been alleged against these men, that is a matter for the House of Commons and for the House of Lords as Parliament, and we should not surrender to a military tribunal a power of investigation which is not to end in conviction or condemnation, but which is only going to be an inquiry. These inquiries and their members have hitherto been nominated solely by this House or the other place, and I therefore think that we are now, without sufficient investigation, without having sufficient time to probe and explore this question, making a departure from our good old constitutional practice.
It was with some hesitation that I accepted the Mesopotamia and Gallipoli inquiries, but there was such a strong feeling on the subject that we at once gave way, considering the quarter from which the suggestion came. But this is a wholly different matter. This is a matter

705
which has sprung up within the last week. We had Gallipoli before us for twelve months, and we had Mesopotamia before us for six or eight months, and therefore we were in a position to know what were the issues which it was likely the tribunal would have to investigate. But that is not this case. I do not know what this inquiry is to examine, and that very fact ought to make us the more careful. If we are to inquire into questions of feminine influence—questions of curtain lectures and other matters of that kind—Army officers in time of war ought not to have their time taken up with matters of that kind. It is for us, as a House of Commons, if these matters deserve consideration, to name and to know who are the persons who are to inquire into these very delicate questions. I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman's intentions. I am criticising the method. I think we are taking a very grave step without sufficient inquiry. Above all, why should we now agree to give the right hon. Gentleman this Bill in all its stages on an August day? Has anyone to be guillotined or hanged? Is anyone's character in such a state of jeopardy that this Bill need be immediately passed? I think not. While you are not going to call these courts-martial, as I understand, yet at the same time you will load the court of inquiry practically with a majority of Army men. These are Army matters. The Army is jealous, and justly jealous, of its own dignity and honour. I should be in favour of letting the right hon. Gentleman nominate a pure court of Army officers to deal with this matter. Who is to select the members? Are we to have a debate on their selection? What power have we over this selection? Some Whip would go round and would find some bald-headed gentleman—I am very much in that condition myself—and before anyone knows anything about it, the court would be constituted by the private selection of a couple of men in this House. I deprecate this method of procedure. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman in defence is this: He says this Commission will have to deal with matters affecting civilians. But that is the case with every court-martial. We have set up courts-martial under the Defence of the Realm Act. Have we asked that they should be diluted with laymen? We have done nothing of the kind. While I am quite willing to give the right hon. Gentleman
706
his Bill, I would deprecate his introduction of the dilution of laymen—of Members of Parliament, and Members of the House of Lords—upon the inquiry. I trust he will stick to the good old rule of having in this military matter a pure court of military men.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: One observation of my right hon. Friend rather surprised me, and that was that these courts would not be courts-martial. The Bill itself proposes to amend Section 126 of the Army Act, which relates to the attendance of witnesses not subject to military law before courts-martial. I thought, therefore, it was a Bill to amend the powers of courts-martial to call witnesses before them, and, in the second place, to amend the constitution of courts-martial, and if that was the object of the Bill, I should welcome it very much, because I do not think there is anyone who has appeared before a court-martial in the last two years who will not agree with me that the powers, procedure, and constitution of courts-martial leave very much to be desired.
HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
Mr. WILLIAMS: That is my experience. I have been assured by a learned friend of mine who appeared before a general court-martial this year—he is a King's counsel, and wore his robe and wig—that the first question he was asked by the President of the court-martial was, "Who are you, sir? Are you a solicitor?"
Sir E. CARSON: I was asked that by a police magistrate.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I hope we do not have the methods of a police magistrate at a court-martial. I suppose that question was put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman by an Irishman?
Sir E. CARSON: It was.
Mr. WILLIAMS: The first question that my learned friend asked of a witness was, "Were you not at So-and-so on such a date?" "Stop!" said the president of the court-martial; "you must not ask that question." "Why not?" asked my learned friend. "That is a leading question," said the President, "and you must not ask leading questions." The result was that my learned friend, who was appearing in a case in the heart of the country, was turned out of the court into a snowstorm, and had to remain out

707
half an hour while the court were discussing whether what the President called "leading questions" should be asked. I asked a question of the Prime Minister about two months ago—whether it would not be possible, now that there were so many members of the legal profession in the Army, to see that in every case one or more members of the legal profession who are in the Army should be members of courts-martial. Not only this particular court-martial that we have in contemplation, but many others that will be held before the end of the War, will have to decide very serious issues, involving the character, the reputation, and it may be the whole prospects of men who are serving in the Army, and it is essential that these courts-martial should be carried on according to forms of law. I am only sorry that this Bill is limited in its scope. Everybody who has appeared before courts-martial will agree with me that the procedure adopted by courts-martial is antiquated, and involves a great waste of time. Every question has to be written down in longhand, at any rate that is my experience, by the Judge Advocate, and it is almost impossible for anybody to cross-examine properly. [An HON. MEMBEE: "No, no!"] The hon. Member's experience may be different. I have experienced that myself. As to the constitution of this court-martial—
HON. MEMBERS: It is not a court-martial, but a court of inquiry.
Mr. WILLIAMS: If you like to substitute a "court of inquiry" for a "court-martial," then I say it is much better to have a court of inquiry in every case, and to do away with the court-martial altogether.
Mr. RUTHERFORD: You have got hold of the wrong Section.
Mr. WILLIAMS: No. With regard to the power to call witnesses, I would like to see not merely this court of inquiry have the right to call witnesses who are not subject to military law, but to see that power extended to courts-martial as well.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They have got it already.
Mr. WILLIAMS: Then I fail to see what is the object.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I thought I had made myself quite clear. I thought I said that courts-martial had this power, and
708
that courts of inquiry have not this power. Therefore, this Bill is brought in in order to give the same powers to courts of inquiry that courts-martial have. Courts-martial can summon witnesses, and they can even summon bankers' books, or documents, or things of that kind.
Mr. WILLIAMS: Then I agree with my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Healy) that it seems that this is a step in the wrong direction. I thought this was a Bill to alter the constitution of what used to be called courts-martial, and to make them courts of inquiry, with extended powers. This is the wrong way of doing it. If the matter that is involved is not strictly a military matter; if it is a matter that involves political or general considerations, then I think, with my hon. and learned Friend, that it would be far better for this House to set up a court of inquiry of its own. It would be giving away very valuable powers that it possesses if it gives away to the Secretary of State for War for the time being the right to constitute a court which may be mainly a military body, and for which two or three Members of this House could he selected, not by the general wish of the House, but simply selected by the Secretary of State for the time being. I was in favour of the Bill when I read it first, but now I am opposed to it. At the same time I do not wish to put any obstructions in the way, and if my right hon. Friend says he wants it to-day, I shall offer no further objection.
Commander BELLAIRS: I gather that there are two Sections, to one of which nobody objects, and that is the Section which empowers courts of inquiry to summon witnesses. This right has always been possessed by a general court-martial, but not by a court of inquiry. It is not possessed by the Navy. The second Section is one to which I feel there is the strongest ground of exception, and that is the power to introduce Members of Parliament into military courts of inquiry. It is put forward on the ostensible ground that the civilians who are to give evidence must be protected. I understand that the Judge Advocate-General is practically a civilian and does, when he is present, largely watch the interests of civilians. I do not see why you want to introduce any special protection. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is acting really on the old rule that before a general court-martial can take place there must be a court of inquiry. Is that the rule nowadays, or has

709
that rule been broken? On the report of a court of inquiry you frame your indictment for the court-martial. It is perfectly evident that the whole object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view is to inquire into the actions of a military officer, and I take it that the report of this court of inquiry will be the means of framing the charge for a court-martial. What I am chiefly concerned about is the precedent you are going to set up under this Bill. Whatever you do will have its reaction on the Navy. If it is a very obvious defect, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that you are not able to put Members of Parliament on a court of inquiry in regard to the Army, it must be a very obvious defect in regard to the Navy, and surely the Admiralty ought to have been consulted when this precedent was proposed. We all know what precedents do, and how they broaden down. We all know what took place in the dialogue between Bassanio and Portia, which is, I think, the finest argument one could have of what can happen in the case of a bad precedent. I believe this to be a bad precedent. I believe that the precedent -will increase and increase. The real good precedent which this House has set up, and which it has invariably followed, is that the judges should not be Members of this House. Under this Bill you are going to reverse, that principle. The pendulum always swings over to the further extreme somehow in these things.
We are now going not only to make the law, but we are going to make ourselves judges. We are going to make the law in this Bill and at the same time, on the simple fiat of the Secretary of State for War, a number of Members of Parliament will be chosen as judges. I think you are going flat against one of the best precedents that this House has ever created, and that is that we will not make ourselves judges as well as make the laws. The tendency in this House has always hitherto been that while we make the laws, we will not have anybody a Member of this House who also administers the laws; but in recent changes I am very much afraid that the pendulum has swung over in the other direction. What I also complain of, and especially in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is trying, or he wishes, to take this Bill in all its stages to-day, is that we are really met to discuss this Bill without knowing the special object for which it is created. It is said that it is for the period of the War. They always
710
make that excuse. What special object is there in this case? Why should we be in the dark if charges are to be made against anyone? We are discussing this Bill under conditions of low visibility, which are often more fatal to discussion than low visibility is in a fight. I think we ought to have some indication of the real object. We are told that the special charges are the undue influence of women. Surely then, Members of Parliament ought not to be on this particular tribunal. If you were to take the whole female sex and balance them against the 670 Members of Parliament in the undue influence they have exerted against the War Office for their constituents and their constituencies, I am certain what the answer of the War Office would be. I take as much guilt myself as any other Member of Parliament in regard to worrying the War Office, and I am perfectly certain that the undue influence women have exerted is but as dust in the balance compared with the undue influence that the 670 Members of Parliament have exerted. Yet it is proposed to put Members of Parliament on this tribunal. I object to the precedent which is going to be created. I think it will be bad for the Army, and if it is followed by the Navy it will be bad for the Navy.
Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: I agree with some parts of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bellairs). I agree with him that there does not seem to be sufficient reason for adding Members of this House to the court of inquiry. On other points I cannot see any objection to the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentlemen (Mr. Healy and Mr. Llewelyn Williams) who have spoken seem to be suffering from that confusion of ideas which too often besets legal gentlemen when they have to deal with courts-martial and courts of inquiry. We heard a great deal about courts-martial from my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. L. Williams), but this Bill does not affect courts-martial. The powers which are given under this Bill to a court of inquiry are already possessed by courts-martial. It seems to me that it is only reasonable that when a court of inquiry is appointed to take evidence concerning, it may be, a charge against an officer, he should have the power to get every sort of evidence which is available. It is not placing him upon his trial, but he has the right, if there are statements derogatory to his character brought forward, of obtaining an inquiry into these statements, when he knows that he is not

711
guilty of anything that would bring him before a court-martial. I think the Army ought to be obliged to my right hon. Friend for having amended what was a deficiency in the Army Act, and I only regret that it has been thought desirable to add the Sub-section which provides that the Act shall only continue in force until the termination of the present War. This is a Committee point which will no doubt be dealt with in Committee. With regard to the power to add Members of this House to the court, I would strongly urge my right hon. Friend to consider whether he does not really effect his object by giving the power, which is a right power to give to courts of inquiry, of calling evidence of whatever kind and compelling the attendance of witnesses, and that he should consider whether it is not desirable to leave the Army to do its own business, so that when there is a court of inquiry which may affect the character of the Army through an officer it should be his own peers, officers like himself, who would sit upon it, instead of there being Members of this House, whether they answer the description given by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite or not. In selecting Members of this House to sit upon the court of inquiry, I already hear canvassed the names of Members who, I am told, have been approached to sit upon the inquiry which is coming, an inquiry of which I know nothing at all. I think that that is most undesirable, and I think that it would be far better to leave it entirely to the Army to set up the court of inquiry, and that you should give that court every power which it could have to compel the attendance of witnesses and obtain such evidence as may be necessary.
Major NEWMAN: There seems such doubt as to what a court of inquiry exactly is that, perhaps, I had better refer the House to the Section of the Army Act, Section 124, which deals with the matter. A court of inquiry is an assembly of officers directed to collect evidence, and, if so required, to report upon any case which may be referred to them. A court of inquiry may be assembled by the Army Council or by an officer in command of a body of troops consisting of one or more corps. We are asked in this particular Bill to amend drastically Section 124 of the Army Act. If you pass this Bill a court of inquiry will no longer be an assembly of officers. There is an important Sub-
712
section, Sub-section (d), which provides that the Court will be guided by written instructions, which will be full and specific, and state the general character of the information required, and also state whether a report will be required or not. Are Members of this House, appointed on this court of inquiry, going to take these written instructions of some other authority? I doubt myself if they will. I have had a good deal of experience sitting in Petty Sessions Courts and other Courts of that sort during the last couple of years, and I have sat on a great number of courts-martial, generally as president, and there is nothing which I would dislike more than having a couple or three Members of this House associated with me on a court-martial. I quite admit that as president of the court I have occasionally been tied up by the laws of evidence, and if I could have had a couple of really smart K. C.'s or County Court judges or even solicitors I would have been very thankful. But looking around me I do not think that I could look for any assistance from Members of this House. We have not had Members of this House shining very much when they come to deal with legal evidence. We remember the Marconi Committee. Did we shine on that? Did it command the respect of the country? I do not think so. The Secretary of State for War tells us that in order to prevent the misgivings of officers it is proposed that the civilian members shall be Members of the House of Commons. I doubt myself if this will allay the misgivings of officers. From what I know of the Army the Army has got a more profound lack of confidence in the House of Commons than in any other body in the whole Kingdom. There is no body other than the House of Commons that the Army dislikes and distrusts more. Therefore, to ask the Army Council to accept the services of two Members of the House of Commons in this particularly grave inquiry must mean, I think, that the Secretary of State for War has impressed on the Army Council something which the Army Council would not like at all, if only it had its way. Unless there is more information given as to the necessity of this procedure I shall be inclined to vote against it.
Mr. THOMAS: I have listened to the hon. and gallant Member, who incidentally happens to be my own Member as well. Therefore I can appreciate, as one of his constituents, his opinion of the House of Commons. Incidentally, I may say, in

713
view of his great experience of courts-martial during the past few years, and judging by his experience and his knowledge of Parliament and everything else, thank God I am not a prisoner at a courts-martial over which he presides. I came to the House this afternoon with quite an open mind with regard to this Bill. I thought I understood it when the Secretary of State for War explained it. But it is getting more confusing with subsequent speakers. Therefore, I want to come back, in a series of questions, to know what it is we are discussing. As I understand the position, the object of this Bill is to deal with a certain set of circumstances that have arisen and which cannot be dealt with in any other way. If that is the position, I can understand it, and I say without reserve that, having regard to the rumours which have already gone forth in connection with this matter, the sooner it is dealt with the better. I can conceive nothing so calculated to kill the energy and spirit of any man as when he is living in a cloud of suspicion, and I know, speaking of the trade union movement, what it is very often when we have got to do things that we cannot always explain, that immediately there is some kind of rumour started and it destroys the very best elements in your leaders. Applying that to a much greater principle, namely, that we are engaged in this life-and-death struggle, and that charges have been made against officers, then those officers are entitled to say, "I cannot go on with my work as efficiently as I want to do unless these charges are dealt with immediately." If the object of the Bill is to deal with that, and that alone, I do not care whether it is a court-martial or a court of inquiry. On the other hand, my hon. and gallant Friend here says that no Members of Parliament ought to be on it. I am not disturbed about Members of Parliament being on it, but I do submit that if a civilian's interests are affected, as distinct from those of a military man, then the civilian ought to have a representative on it. From that point of view we are entitled to as much justice as any military man.
I would not sit down without saying that we on these benches have had more, probably, to contend with in reference to the late Member for Mansfield than any other body. But I would take this opportunity of saying, as a Labour man, strongly as we differed invariably, we always felt that he was a clean, honest, straight fighter. His
714
bark was often worse than his bite. No one regrets his untimely end more than those connected with the Labour party.
Sir COURTENAY WARNER: The last speaker has put the matter very plainly to us. Since this War began certain civilian matters have been more mixed up with the War Office than was previously the case, and the War Office has got to do a great deal of work now which is not strictly military work, and I think it self-evident that a military court of inquiry would not be the proper court to deal with such questions. At the same time it may be totally inconvenient and totally wrong to institute a court of inquiry appointed by this House, as has been suggested by both the learned Gentlemen who spoke on this subject, because it ought to be a departmental rather than a national matter—that is to say, one that concerns the Army though not actually a military business. I am not stating what the case might be, but that such cases may occur during war time. It is quite evident that during war time there is a certain amount of civilian work done in the War Office in which, from time to time, there must be mistakes which require investigation, and that investigation ought to be made, not purely by military men, but that there should be some sort of court, not entirely civilian but mostly civilian, to deal with such cases. And I think the suggestion of two Members of Parliament is a good one.
After all, we have many friends. We are looked upon by the public as a moderately respectable body. Perhaps this House is as good a body to choose civilians from as any other. I think probably, for the sake of rapidity of the work, that it would be better to choose two Members of this House than two K.C.'s, because legal points are apt to take a good long time. But I do see the necessity for some semi-civil court to inquire into semi-civil subjects dealt with by the War Office at the present time, and I am heartily in favour, both with the object of preserving the privileges of civilians in connection with this House and also of keeping as high as possible the honour of the officers at the War Office, of the proposal that there should be some semi-civilian court to make these inquiries, not to give judgment, not to try by court-martial or do anything of that kind, but simply to investigate the cases and to report to some higher authority which, if necessary, can

715
bring them up before a court-martial or in a civil court, whichever it may be. But as it is a semi-civilian matter, I think that there ought to be more or less a civilian court to try these things. It is very important, if there is such a court, that it should have full power of collecting evidence.
Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: It appears that there are two objects of this Bill. The first is to make the investigation more thorough and more reliable. I understand that we all agree with that part of the Bill. I quite agree with the hon. Member for South Monmouthshire that the Army might well be trusted to look after its own business. But this is not the business of the Army. This deals with circumstances that are not always the business of the Army, but are also the business of non-Army people, and I am bound to say myself that where the inquiry, though nominally it deals with the character of military men, yet in the verdict it deals substantially with the character of civilians, then it is only right that civilians should be upon that tribunal. Some hon. Members, either from their experience of others or from their knowledge of themselves, have spoken rather lowly of the House of Commons. As I understand, the Secretary of State for War has said that this was introduced at the request of the officers themselves. They were not unwilling that there should be civilians. Having once granted that the Army officers themselves were anxious that they should have some safeguard in the work of those civilians who were thus selected, they thought that it would be a good precaution to have Members of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords on the court of inquiry, and I venture to think that it is in the interests of both officers and civilians.
5.0 P.M.
Colonel GREIG: The House seems to be under some misapprehension as to the character of these courts of inquiry and courts-martial. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Ellis Griffith) and the hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the Labour benches (Mr. J. H. Thomas). What is the position of courts-martial at the present time? Courts-martial under Section 126 of the Army Act have full power to summon any witness, civil or mili-
716
tary, but courts-martial cannot inflict any punishment unon a civil witness if he commits contempt of court or refuses to give evidence. It can only make representation to a Civil Court as to the conduct of that witness and the witness is protected by being able to go before that Civil Court and show that what he did was correct. If he is in the wrong the Civil Court punishes him. Courts of inquiry have no power to summon civil witnesses. A court of inquiry is assembled under rules issued by His Majesty through the Secretary of State under the Army Act, and those rules are subject to the ultimate control of Parliament. A court of inquiry is an assembly of officers directed by a commanding officer or the Army Council in certain cases to collect evidence and report with respect to a transaction into which he cannot conveniently himself make inquiry. It never gives a final decision. Another rule says:
"Whenever any inquiry affects the character or military reputation of an officer or soldier, full opportunity must be afforded to the officer or soldier of being present throughout the inquiry and making any statement or of giving any evidence he may wish to make or give and of cross-examining any witness whose evidence in his opinion affects his character or military reputation and of producing any witness in defence of his character or military reputation.
Unless this Bill is passed there may be cases in which officers or soldiers whose reputation is affected cannot compel the presence of those witnesses before the court of inquiry. This Bill gives them that power, but these witnesses, being civilians, require the same protection that the civilian witness before a court-martial gets, and the way to give him that protection is not to send him to the ordinary Courts of Justice for them to decide whether he is right or wrong in his attitude before the court of inquiry, but to adopt the sensible expedient provided by this Bill. In any case, where the Secretary of State certifies that any non-military person may be affected in his character, it gives him power in the rules to provide for the inclusion as members of the court of inquiry of civilians. The Bill says:
"The rules may further, where the Secretary of State certifies that the evidence before the court is likely to affect the character of persons not subject to military law who are to he called is witnesses, provide for the inclusion as members of the court of one or more persons, being Members of either House of Parliament who are not officers."
You have the control of the Secretary of State, and he is subject to the control of Parliament and may be criticised here. It is only to protect the witnesses that this provision is necessary, and, in those circumstances, I think that this Bill ought to be passed.
Sir G. REID: I confess that I feel rather dubious as to that part of this Bill which makes it compulsory that any extra members added to these courts of inquiry must be Members of Parliament. I shall strongly support the omission of those words which make it incumbent on the Secretary of State and the Government always in such cases to select Members of Parliament. We must not lose sight of the fact that Members of this House constitute the final court of appeal in all matters of grievance and in all matters of public inquiry. These inquiries will affect the character, not only of private individuals, but also of officers in the public service. I do not know what is the law in England, but in Australia we are so anxious that the final court of appeal should be free from the presence of any person who has taken part in the proceedings of a lower jurisdiction that we have a special provision that judges who have decided any point in any case in the Court of nisi prius are not eligible to sit in the court of appeal. It is thought that the court of appeal should always be absolutely free from any danger of disturbing influence. This inquiry might form the subject of a discussion in this House, and it would put hon. Members entirely in a false position if they were to have in this House members of that tribunal who had been, not judges on points of law, but jurors on points of fact affecting character. Those gentlemen on that tribunal would have an altogether false weight of influence in this House. I should think that they would probably refuse to take any part in any proceedings arising out of such an inquiry. If the Government wish to preserve the liberty in a special case of inviting Members of Parliament to sit on such courts of inquiry, I would suggest that they certainly should not make it a part of the compulsory provisions of the Bill.
Mr. HAZLETON: The right hon. Gentleman will see that there is no disposition in any quarter of the House to refuse him the powers which he seeks in this Bill, but there has been exception taken in many quarters, and from my point of view rightly taken, to the provision with regard to the extra representation upon these courts of inquiry. I do not think, broadly speaking, that there will be any particular ground for objection to Members either of the House of Commons or of another place sitting upon these courts of inquiry, but there is nothing
718
in the Bill, and we had nothing at all in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, to indicate in the slightest degree how these members are to be selected. Are they to be Cabinet Ministers? Are they to be supporters of the Government? Are they to be Members of the Opposition? On what ground or basis are they to be selected? I do not know that the House of Commons has ever had a similar proposal placed before it for its consideration, and I think it would have been far better if, instead of this somewhat curious method of procedure, the right hon. Gentlemen had adopted the plain and simple plan of placing judges on this court of inquiry. I believe that the Courts are not busy at the present moment. We are told that this is a Bill to deal with particular cases. It is not a continuing Bill. It is to come to an end after the War. As far as our information goes, it is only to deal with urgent and particular cases. The right hon. Gentleman hopes to get the Bill through all its stages to-day. I am afraid there is a probability that he may not be able to do so, but it is quite clear that the same objection would not be made from so many quarters if he altered his proposal, and I would suggest, instead of Members of either House of Parliament, that he should put judges of the High Court into this Section. There are one or two other points with which I would like to deal. This inquiry, I take it, is a private inquiry, but, I presume, if as the result of it any charges are found to be substantiated, that the persons involved will then have to go before a court-martial. I would like to know, before this Bill passes, if the inquiry is to be a secret inquiry, not open to the public, and if the court-martial, which may follow, is also to be held in private.
Mr. SPEAKER: Those are matters quite outside the scope of this Bill, and the hon. Member must not go into them.
Mr. HAZLETON: If that is so—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not pursue that topic. I have just pointed that out to him.
Mr. HAZLETON: I am not going to do so. I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but in my opinion we ought to have some more information as to the particular facts upon which this Bill is based than the right hon. Gentleman gave us in his speech. I do not suggest for a moment, and I am

719
sure that nobody will, that anybody ought to be condemned before they have been heard and found guilty, but in view of the rumours and reports that have been going about, not merely in the Press, but also in the Lobbies and elsewhere, I think before this Bill is passed the House should be given the fullest and frankest information possible with regard to the real reasons why this Bill is required. We have not had a word upon that subject. The right hon. Gentleman made an appeal, that the House and the country should not press him upon that point, but I cannot agree that he has adopted a wise and proper course. I believe, not merely in the interests of the Army itself, but in the interests of the whole country, that the wisest plan would have been to turn the searchlight upon these transactions and not to seek in any way to hide them.
Mr. HEALY: On a point of Order. If it is proposed to take the further stages of this Bill now, I respectfully and formally object. It is a course which requires the general assent of the House.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I say that I shall not press it if there is any objection. I can only appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman if he cannot see his way to withdraw his objection. If when we get to the Committee stage I cannot meet his wishes, then I say at once that I shall move to report Progress and not press it.
Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

CLAUSE 1.—(Rules of Procedure of Courts of Inquiry.)
The rules as to the procedure of courts of inquiry under Sub-section (5) of Section seventy of the Army Act may, in cases where the Secretary of State certifies that the evidence of persons who are not subject to military law will be necessary, make provision for compelling such persons to attend as witnesses, to give evidence, and to produce documents before the court, and the rules may for that purpose apply, with the necessary adaptations, Section one hundred and twenty-six of the Army Act (which relates to the attendance of witnesses not subject to
720
military law before courts-martial); and the rules may further, whether the Secretary of State certifies that the evidence before the court is likely to affect the character of persons not subject to military law who are to be called as witnesses, provide for the inclusion, as members of the court, of one or more persons, being Members of either House of Parliament, who are not officers.
Mr. HEALY: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do so formally. I have just suggested that this stage should not be pressed unless we are able to come to some arrangement, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman to assent to that course. I am most anxious that he should get the Bill. My point is this. You are here setting up a tribunal of a mixed character. The Army Council will nominate the military members and the right hon. Gentleman will clearly nominate the Members of Parliament, whether of this House or of another House. Therefore, for the first time in legal annals, you will have set up in addition to the Civil Courts of Law and in addition to courts-martial, a third court which will neither be a court-martial nor a civil court, but will be a mixed court. That is an anomaly in our procedure which I respectfully suggest ought not to be pressed on the House without fuller information. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious for nothing but what is fair, and I do not suggest for a moment that he is trying in any way to rush a device upon us, and I think he is absolutely engaged in trying to find out what is the best form of tribunal. At the same time, I deny his right to select a particular Member of the House of Commons and say, "You go on this Committee. I will ask you because you are a Liberal or, as the case may be, because you are a Tory, or because the colour of your hair and eyes takes my fancy."
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not entitled, on the Motion to report Progress, to enter into the merits.
Mr. HEALY: I quite agree, Sir, in ordinary circumstances, but to-day we are giving the right hon. Gentleman something in the nature of a favour. He has suggested that we should give him all the stages of this Bill to-day, and we are therefore departing from Parliamentary procedure. Having departed from normal

721
Parliamentary procedure, I suggest that I should be allowed to depart from it a little also on the give-and-take principle.
Mr. D. MASONWould the hon. and learned Gentleman not be in order on the question "That the Clause stand part"?
Mr. HEALY: If I waited until then, I should have lost my chance altogether.
The CHAIRMAN: There are several Amendments before we come to that question.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I suggest if those Amendments are proposed I may be able to say something, and on one of them the hon. and learned Gentleman can repeat his criticisms and will not have lost his rights.
Mr. HEALY: If I have the opportunity of raising my points on line 19, I do not wish to press the Motion.
The CHAIRMAN: I will take care that that is so.
Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move to leave out the word "may" ["and the rules may further"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
The Bill as drawn provides that on the certificate of the Secretary of State persons not subject to military law can be compelled to give evidence and produce documents. It is further laid down that where the Secretary of State certifies that the evidence is likely to affect the character of persons not subject to military law, that the rules may further provide for the inclusion as members of the court of civilian members. I think in that case the "may" should be changed to "shall." The alteration is one which is simply in accordance with the statement which the right hon. Gentleman himself has made.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it is understood that the word "may" under these circumstances means "shall," and therefore from the drafting point of view the change is quite unnecessary.
Sir E. CARSON: I am only an ex-Law Officer, but in my opinion the word "may" here means "shall." The moment the Secretary of State comes to the opinion and certifies that the evidence will involve the character of the witnesses, then, I think, he would be bound under this Section to add civilian members.
Mr. HEALY: How can we, as a sovereign assembly, tolerate rules that shall or may provide for the sitting of two of our Members on a court with which we have had nothing whatever to do? I think that this is an invasion of Parliamentary privileges that the rules of the Army for the first time are to provide Members of Parliament shall be members of this court of inquiry, whereas hitherto this House has been the authority which has said that this House should provide how inquiries should be constituted. We are inverting the order, and that is why I suggest that this is a matter of great constitutional importance. Suppose the Member resigns, is he disqualified, or if he get up and says, "I am tired of sitting at this court"? That is why I said just now that in assenting to give the right hon. Gentleman this Bill we are taking a step which we have not explored sufficiently. I do not at all object in general to rule-making authority. I think it is a very convenient way of providing for matters to save the time of this House. But this is a question affecting our own privileges in that we are a consenting party that the Army Council, which is a fighting authority, shall, as regards two of our Members, dispose of them and provide that they shall be upon this tribunal. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not objecting to the Bill on any ground except on the ground of what I may call the privileges of the House and constitutional rights. I say that there is in this Bill a question vitally affecting the privileges and constitution of this House.
Sir G. REID: I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the point does not come up at this stage at all. The general words authorising the appearance of persons who are not officers on this court of inquiry do not necessarily include Members of Parliament. They can only include them if we pass subsequent words, to which I have strong objection. It is quite open to the Committee if they think fit to remove those words.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I suggest that we should discuss the hon. and learned Gentleman's points later on. I think it would be more convenient now to discuss the purely legal point. I think my hon. Friend is quite satisfied, having had the opinion of an ex-Law Officer, supported by that of a real live Law Officer, that the Clause as drafted will meet his view.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is so, and there is also the fact that the Bill automatically comes to an end after the War. Under those circumstances, I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
Commander BELLAIRS: Will the disposal, of this Amendment rule out the possibility of an Amendment which I desire to move to the previous line 14, which would have the effect that we would have no civilians at all?
The CHAIRMAN: We cannot go back after we have decided the question of an Amendment to line 15.
Colonel WILLOUGHBY: I would like to raise the point as to civilian members being on this court, which is the only point of special interest to the House.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Would not that come up on the provision to appoint civilians?
The CHAIRMAN: Surely that point was decided by the Second Reading of the Bill, as otherwise the Bill would not be necessary at all.
Colonel WILLOUGHBY: I am anxious to move that the same rule should apply to courts of inquiry as to courts-martial, and that the inquiry ought to be a military court and have power to call witnesses.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is too late there, except in so far as the subject can be discussed on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I accepted the earliest Amendment that was presented to me, which was that moved by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) and now before us.
Sir E. GOULDING: May not this point be discussed when we come to say whether they are to be Members of Parliament, men, or members of the Judicature? Surely it is possible on that to raise the question whether these should be purely military courts or not.
Mr. HAZLETON: If the right hon. Gentleman who is moving this Amendment were to withdraw, could we not consider the whole question?
Commander BELLAIRS: May I point out that this is one of the inherent disadvantages of the Committee stage following immediately after the Second Reading? It is not strictly in accordance with the Rules of the House to hand in any Amendment during the Second Reading otherwise, I
724
would have handed in my Amendment. I agree with the Clause up to line 14, but strongly object to the rest of the Clause.
Mr. HEALY: I contend that it is only possible to consider the matter on this limb of the Clause, which introduces for the first time the civil element into these military courts of inquiry. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment is that it will make it imperative to substitute "shall" for "may". I say it is imperative already, because "may" will be rendered "shall" by every authority, and the Amendment in that sense is unnecessary, The mere fact, however, that we have to attack the Clause enables us here and at the outset to make our protest against the proposed composition of this authority in the way in which we have taken the objection. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Wait until you get the Members of Parliament." I say, "No," because it is at this stage that the objections arise. The objection from one quarter comes from the fact that you are in any sense changing the composition of courts-martial, or the court of inquiry, and making it other than a military court, while the objection from my point of view is that you are giving a rule-making authority a power over Members of this House which I deny them. I say that you may exhaust your inquiries into British legislation, and you will in no way find any precedent—I ask for any, if one can be found—for providing by Statute that a body must include Members of Parliament. Therefore, it is at this stage that we are entitled to make objection. The War Secretary says, "Go on until you get to the exact words, and that will be the time to raise it." Then the objection to having these men will be gone, whereas now I have the advantage of what I may call the bifurcated stage. There is the military objection, and my objection is that I decline to give you the right to make the House of Commons a panel for forming a military court. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state at this stage what it is that has led him into the state of mind that causes him to ask for this rule. A rule of this kind is in itself, so far as this portion of it is concerned, an absolute invasion of our rights. Who call and create these courts-martial? The convening authority, namely, a military body; and the whole of the power of the court-martial, or inquiry, arose, as promotion arose from the King, or as, in the case of an ecclesiastical commission,

725
it would spring from the Pope, or, I suppose, the Archbishop in this country. So with the right of authority to convene a court of inquiry. You depart from that by this rule, and therefore you are attacking an ancient principle laid down in these works that a military authority should convene it. What are you doing? You are creating a double form of convening a court-martial. The first part of the in quiry is to be directed by the Army Council. As I understand the British Constitution, the War Secretary is not in control of the Army Council. It is an independent authority. He may take its advice or not, but he is not in control of it. What will happen in these cases? The War Secretary says on a particular case, "I do not like the way in which the Army Council has consituted this court of in quiry. It has put on five generals, when I think there should have been ten." Or, "They have put on too many colonels, or captains, or friends of the accused from the Army end of the auhority. I, representing the civilians, will find two of my friends, two of my old stalwarts, though not necessarily Welsh members. I will water your military wine with my selection." Is that a dignified procedure for any War Secretary? —I do not say the present War Secretary, because we have had three or four during this conflict I say it involves an innovation in the constitution of the court, and secondly that it involves Members of Parliament, who, we all know, are subject to all kinds of influence. My embarrassment is that I cannot re member who was made a baronet since I was here last; it is really most embarrassing, because you can always remember a man's name, but you cannot remember the other thing—and who are the last kind of person to be put on an inquiry of this kind. The judge who was removed from our influence—
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): May I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have Amendments before me raising these points, both with regard to Members of Parliament and to the judge? I do not think I can allow him to proceed beyond this Amendment of substituting "shall" for "may." If that Amendment is withdrawn, it will be open to an hon. Member to leave out all the words after the word "courts-martial" to the end of the Clause. That can be done when this Amendment is withdrawn, and that would,
726
of course, if it was desired to do so, enable these questions to be taken together, and not separately.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am perfectly willing to withdraw.
Mr. HEALY: May I point out that we are giving the right hon. Gentleman this additional stage to-day on a particular understanding? I do not suggest that it has been departed from, but the result will be that he will have practically secured the whole of his Bill through Committee except for the last three or four words.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has quite taken the suggestion of the Chair, which was that this Amendment should be withdrawn, and that then it would be quite competent for anyone to move the omission, not of three or four lines, but of the whole of this branch of the Section which deals with these appointments.
Mr. HEALY: To that I agree.
Mr. ASHLEY: I understand that that will not stop me from moving my Amendment with reference to having a judge as the president of the court?
The CHAIRMAN: If this Amendment is withdrawn, I shall call upon the hon. Member to move out the whole of the last sentence; but I shall naturally put the resulting question in the form which will reserve the subsequent Amendments I have before me.
Sir E. GOULDING: The lay representation will be reserved?
The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Captain BATHURST: Do I understand that when this Amendment is out of the way it will be possible, as has been suggested, to move that all the words from the word "courts-martial" to the end of the Clause be omitted?
The CHAIRMAN: That is what I have been trying to explain, so that the Committee can find itself in order.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Commander BELLAIRS: I beg to move to leave out the words "and the rules may further, where the Secretary of State certifies that the evidence before the court is likely to affect the character of persons not subject to military law who are to be called as witnesses, provide for the inclusion, as members of the court, of one or

727
more persons, being Members of either Houses of Parliament, who are not officers."
I do so because the right hon. Gentleman has not at all convinced me that it is necessary. He has not answered my question which I asked during the Second Reading, but I dare say he will do so. In the first place, this is a precedent. It will be a precedent for the Navy. The Navy will have to follow suit if, as the right hon. Gentleman says, it is such a very obvious defect of the military courts of inquiry that they do not have civilians. Has he consulted the Admiralty as to whether they desire this precedent to be created? My second point is, Is the inquiry a preliminary to a court-martial? A court of inquiry of such a character used always to be preliminary to a general court-martial. If it is not, if you can hold a general court-martial without a court of inquiry, then you already have the machinery you ask for in a court-martial. They can summon witnesses and investigate the whole question, and settle it on oath. I wa3 telling my right hon. Friend just now that he has a precedent for putting civilians on a court-martial or a court of inquiry, as the case may be, in that famous diarist Samuel Pepys. He was made captain of a man-of-war for-twenty-four hours in order that he might sit on a court-martial, but I would take away from the force of that precedent by saying that we had no regularly constituted corps of officers in those days. What I attach importance to is the fact that you are creating a precedent, because I am perfectly certain that this precedent will affect the Navy and multiply in other directions. I suppose that it is in the Scriptures that precedents are referred to in that sort of way when it is said that
"Paul may plant and A polios may water,"
and these precedents will increase and increase, I am sure.
Is it a good precedent? That is the whole question. The right hon. Gentleman is in the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Army. In fact it is more important, if he issues commands, that they should be right than if a colonel of a battalion or regiment or the general of a brigade or division or an army does so. The first principle of command is that you should never give an unnecessary command. I think that in placing civilians on a court which is to try a military officer, and which will not be for the purpose of trying civilians at all, but for advising as
728
to a general court-martial, you are making a totally unnecessary suggestion. Soldiers are perfectly competent to be the custodians of their own honour. You are really hurling an insult at the Army, for I think the Army officer is perfectly competent. Your court could consist of two officers, as was done in the case of Admiral Trou-bridge, or of three, four, or five officers. It is perfectly possible to get general officers who will impartially investigate this particular question which has been the cause of it all. You are also doing this in the absence of nearly 140 Service Members of Parliament. These are not the old days of the Military Service Bill, when every bench had ten or eleven Members dressed in khaki. They are absent, and their views ought to have great weight in a Debate like this, and I hope those of them who happen to be here will speak on that matter. By putting in the Members of Parliament they are not only to have the power of laying down the law, but of administering the law, and, as I said before, that is altogether against the principle on which the judges were removed from this House. You say, "We will sit in your courts and mix ourselves up in your discipline of the Army." I think that is a bad principle to establish. It may lead to a reversion in the swing of the pendulum. The old complaint of the Army was that it mixed itself up in politics. If you are going to sit in their courts and mix yourself up in their discipline, the time may come when they will say, "We must curry favour with Members of Parliament, because at any moment they may sit in judgment on us." That will be a bad thing altogether. I also distrust the origin of this Bill. I share in every enconium that has been passed on the late Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham). He was a brave and courageous Member of this House, but he was not always discreet, and he seemed, in association with other Members, to have got this Bill introduced into the House together with the Clause about Members of Parliament by following strictly the tactics of the importunate widow. I think that Members of Parliament by being importunate should not be able to secure that the Secretary of State for War, a Cabinet Minister, should give in against his better judgment. I cannot help feeling that it is against the better judgment of the Cabinet, certainly of the First Lord of the Admiralty, who 'may have to follow this precedent, that this particular part of the Clause is put in.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will just answer the questions put to me by the hon. and gallant Gentleman first of all. He knows perfectly well—in fact, he has stated it to the House—that the rules of procedure in regard to courts-martial in the Navy are on a totally different basis from courts-martial in the Army. These rules have been in existence probably for generations. They have been running side by side, and they form a precedent— and a very good one, by the way. Therefore I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has answered his own query by the information he has given to the House. In regard to the second point, a; to whether these inquiries are an essential preliminary to a court-martial, I am assured they are not. They are not essential to a court-martial.
Commander BELLAIRS: It depends upon the court-martial.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, no; an inquiry of this kind is not essential to a court-martial.
Commander BELLAIRS: A general court-martial?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. I come to the general argument. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that soldiers are competent to be judges. Nobody doubts that. That is not the point. The charges in this particular case, which in effect are very well known to the House, involve not merely the honour of soldiers, but the honour of civilians. That is the difference in this case. As a matter of fact, if the facts are as they have been presented to me, civilians primarily are the culprits.
Mr. HEALY: Who is it?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Surely my hon. and learned Friend must know that it is exceeding undesirable to publish that in the House of Commons, and before the world—to publish facts of this kind before they have been investigated! Once they are published the mere fact that the evidence was before a court, and that court, after investigation, found them not to be true, would not answer the purpose. The mischief would have been done. In a state of war we cannot afford it, and that is one reason why I am bringing this Bill into the House of Commons, and why I have done all in my power to prevent the premature publication of statements which on inquiry may prove to be untrue. I have consulted both the military authorities,
730
and taken civilian advice, and it is upon their joint recommendation that I have come to this conclusion, and after the most careful inquiry. This is not something which has arisen within the last few weeks. This is something which I inherited. It was investigated by the late Secretary for War, by the Prime Minister, and by myself. I had not the opportunity of discussing it with the late Secretary of State for War, but I have had the opportunity of discussing it with the Prime Minister, who has gone through all the facts, and after I had considered the matter I came to the conclusion that this is far and away the best method of dealing with the matter. I also have had the opportunity of discussing it with the military members of the Army Council, and the conclusion we came to is that which I am recommending to the House of Commons. For the reasons I have given a mixed court is favoured. It is not merely the honour of an officer which is in question, but the honour of civilians in very grave circumstances. When you come to inquire into that which involves considerations affecting civilians and soldiers, and perhaps civilians much more seriously than soldiers, surely it is fair that you should have a tribunal which alike should represent both civilians and soldiers? The soldiers fairly recognise that, and I do hope that those who represent the Army here will not carry this matter too far.
Are they going to say that where the honour of any officer is involved, although a civilian may be more implicated, no civilian should be there to judge at all? That is a proposition which will not stand for a moment—nor would the public stand it! The Army Council has not put it forward. The hon. and gallant Member talks as if the House of Commons had never sat in judgment on officers. It set up two tribunals last week for the purpose of judging the conduct of officers. The Gallipoli Investigation Commission is one upon which you have got civilians, and a minority of officers; that Commission is going to sit in judgment upon the conduct of officers of the Army and Navy. The House of Commons is constantly setting up tribunals of that character. What is the good of saying, 'You are making laws, and you must therefore not administer them, and ought not to sit in judgment. I never heard of a proposition which so completely destroyed the power of the House of Commons 1 This House can investigate every charge into the ad-

731
ministration of the laws, and sit in judgment upon anybody in the public service. I come to the other point which the hon and gallant Gentleman has made. If I could see any other tribunal that would be a fairer one I should be very glad to assent to any proposition which would create it. I understand that an hon. Member has put down an Amendment to the effect that judges of the High Court should be added. Very well, when we come to that 1 shall be prepared to consider it. That is another matter. But the reason why I think the military advisors were anxious to confine it to Members of the House of Commons was this: that it recognised the authority of the House of Commons to investigate any charge against either those who are serving the State civilly or in it miltiary sense. They recognise the authority of the House and they do not think there is any derogation from the rights of officers in setting up a tribunal where Members of the House of Commons are concerned. The House of Commons has a right to do so at any moment. It has done so in the past, and will continue to do so in the future in any case that requires consideration, whether in the Army or the Navy.
Members of the Legislature have the most complete right to investigate any charge of this kind. An hon. Member wishes to add judges of the High Court. It may be desirable to add judges. I cannot for the moment imagine any objection. Beyond that, however, it is felt that in charges involving the honour of officers there should be some restriction of this kind included in the Act of Parliament, upon the panels, as it were, from which you select your judges. At any rate, this being a first departure from the old practice in that respect, I hope the House of Commons will very carefully restrict the panel from which the selection is made. I cannot help thinking that if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork knew the circumstances that he would rather assist me to set up a tribunal of this kind. I am thinking of a young Irish Catholic soldier against whom an accusation is brought which involves his honour. I am perfectly certain that the court proposed to be set up will give him the fairest chance of answering, and it is just as much in the interests of a humble soldier as of anyone that I wish the tribunal to be set up. I cannot go further than that. I wish to see fair play to the humblest soldier of His Majesty's Army, and I am perfectly
732
certain I am going along the line that will ensure fair play. He has no right to more, and he ought to get no less. This, I am certain, is the way to give him that fair play, and that is why I am urging the House of Commons to the course I am. I am crippled. My hand is, in all the circumstances, rather tied. I beg the House of Commons not to ask me to publish the facts. It will do mischief which it will be very difficult to patch up if these facts are published at the present stage and before investigation is made.
6.0 P.M.
Sir E. CARSON: I am one of those who happen to know a good deal about the facts of this particular case. For myself, I see no alternative between having a discussion of those facts in this House and setting up a tribunal. In the middle of a war, with officers involved, and questions involved relating to the conduct of those officers, I cannot imagine anything more disastrous than that we should have a discussion in this House. The House could come to no judicial decision. Members would take opposite views on what they believed to be facts and which might not be facts at all. One man in the House might take the view that one side was right, and another man take the view that the other side was right. That would settle nothing, and at the same time would cause a public scandal. That, I think, of the courses possible is the one that this House ought to try to avoid. Then comes the question of the tribunal. What is the tribunal? You could, I suppose, set up a special Commission, or something of that kind. But you have in existence a court of inquiry which is the proper court to try the charges so far as the officers and soldiers are concerned. You cannot carry out that inquiry satisfactorily without bringing civilians before them, and, therefore, this Bill says we must bring the civilians there; but it is only fair, as regards the civilians who are brought there, that there should be some representatives on the court to protect those civilians who would be brought before what would otherwise be a purely military court. While there may be questions as to whether Members of Parliament are the best persons to be put upon the court, or how they are to be selected, I cannot imagine anything fairer, having regard to the difficulties of the case, than what is proposed. Nobody is impugning the military court, but certainly this House would be jealous of putting civilians before

733
a military court of inquiry in a matter of this kind. Therefore, I think my right hon. Friend was doing what was right towards civilians in making the proposals he makes in this Sub-section. And, even as regards Members of this House, I think what was really in my right hon. Friend's mind, from his observations, was this: This House has the right itself to inquire into any charges of this kind which affect the public service, whether they be military or civilians. He retains a certain control of this House. Knowing the facts, or a good deal of the facts, I join with my right hon. Friend in urging upon the Committee not to attempt in anywise to go into them or seem to prejudge them, and I am perfectly certain you will easily get from this House under those circumstances any Members of this House who would approach this matter judicially. Therefore, I hope this Amendment will not be persisted in, although we may have ultimately to discuss what will be the form of tribunal to be set up.
Colonel WILLOUGHBY: I am sure I do not wish to press the military point of view above the civilian point of view, but I have sat on a good many courts of inquiry and courts-martial. As to the court of inquiry, is it going to be ordered by the Army Council? I am speaking in the dark; I do not know what it is about, beyond that I have been told accusations have been made. I suppose somebody is going to order this court of inquiry to sit. Is it going to be ordered to record its opinions? [An HON. MEMBER: "It is."] A military court cannot have any power over the civilian, but if I go before a court of inquiry and give evidence and my evidence is wrong, then, under the Army Act, I can be brought up for committing libel and can be tried by the 'Civil Court. I believe that is the position of the law.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Let me put this to the hon. and gallant Member. Supposing it were a charge of embezzlement or peculation, and officers and civilians were involved, and supposing it is found at this tribunal that a civilian was the guilty person, surely then the Army Council and the Secretary of State would institute proceedings against that civilian.
Colonel WILLOUGHBY: The right hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and has had the advice of the authorities, but I cannot myself see that a court of inquiry can come to a decision that the civilian has com-
734
mitted any wrong. [HON. MEHBEBS: "Why not? "] Because a court-martial cannot try a civilian.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Supposing the charge were that of peculation or embezzlement, and supposing, as the result of inquiry, they expressed the opinion that it was a civilian who was guilty, then the Secretary of State could take steps to prosecute the civilian supposed to be guilty.
Colonel WILLOUGHBY: Before a Civil Court?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly!
Colonel WILLOUGHBY: Then that is a case to be tried in open Court. I cannot see that it will protect a civilian going before this court if there are two civilian members on that court. I am not desiring to impede the passage of the Bill, but, so far as I understand, the court is purely a military court of inquiry set up for military purposes. [HON. MEMBERS dissented.] If it is confined to one particular case, I am quite ready to take the advice of my leaders who believe this is the best course to take. But what I do feel is, that it is a great misfortune to set up a court which may have civilians on it who really have no power, so far as I can see. It seems to me to set up an entirely new principle of military procedure, which I look upon with a good deal of dread.
Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken will set his mind at rest, and do as I have done in regard to the Amendment now before the Committee. On the Second Reading I took strongly the military position on this question, but, having heard the very weighty pronouncement that fell from the Secretary of State for War just now, I have considerably modified my view. I took the position that military officers should be allowed to manage their own affairs and inquiries entirely. I did that speaking on the general principle that the subject matter of inquiry before a military court of inquiry is something that affects a military officer or military discipline, or some matter that is purely military. I quite see now, without asking any questions as to the particular matter which is going to be inquired into, of which I know nothing, that there may be a matter now for inquiry which will involve possibly the characters of many persons, and that it is under these particular conditions necessary to have a peculiarly constituted

735
court in order that every one may have full protection. It is, in fact, what I did not understand it to be when I heard my right hon. Friend moving the Second Reading of the Bill, namely, ad hoc legislation to deal with a particular case. In those circumstances I withdraw anything I have said against this Bill, and I am perfectly prepared to see it go through at once.
Mr. HEALY: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down as to the ad hoc legislation, but that, I respectfully submit, does not apply to this Bill. This is a general Bill to affect, not a particular case, but any number of cases that might arise during the progress of this War. Nobody would object to an ad hoc Bill which named two Members of Parliament, because we could discuss the Members of Parliament, who they were. and what they were. We could say this was an emergency. I have taken a stand in this matter as a Member of the House of Commons defending its privileges, and here we have a general Bill, and we are going to create rules which may make a panel on which two Members of Parliament must be members, because the rules must so provide. I say, with great deference, it is a blasphemy against the House of Commons. I say nobody has the right to create a panel by rule, and say that on that panel two Members of this House must sit. I say it is against our Constitution, and it is no answer to say, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that this is a case as to the privileges and rights of an Irish Catholic soldier. No doubt that is a very moving appeal to make to me, but how does it affect the matter? It reminds me of the story told by President Roosevelt, who was being pressed to pass a particular Bill by a well-known Irish politician. He said, "I cannot; it is against the constitution." "But," was the reply, "do you think the American constitution should be allowed to come between friends? "I certainly gathered here for the first time in the discussion that this is a case in which an Irish Catholic officer is affected. How can that dispose of the objection which I entertain to the constitution of a military panel which must contain two Members of Parliament? What right have we to put our rights and privileges at the disposal of the Army Council?
736
If the Secretary of State for War points to the case of Mesopotamia and Gallipoli, that was an ad hoc Bill which originated without a single military or naval man being upon either Commission, and, in the end, on the pressure of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. Meux), that it was unfair to the House to have a lay tribunal on naval and military matters, the House conceded the right of the Army and Navy to have a couple of representatives. But this is something entirely different. I have no objection, but, on the contrary, I desire that a judge shall be placed on the court instead of Members of Parliament, and therefore my objection is purely one of what I may call principle and form. Let me put this question. Most of us who are engaged in the law have had recent experience of courts-martial. The first question asked by a court-martial of the prisoner is, "Do you object to any member of this inquiry? "Would it be a nice thing for us to have' a panel on which the antecedents of Members of Parliament were canvassed, and for a person to say, "I challenge the Member for so-and-so. He is an unsuitable member because he is a Tory; or the other is an unsuitable member because he is a Liberal."[An HON. MEMBER: "This is not a court-martial."] So you say. It is not a court-martial in form, but it is a court-martial in fact, because I now see, from the very weighty statement the right hon. Gentleman has made, that he has for the first time lifted the corner of the curtain and has told us something to this effect. He says, "This is a case that gave trouble to the late Lord Kitchener and the Prime Minister. I found it on my threshold when I entered the War Office, and my predecessor had been unable to deal with it." It means that the challenged man, whoever he be, may elect to be tried by court-martial. The War Secretary says, "No, you are too important a man to be tried by court-martial, and besides, you have not committed a crime I cannot court-martial you." Then the man, driven and pinched, says, "Very well, I will come to a constituted inquiry which shall be in the nature of a court-martial."
Then the right hon. Gentleman says, "Very well, I will give you two Members of Parliament." Who are these Members of Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman stated that this was an inquiry instituted because of the pressure of the

737
much-lamented late Member for Mansfield. Are Members of Parliament to be his friends of his enemies? Are those Members of Parliament to be the men who have sat around the hon. Member for Mansfield or those who have attacked him? This case now assumes this aspect: A voice from the grave calls for inquiry, a voice from the grave has made charges against some military man, and that military man waives for the first time his right to be tried by a court of soldiers. He says, "I will take a court on which there shall be two Members of Parliament." They may be prejudiced by the fact that the hon. Member for Mansfield was the originator and author of those charges, and that would make it the less desirable that Members of Parliament should sit on the inquiry. After yielding to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that the court should not consist of purely military members, what is the objection to a judge? You had a Court sitting the other day with a judge from Ireland and England upon it trying the rights of Irish prisoners, and you had no hesitation in asking a judge from the English Courts and the Irish Courts to investigate these charges, and they sat somewhere within the precincts of the House for three or five weeks. This is an ad hoc inquiry—why not appoint these two judges to sit with the soldiers, and that would satisfy everybody? You cannot say that the judges have been so pressed recently, and I am sure they will be most happy to serve, and that will remove an element of prejudice.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did my best to meet my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion. He wants judges on the inquiry. Perhaps it would meet the case if we inserted after the words "Members of Parliament" the words "or judges."
Mr. HEALY: Which will you appoint?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not see why we should not appoint both.
Mr. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that in the case of the Irish Tribunal you had Mr. Justice Shearman leaving in the middle of a term and going over to Dublin. Then we had Mr. Justice Sankey and Mr. Justice Pim sitting here in London to investigate the case of the Irish prisoners alleged to be connected with the rebellion. Therefore there cannot be any objection on the score of want of time on the part of
738
the judicial bench. I suggest that we should amend this Bill by leaving out the words "being Members of either House of Parliament" on the understanding that judges should take their place. Unless the right hon. Gentleman has two Members of Parliament in view, why does he chain himself to the particular form in which the Bill now stands? I think we are only doing constitutionally, as well as in a dignified way, the fair thing if these charges be so grave as has been alleged by providing that judges should take the place of Members of Parliament. We have not yet been told whether this is to be a public or a private inquiry.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Private.
Mr. HEALY: If it is to be private, what is the meaning of the words
"and the rules may further, where the Secretary of State certifies that the evidence before the court is likely to affect the character of persons not subject to military law"?
If this is going to be buried in the archives of the War Office, then I would not mind being charged with perjury, because the inquiry would be as secret as the grave. It is to be a private inquiry! Should we allow this House to constitute a War Office panel, nominated and selected by the Minister for War, to come back and circulate in the Lobby this, that, and the other in regard to this inquiry? The true and proper course is to substitute His Majesty's judges for Members of Parliament.
Mr. THOMAS: If I understand the Amendment now before the House, it is not merely a question between judges and Members of Parliament. I think the arguments intended to show that judges would be better or preferable to Members of Parliament are entirely beside the point. If the Amendment is carried all civilian representation is taken off the inquiry, and therefore I think the House should direct itself to that aspect of the question. If the Amendment is carried and the Court is constituted of military representatives entirely, there is no need for this Bill at all, because a court-martial could be set up. I submit that the civil population of this country is entitled to as much consideration as any military man and no more. I think it was unfortunate in the early stages of the Debate that the hon. Member opposite raised the question of the Army versus

739
the People, because that has nothing to do with the matter. I submit if a charge is brought against a military man he is entitled to say, "I shall be judged by my own people." On the other hand, if there is a charge preferred against a civilian, then he is entitled to say, "I wish to be judged by those independent of military authority." I understand the right hon. Gentleman made it perfectly clear that a court-martial could follow some charge against a military man equally as well as that an action could follow against a private individual, therefore the cases are on all fours. I submit that it is only fair at this stage to raise the issue about the judges, and we might deal with that point upon the Amendment on the Paper. For the moment let us keep in mind that if the Amendment is carried you will destroy all the rights I have mentioned.
Sir GEORGE REID: There seems to be very little difference between hon. Members, and I hope we shall now be able to come to a definite point. I think we are all in favour of this Bill and the provision in the subsequent part of the first Clause. I object to the words "being Members of either House of Parliament," and making that compulsory upon the Array Council, because it puts the whole of the Members of the two Houses of Parliament on a sort of panel from which the Army Council may select two, and they must not go beyond that. It must be remembered that on the two great Commissions which have been spoken of there were gentlemen who were not Members of Parliament. I do not approve of the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member that the words "being Members of either House of Parliament" be left out, although I should be willing to come to some understanding and leave it to the Secretary of State or the Army Council to choose anybody without making it compulsory that they should be Members of Parliament, because that puts them in a false position. This is a Supreme Court to hear all grievances, and a grievance may arise in the case of a person found guilty of some offence the case comes before this House and there are two Members of Parliament sitting on the inquiry. A juror may come and say to a Member of Parliament, "Look here, old chap, you are on that inquiry, and this man is a bad lot." You do not put men there to try a man you
740
have already found guilty. This raises the question of the position of this House, and we should be absolutely free to say that if any appeal comes to us we have no' one in this grand jury who has formed a previous opinion.
Captain C. BATHURST: The difficulty the House appears to be in is unfortunately that the whole of the facts cannot be disclosed. If this were merely in a strict sense ad hoc legislation I should take no exception to it, but it is not. It is legislation promoted owing to a certain delicate case arising the facts of which are not disclosed to us, but for the whole of the duration of the War, however long that may be, the provisions of this Bill when an Ate of Parliament will be applied to similar cases which may arise in the Army. I think that is a very large order indeed, and you are striking at the whole root of the administration of military law in the national Services. I should be quite prepared under pressure from the Secretary for War to accept this Bill if he could assure us and secure within the Bill itself the appointment of persons of some judicial capacity. We have no indication that persons with any knowledge of the law or of military law, or those who have acted in any judicial capacity, are going to be appointed. Take the case of the ordinary Army officer. Before he sits on any tribunal he is not only instructed in military law and also in the King's Regulations governing the discipline and internal ad ministration of the Army, but also in the provisions of the Army Act, and he has to sit for a considerable time as a supernumerary member of a military court before he can sit as an adjudicating member of that tribunal. I think in these eases you want men with some knowledge of the internal administration and discipline of the Army, and if you are going to have persons without any judicial training or any judicial capacity I am afraid that in many cases serious injustice may be done. This House is confident that it is trusted by the outside public, and especially by the Army, but I can assure hon. Members, having been in a somewhat responsible position in His Majesty's Army three months ago, that my own impression is that there has been such a lack of confidence among the officers and men, in the proceedings and the personnel of this House, at any rate up to the present time —I am very sorry to say it—as to inspire them with no enthusiasm over the adjudication by its Members in military cases.
Colonel GREIG: I think the hon. Member has completely misapprehended the point of the Bill, which he says is going to cut at the root of military law. Supposing you pass that part of this Bill which compels civilian witnesses to go before a purely military court, what would be the result? A civilian witness would feel a certain amount of awe before a military tribunal, but if you had the civilian element represented, (he would have confidence, and would be able to give his evidence in a proper way. Parliament has already provided that a witness can be compelled to go before a court-martial, but the court cannot punish him if he refuses to answer a question, and it has to report him to a Civil Court, and the Civil Court deals with him. It is now sought, in the case of this military inquiry before which civil witnesses are to be called, to make two Members of Parliament members of that court. The hon. Member spoke of this House as the supreme court of the land, and we sit in review upon decisions of Committees in this House. What difficulty would there be in our considering the proceedings of a military court in which one or two Members of this House have taken part? After all, the very rules of procedure under which this kind of inquiry is conducted are subject to our own control. These rules of procedure are all made in pursuance of the Act, and are laid before Parliament as soon as practicable, and, if there be the slightest objection to any one of them, it is open to any hon. Member to lay that objection before the House. The whole course of the inquiry is under rules of procedure which are subject to the control of Parliament itself. In my opinion, the Bill is a most sensible one, and it is a measure which will give confidence in the administration of justice.
Mr. HAZLETON: The Secretary of State for War came to the conclusion that at this stage he could not give the facts to the House of Commons. I think it was unavoidable that the Committee should be consulted on the details of this Bill, but we are practically in the dark, because we are asked to set up a particular court of inquiry to deal with particular cases, and we are not told at all what the charges are. I think it would be almost impossible to expect the Committee to come to any reasoned conclusion with regard to what the course should really be in the absence of knowledge of what the charges are. All Ave have been told is that these charges do
742
not merely involve officers at the War Office, but civilians as well, and, therefore, I think that with the particular Amendment now before the Committee it is quite clear that the justice of the case admits that there should be civilian members present. The Secretary for War, in his speech dealing with this Amendment, referred to the Commissions which were appointed by this House a week or two ago' in connection with the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia. But in that case the facts are wholly different. It is true that in those Commissions the House included Members of the House of Commons. But in that instance the House knew what it was doing. In this case they are asked to give practically a blank cheque, so far as the Government is concerned, or to the Secretary for War, or the Army Council, or whoever will ultimately make these appointments. I would make a suggestion to the Secretary for War. He is very anxious to get all the stages of this Bill to-day, and it is quite possible that he may do so. If he does I presume that this court will be set up probably to-morrow, or certainly within a very few days. That means that the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever has got the decision in their hands, can come to a conclusion as to what Members of Parliament they are going to put upon this Committee this week. If they are coming to a conclusion this week why not follow the course adopted in the case of the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia Commissions, and tell the House who are the members to- be proposed, instead of appointing them behind the back of the House of Commons? I said on the Second Beading of this Bill to-day that so far as I was concerned I had no objection to any Member being put on a court of inquiry of this kind, but I would like to know who is going to be appointed, and I would like to know who is going to appoint them; I would like to know, also, what are the principles governing these appointments. It would be quite an easy matter if the right hon. Gentleman adjourned the consideration of this Bill until to-morrow, and then in the meantime he could make up his mind as to the Members of the House of Commons whom he wishes to appoint and ask the House to approve their appointment. If he does that he will be getting over the difficulties that have arisen in the course of this discussion, and I think he will see that, in the circumstances, it is a reasonable and easy course for him to follow.
Colonel GRETTON: It does not appear to me that the Secretary of State for War has made out a case for the introduction of this very extraordinary procedure in military courts of inquiry generally. If my hon. Friend who spoke last is right, it might do for one particular case, but the Secretary of State for War is making a general alteration in the Army Act, and his proposal has undoubtedly raised the greatest suspicion in the Army. What is the procedure? It is a military procedure under the Army Act which provides the court of inquiry. You have already got the extra power to call witnesses, but I think the Secretary of State has not made out his case that there should be civilian members of the court of inquiry. This is not an inquiry into the conduct of civilians.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, yes, it is!
Colonel GRETTON: Why introduce this alteration into the Army Act? The point is that you alter the Army Act and interfere with the administration of the Army. If it is a mixed inquiry, why net set up a Commission, as has been done in many other cases? Such a Commission could be held in private. The objection to this Bill is that it introduces a general alteration in the Army Act for this particular purpose. The Secretary of State might easily have adopted some such course as I suggest, and if there is a Division to leave out these words, I feel bound to go into the Lobby in support of their elimination.
Commander BELLAIRS: Before I withdraw my Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—I wish to meet the point raised by the hon. Member on the Nationalist Benches. He said the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War should give us the names of the members to be appointed. He pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that this court of inquiry would be set up at once, and that therefore we should have the names. The objection to that is that this is not an ad hoc inquiry. I wish it were. We may have a dozen inquiries under this Bill before the end of the War and in every case, and under the simple fiat of the Secretary of State for War, one or more Members of this House can be put on these various courts of inquiry. I think the right hon. Gentleman has got himself into a difficulty because he did not set up an ad hoc inquiry, but has based his whole case on some mysterious things we are not permitted to know. The right hon. Gentle-
744
man said we did know, but if we do know it can only be through Lobby gossip. All we know in this House is that we get our gossip through the OFFICIAL KBFOET, and not from anywhere else. If the right hon. Gentleman had set up an ad hoc inquiry, there would have been no objections to these civilians or to these Members of Parliament, but in this particular case you are going to alter the military law, and these inquiries are to be set up as often as you like, and the military courts are to have civil members. The suggestion made by my hon. Friends is one which I would like, namely, to limit the inquiry so as to make it an ad hoc inquiry, and limiting the operation of the Clause to the present year instead of the end of the War. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of me being opposed to any inquiries. That is not the case. I am ready to have any number of inquiries provided they do not interfere with the conduct of the War. When he taunts with being opposed to the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia inquiries he must be fair and state the grounds, upon which I objected to those, inquiries, namely, that they would take up a long time and disturb the officers. I believe I promoted more memorials for inquiries before the War almost than any Member of this House. With reference to what the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) said about having raised the question of the Army versus the people, I have not raised that at all. I simply stated that military men ought to be the custodians of their own honour. They will have no jurisdiction whatever in the secret court of inquiry to pronounce against civilians, and civilians who are implicated will have to be prosecuted by civil process. So there is no question whatever of the Army versus the people. But certainly one desires that military law should remain as it is, and that you should not have people who legislate the laws put on as judges in a military court of inquiry. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Mr. HEALY: Before the Question is put—
The CHAIRMAN: I am bound to put the Question at once.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
Mr. HEALY: I should like to point out this Bill can have no real urgency for this reason: the Section which it proposes to amend has this Clause in it:

745
"All rules made in pursuance of this Section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable after they have been made if Parliament be then sitting, and if Parliament be not then sitting, as soon as practicable after the beginning of the then next Session of Parliament."
That compels the laying of any rule that may be made under this Bill before this House, and if Parliament dissents from the rule, you could not decently hold the inquiry. Parliament might annul the rule, and therefore you are in this difficulty that this Bill can have no effect, because the forty days could not be accomplished before the Session ends. We shall meet again, I think, in October—I express the hope that it will be in November— accordingly it follows that you cannot hold this inquiry before November next, because your forty days will not have elapsed. Certainly, nobody advising the parties in this case would advise them to have an earlier inquiry, because then the court would sit under a rule which Parliament might annul. I suggest that we have reached a stage where Progress should be reported, and if the right hon. Gentleman will make that Motion I shall be obliged to him. If not I shall have to make it myself.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What for?
Mr. HEALY: To remove the words from "except two judges."
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have not even reached that yet. If the hon and learned Gentleman would allow these words I shall be prepared to make a statement later, but we are now on a totally different proposition. The hon. and learned Gentleman is fighting for a purely military court of inquiry, for a purely military offence. This means, if it is carried, that there must be a purely military court, and the hon. and learned Gentleman is the champion of a purely military court where civilians are concerned. When the Committee has decided that question, one way or another, then I will be prepared to make a statement on it.
Mr. HEALY: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. He says I am in favour of a purely military court where civilians are concerned. The only information I have as to who is concerned is that it is an Irish Catholic soldier.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. If he takes the trouble to read the Bill he will find on its face this statement:
746
"It cannot be a mixed tribunal, except in a case where it is certified that it involves persons not subject to military law."
Mr. HEALY: The word involved is a very wide word. Persons in every court, witnesses, judge and jury, are involved. Therefore I do not understand what the word "involve" means. We have no information from the right hon. Gentleman as to whom this case affects, but we have heard that it affects an Irish Catholic soldier. I do not think even in the case of an Irish Catholic soldier that it is hard that he should have a purely military tribunal. As the House knows, I do not want to put difficulties in the way of the right lion. Gentleman, but if he wishes Progress should be reported at a stage two or three lines further down, I will be most anxious to gratify his desire in that respect.
Question put, and negatived.
Mr. SALTER: I beg to move to leave out the words "who are to be called as witnesses" ["persons not subject to military law"]. I think the powers given by this Bill are unnecessarily restricted.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that is a reasonable Amendment.
Mr. HEALY: I wish to point out that the words the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) used just now against me are not in the Bill. It is not "involved" at all; it is "affect." The rules further state, "where the Secretary of State certifies that the evidence before the court is likely to affect the character—" So that we are dealing with what is even still vaguer than the word "involved"—" likely to affect."
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. ASHLEY: I wish to move to insert the words "a judge of the High Court who may be president" ["as members of the court of."]
Th sentence, would then read "and the rules may further, where the Secretary of State certifies that the evidence before the Court is likely to affect the character of persons not subject to military law who are to be called as witnesses, provide for the inclusion as members of the court of a judge of the High Court who may be president, and of one or more persons, being Members of either House of Parliament," etc. I admit that it is a very difficult case to meet. It is very difficult, indeed, to know what is the ideal tribunal

747
which should be set up to deal with this case, which may be a prolonged one, requiring searching investigation. But I do think that whether we secure one or two, or even three judges, it is really desirable that one judge should be on this tribunal. I think it is essential that there should be a man there who is respected and looked up to both by soldiers and civilians, and it is important that they should have a man who is accustomed to weighing evidence, and to know what is evidence and what is not. I suggest that the president of this court—I leave out for the moment who it should be—should be one of His Majesty's judges. It does not need words of mine to commend one of His Majesty's judges to this House. The only feeling I have is that the judges are very hard-worked at the present moment, and it might be difficult to find one to serve on this court. But I do think it would have a good effect upon the other members of the court if this were done. Supposing you have a civilianmade president. Obviously the military officers would say, "Why should we have a civilian; why should not we, as heretofore, have that office in our gift." If a military officer is put as president, the civilians will equally object, but no one can object to a judge being at the head of this court of inquiry. I purposely do not enter into the subject as to who the Member should be, because I believe that would come much more appropriately upon another Amendment, but I press most strongly that Members should consider whether a judge should not, in fact, be made president of this court of inquiry for the reasons I have stated.
Mr. HAZLETON: I beg to second this Amendment. As I suggested on the Second Reading this would be a wise course to pursue. I do not think we are dealing on this particular Amendment with the question whether we should also, in addition, have Members of the House of Commons on the court, so I will not discuss that matter, but I can hardly see how there can be any two opinions as to the wisdom of having a judicial authority on a Committee of this kind. The very function of this Committee is of a judicial nature, and I would be inclined even to go further than the hon. Member who proposed this Amendment, and say that, while I think there ought to be one judge who, in my opinion, should be the chairman of the court of inquiry, there may very well even be more than one judge a member of it.
748
We have had some military experiences lately of committees, not of this precise nature, but which may very well serve as a precedent. We had the Commission into the cause of the late rebellion in Ireland, and although the Courts were sitting in London at the time, no difficulty was made about sparing for that inquiry, which took up a considerable time, a distinguished judge of the High Court. Also, in the case of the Advisory Committee, which was dealing with the Irish prisoners in connection with the rebellion, there was not only one but two judges. Originally there was one judge who, I understand, is Chairman of the Advisory Committee, but in order to meet the special emergency, a second judge was brought over from Ireland. I think the right hon. Gentleman indicated at an earlier stage that he would be prepared favourably to consider this Amendment, and that being so, I do not want to occupy the time of the Committee.
7.0 P.M.
Mr. L. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Amendment would would alter the wording in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, I should have very great pleasure in supporting it. Instead of the words, I would like him to insert to move "two judges of the High Court, one of whom may be president." That would do away with the objection which my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier in the evening, that a judge of the High Court might be unwilling to sit on a military tribunal under the chairmanship even of a distinguished officer. I do not know whether that might be so or not. We know that Mr. Justice Shearman sat as a member of the Irish Commission under the presidency of Lord Hardinge. But if there be any objection of that sort, the fact that the president of the court may be a judge of the High Court would do away with it, and I think if some such suggestion as this were accepted it would also do away with the objection of my hon. and learned Friend. I do not know that it would be possible to have Members of Parliament sitting on this court as well as two judges. Possibly it would be quite sufficient to have two lawyers (two judges) sitting. I do not wish to discuss the question of Members of Parliament sitting on the inquiry now, because I do not consider it is quite in order. I foresee a number of grave objections to using the House of Commons as a sort of panel from which the Army Council should call upon men to serve not

749
merely for this one inquiry, but possibly for other inquiries later on. I agree that the number of inquiries will be limited, and that the circumstances in -which they will be held will be very exceptional. I understand that a court-martial can be held without any preliminary court of inquiry at all, but, even so, these mixed courts of inquiry can only be held in very exceptional circumstances, because the Bill says that they shall be held where the Secretary of State certifies that the evidence of persons not subject to military law is necessary. I foresee great objection to treating the House of Commons as a panel from which the Army Council should draw two Members.
Mr. HEALY: It does not say "two"; it may be one or more. It may be twenty.
Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. There may be twenty or twelve, or it may be limited to one. There is grave objection to the Army Council being empowered at any time during the currency of the War to call upon one or more Members of the Houses of Parliament to serve on these courts of inquiry. If my right hon. Friend can see his way to accept this Amendment and appoint two judges of the High Court, one of whom shall be the president, he will facilitate the passing of this Bill to-day and will do away with great objections which otherwise might arise.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. and learned Friends forget that this is a general Bill. Although I am not concealing from the Committee that the occasion which necessitated my introducing a Bill of the kind at the present moment was a case which is very much in the public mind, it is not the only case awaiting decision at the present moment which involves civilians— not by any means. It is not the only case by any means in which I should put in operation the powers to appoint a mixed court the moment I had power to do so. I have another ease in my mind in which civilians are concerned, and in which it is possible that civilians may be the chief parties. That, however, is not the matter for the moment. You cannot have two judges of the High Court sitting in every case of that kind. It is not a particularly important case. You could not always have one judge or two judges of the High Court. So far as I can see, the real objection in the minds of hon. Members is confining it to Members of Parliament. There seems to be a very general feeling
750
on that subject. Most of the invective of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) has been directed against setting up a Parliamentary panel. It is regarded as a piece of impertinence on the part of the Army Council that they should treat the House of Commons as a panel from which they can choose their members for a court. That point has come from many quarters of the Committee. If it will meet the objections of hon. Members, I certainly would not object to leaving out the words
"being Members of either House of Parliament."
That would give absolute freedom to the Secretary of State to choose. He, after all, is subject to correction at the hands of Parliament. I can well understand in such a case as I have in mind you could not well have either Members of Parliament or judges, but rather another man, perhaps a lawyer who has not yet climbed to the bench. I think I should be meeting the criticisms of hon. Members if I were to leave out the words
"being Members of either House of Parliament."
I may say that in the particular case I will consider the desirability of adding a judge.
Mr. ASHLEY: Will he preside—that is the point?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No; I think on the whole it would be better to have a distinguished officer presiding over the court. I do not think judges would object to serving on a tribunal under the presidency of a very distinguished officer of fame in the service of the country. If this Amendment is withdrawn—
Mr. ASHLEY: I withdraw it.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then I shall propose to leave out the words
"being Members of either House of Parliament."
Mr. ASHLEY: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dickinson): Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
Leave withheld.
Major WEDGWOOD: May I ask my right hon. Friend, before he changes the form of the Bill, to consider the expense that will be involved if you have two judges of the High Court, or any important

751
officials sitting on this inquiry? I have heard details of the case. Everybody knows that the inquiry is going to deal with a thing which is trivial and which ought not take up the time of two judges of the High Court.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not propose to put two of them on.
Major WEDGWOOD: There will be extra expense if you appoint a judge.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There will not.
Major WEDGWOOD: The judges will be taken from their ordinary work at the Courts. We are always told there is enough to do there when it is a question of appointing a new judge In the interests of economy I protest against taking up the time of the Committee for five hours over a trivial ease of this kind. I am strongly opposed to appointing Commissions like those which dealt with Strafford and Laud and making a mountain out of a molehill.
Mr. HEALY: The hon. and gallant Member (Major Wedgwood) is not quite fair to the Government when they have agreed to our suggestion. We have been fairly met. There will be no extra expense. If you take the case which occurred recently, Judge Shearman, of the High Court, may have received a railway fare or a hansom cab fare for coming down to the inquiry.
Major WEDGWOOD: They will be taken away from their work.
Mr. HEALY: There is a holiday at the Courts for the next two months. The Government have met the case fairly. They will have added great dignity to the inquiry. We have removed the sting of Parliamentary partisanship from the matter, because the Committee has very properly taken the view, which the right hon. Gentleman has recognised, that it is more desirable that Members of Parliament should not be put upon these inquiries. I congratulate him upon that, and, having led the opposition, T shall present no objection to the Government having facilities for passing the Bill through.
Sir C. WARNER: I hope that whatever arrangement is made will not necessitate having judges on these courts of inquiry. I feel quite certain that on a military court a judge would be a man altogether in the wrong place. He would not be sitting as president. I hope the question of having a judge will be put aside. This is not a
752
trial, it is an inquiry, and any civilian is better than a lawyer for the particular purpose.
Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: May I suggest that if these words are excluded the Bill will read:
"One or more persons who are not officers."
That would be very wide, and quite wide enough to enable the right hon. Gentleman to appoint anybody.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Hear, hear!
Sir J. JARDINE: I should like to add my views to those of the hon. Member who has expressed an objection to taking judges away from their work. It will delay a great many suits that ought to be tried in the High Court and the Supreme Court. It is a bad precedent, especially as the class of cases contemplated by this Bill are not of immense importance. They are not equal to many that come before the ordinary Assizes. There is a great deal of difficulty in making a court for these cases. As regards the appointment of Members of Parliament, if we are to find a. substitute for them it would be a Select Committee of this House. Hon. Members will remember that on one occasion the action of the Duke of York, then commanding the Army, was brought in question as regards the procuring of commissions by a certain person. A Select Committee was appointed, the commissions were revoked, and five or six hundred persons voted as to whether he was guilty or not. That would be too much of a burden upon this House in this time of war. For that reason I am prepared to vote for such a tribunal as is set out, and to trust that the appointing authority will take care, when appointing outsiders, that they shall be persons competent to hear and determine the matter, who know something about military law, and who can get on fairly well with the military judges.
Question, "That the words 'of a judge who may be president and,' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move to leave out the words "one or more ["of one or more persons"], and to insert instead thereof "such number of persons."
I shall propose later, if this Amendment be accepted, to insert the words "as to equalise the number of military and civilian members.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: You might simply want a civilian element in a particular case, and, on the other hand, you; might want just a dash of military in another case. You would want a larger proportion of civilians in one case than in another. I think each case must be decided on its merits.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: This Bill only applies in cases where the character of civilians is at stake. Clearly in the case which my right hon. Friend has in his mind, which is to come on for judgment at once, there is a very important decision to be arrived at which involves the honour either of civilians or of soldiers or of both, and it may be that both parties are guilty, and that it will be necessary to divide the responsibility for the guilt between the civilian and the military accused. The evidence is going to be taken in secret we are told. The report will be a bare announcement that the verdict is so and so, and apparently that is all that is going to be communicated to the House and the country. If there is a real dispute and a real difficulty about adjudicating the guilt of the persons who are implicated, and if there is, as there must be, in my right hon. Friend's mind a suspicion that some jealousy will arise as between the civilian and the military element unless you put a civil element upon the court, the mere fact that by a bare majority perhaps a verdict has been given seriously involving the character of some civilian person, there being only one or at most two civilians on the court, you will accentuate and not diminish the jealousy by introducing a small element of civilian representation. If it is necessary to bring in the civilian element at all it ought to be brought in in equal numbers. If the court can judge quite fairly without any civilian element at all, I should be quite content with a court of inquiry as it is at present constituted. If you are to have civilian representation at all, that representation ought to be an equal one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: Leave out the words "being Members of either Houses of Parliament."—[Mr. Salter.]
Mr. SALTER: I beg to move, after the word "persons" ["one or more persons"], to add the words "to be nominated by the Secretary of State."
I think we ought not to allow the Bill to go without making some kind of provision as to who is to nominate the civilian mem-
754
bers, and unless we do we shall have to leave that to the framers of the rule, and I do not think the House ought to leave it to those who frame the rules to decide who is to have the power of selecting and nominating the civilian members. I think it should rest with the Secretary of State. As I understand it, the military members of one of the mixed tribunals will be nominated by the high military officer who ordered the inquiry to take place, and in very important cases the Army Council. In ordinary cases a high military officer directs officers who are subordinate to himself to form themselves into a committee of inquiry and inquire into some definite matter, and to report to him. That, I understand, is a military court of inquiry. When this Act applies there will be added to such military officers as the military authority appoints such civilian members as the Secretary of State appoints. The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that we ought to consider the numbers in which these courts will be composed, because, the military authority is free to appoint any number of military officers, and the Secretary of State is free to appoint any number of civilians, and it is conceivable that they might appoint one against the other. We are making no provision at all whether they are to arrange together in what proportions the court is to be constituted. We make no provision as to who is to nominate the chairman, and I really think we are leaving certain matters which we ought to deal with un-dealt with. My present Amendment is merely that the power of nominating civilian members shall rest with the Secretary of State. I think that will probably commend itself to the Committee. But besides that there is this other difficult question as to the numbers in which the court is to be constituted, which my Amendment does not touch, but which ought to be dealt with in some way.
Mr. ASHLEY: I wish to support the Amendment. I think it is obvious that the nomination of the civilian members must rest with the Secretary of State. But the point which has been raised as to how many Army members might be appointed I think, in practice, would not arise, because in the last resort surely the nomination of the Army members must rest with the Army Council. The Secretary of State for War represents the Army Council here, and is amenable to this House, and therefore, in the last resort, we shall

755
here have all the power which may be necessary to see that if one case arises that he did not approve of at any rate in the second case not too many Army members should be put on.
Commander BELLAIRS: Has not the right hon. Gentleman considered that this House should be informed as to the constitution of every one of these courts which are set up? It has not been the practice.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has fairly stated the present law. I think the court of inquiry is appointed by the Army Council or the officer in command. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that the civilian members should be nominated by the Secretary of State.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: On a point of Order. My hon. and learned Friend moved the Amendment at the end of the Clause, and surely it comes in there?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand it must come, and was intended by the Mover to come, in after the word "persons."
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no objection to it; and I think there is a good deal to be said for the civilian members being nominated by the Secretary of State.
Mr. HEALY: Is he on the Army Council?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, yes; he presides.
Sir C. WARNER: Would it not be well to put in "Secretary of State for War"?
Mr. SALTER: I used the expression because it is used before in the Clause.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is an Act to amend the Army Act, and therefore "Secretary of State" would mean "Secretary of State for War."
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Listen how the words read, "One or more persons, being nominated by the Secretary of State, who are not officers." The word "who" must refer back to the Secretary of State. It makes perfect nonsense
Mr. HEALY: The Amendment reverses the whole position. The Secretary of State is a member of the Army Council It is the Army Council which will have the nomination We are now, by this Amend-
756
ment, creating that very duality of authority to which I objected in the Debate. As the Bill originally stood the right hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Army Council, would use hi3 very proper authority in the selection of these members. But that has been qualified by the opinions and acts of other members of the Army Council, and we are now putting the right hon. Gentleman in this invidious position, that whereas as a member of the Army Council he will have the selection of the officers of the court-martial, he himself will have the selection of the civil members of the tribunal and the Army Council will have nothing to say to it. It would be better to allow the Bill to remain as originally drafted. The Army Council has only sprung up in the last sixteen years, and it was received by the House with considerable doubt. I want to point out clearly that we are now splitting up the Army Council as an authority and giving the Secretary of State for War a power which is not vested in the Army Council at all, and we are doing that on the Amendment of the hon. and learned' Gentleman, who is not a member of the Government, and the Government themselves do not ask for these powers because the Bill as originally drafted has the nomination not to the Secretary of State for War, but to the Secretary of State for War and the Army Council.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave): I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman will persist in his objection if he will remember it is not always the Army Council that appoints a court of inquiry. Sometimes it falls to the officer in command to deal with a particular matter. Apart from that, we arc introducing a new rule—that is, that in these particular cases there shall be some element to protect civilian witnesses or a civilian who is affected by the inquiry. The point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman is as to who is to appoint the civilian element. In that case perhaps it would not be right that the Army Council or the officer in command should appoint, not only the military members, but the person or persons who are to represent the civilian clement. You should have some other authority, and I think we cannot do better than the Secretary of State. He certifies that the evidence is likely to affect civilians.
Mr. HEALY: I will not persist in my objection, but I simply take the point that

757
you are making a precedent, which undoubtedly will have consequences, and that is being done, not by the Government having considered the matter, but upon the spur of the moment by an Amendment not upon, the Paper and moved by a private Member.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title and Duration.)
(1) This Act may be cited as the Army (Courts of Inquiry) Act, 1916.
(2) This Act shall continue in force until the termination of the present War and no longer.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

FINANCE (EXCHEQUER BONDS) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for second reading read.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The object of this Bill is to get rid of a small technical difficulty which arises under Section 58 of the Finance Act of this year with regard to the issue of 5 per cent. Exchequer Bonds. These Bonds are repayable on the 5th October, 1921, and are at present being issued under the powers conferred by the War Loan 'Act, 1915. The borrowing powers under this Act are almost exhausted and will be quite exhausted in a very short time. It is, therefore, contemplated to continue the issue of these bonds under the powers conferred by the Finance Act. Section 58 of the Finance Act provides that
"any securities issued under this Section shall be repaid or redeemed not later than five years after the date on which they are issued."
It therefore follows that there has been left a gap of a few weeks during which it would not be possible to issue Exchequer Bonds of the same series. After 5th October it will be possible to issue Exchequer Bonds repayable on the 5th October, 1921. So long as we had powers under the War Loan Act, 1915, we could issue Exchequer Bonds repayable on that date, but
758
between the present date and the 5th October, 1916, we should not, under Section 58 of the Finance Act, 1916, have the power to issue Exchequer Bonds repayable on the 5th October, 1921. It is desirable that we should not create a fresh series for this short period and, therefore, I think the House will agree that I am right in describing this as a small technical difficulty. All I am asking the House to do to-day is to give me the Second Reading of the Bill.
Major WEDGWOOD: I want to enter a protest, before the Bill is read a second time, against the drafting of the Bill, The operative Clause of the Bill says, that "the proviso in Section fifty-eight of the Finance Act, 1916, shall not apply to Exchequer Bonds issued," etc. An ordinary Member of this House, if he pays any attention to the legislation that goes on, wants to go and find out what Section 58 of the Finance Act, 1916, is, but he cannot find it. It is not issued to Members.
Sir F. BANBURY: I have got it.
Major WEDGWOOD: You have got it! Then you have been more lucky than I have been. Why could we not have it stated in a note or in the Bill itself what this Section is? The proposal is a perfectly simple one. Why could not it be stated clearly and put into the Bill instead of having this legislation by reference? Legislation by reference is a vice which seems to be growing up under a bureaucracy where the principles of Parliament are withdrawn from it. The right hon. Member (Sir F. Banbury) knows well enough what has been going on during this last two years. They have been rushing things through like this without paying any attention to public opinion, and hoping that the ordinary Member of Parliament would not read the Bill and would not understand what- it meant when he did read it. We have had from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury an explanation of what the Bill is intended to do. That is more than we get from some Ministers, and I suppose we ought to be grateful for small mercies.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not see there is anything in the Bill. I have no objection to it. Even if the hon. and gallant Member had got the Act, as I managed to do, he would have been a little unhappy, because if he had found Section 58 of the Finance Act of 1916 he would find that it refers him to Section 1 of the War Loan Act, 1915.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I would suggest that in future there might be added a note as to the particular chapter referred to. "An amendment of the Finance Act, 1916," is rather confusing to people,, because the Statutes for 1916 have been bound up. These are not bound up in the particular copy.

LAW AND PROCEDURE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (IRELAND) BILL.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. J. H. Campbell): This is a brief, and, I think, an uncontroversial Bill. It is to meet certain difficulties which have arisen in the administration of justice, and also in regard to other matters, by reason of the recent troubles in Ireland. The first Clause is intended to provide a remedy for the period from the 24th April, 1916, to the 9th May, 1916, which is the period during which the Four Courts were occupied by the rebels or by the military, and litigants and their solicitors were unable to take the necessary steps required by the High Courts of Justice. This period is treated for such purpose as if it were cut out of the rules and regulations. It is an obvious and necessary provision. The second Clause provides a similar remedy in cases where the time is fixed by Statute, order, rule, regulation, deed, or agreement, with respect to deeds, mortgages, leases, and matters of that kind.
Major WEDGWOOD: Do I take it that it does not apply to mortgages?
Mr. CAMPBELL: It is for the purpose of dealing with cases such as mortgages, leases, and matters of that kind which are not covered under Clause 1. The third Clause is to enable a copy to be obtained in the case of destroyed deeds or muniments of title, and to enable the Court when it is satisfied that it is a properly verified document and an authentic copy of the original, to have it filed and recorded as the original for all purposes. The fourth Clause is to enable documents of that class to be perpetuated as to their contents. We are familiar with the provisions of the law for perpetuating testimony, and it is pro-
760
posed to extend that principle by this Clause with a view to preserving records of these lost muniments of title and documents. The fifth Clause provides for the amendment of Sub-section (2) and (3) of Clause 1 of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914—which provides that certain powers of execution cannot be exercised by reason of the War—so as to enable the Court to exercise the same power to defer execution where the events are not the result of the present War, but the result of the recent disturbances. In other words, there is a stay of execution in regard to certain proceedings where they are satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so by reason of the outbreak of the rebellion. Clause 6 is a provision which relieves the local authority from liability for compensating persons in respect of property, or persons in respect of injury, where the person or the property was injured in the course of the rebellion. Hon. Members for Ireland will be familiar with the fact that there are certain Acts of Parliament in existence in Ireland by which in certain cases of injury to persons or to property, if the person injured or the owners of the property damaged can show that it has been malicious or wanton they can recover compensation, and it is levied upon the rates of the local authority. His Majesty's Government have undertaken on a certain basis and scale to provide compensation in these cases, and therefore it has been thought equitable and just that this burden should be taken off the shoulders of the ratepayers.
The seventh Clause deals with a difficulty which has arisen owing to the fact that in the area which was destroyed in Dublin in the course of the operations a considerable number of leading solicitors in Dublin had their offices, and certain documents belonging to clients, such as wills, deeds, leases, and all that class of instrument, in many cases have been destroyed beyond recognition. The question was raised by the solicitors, through the Incorporated Law Society, as to their liability for the loss of these documents in case their clients took proceedings. The law is not absolutely clear on the point. My own view is that they would not be liable under such conditions, but the solicitors themselves are not quite satisfied, and we came to the conclusion that, at any rate, they ought not to be made liable, and that so long as there is any doubt about it they ought to re-

761
ceive protection. Accordingly, the object of this Clause is to prevent any action being brought for the purpose of recovering damages from persons who had the custody of documents of this class for their clients. That is practically the entire of this Bill. The first Clause has been introduced at the request of His Majesty's judges of the High Court in Ireland, the second Clause is an addition to No. 1 suggested by the solicitors, and the others have been investigated by the judges of the High Court and also by the members of the legal profession, and on their recommendation they have been introduced.
Sir E. CARSON: To the main portion of this Bill I have no objection. I think that it is a necessary consequence of the results of the rebellion in Dublin. But I have the very greatest objection to Clause 6 of this Bill, which says that no claims for compensation under the Acts relating to criminal and malicious injuries shall lie against the local authorities in respect to injury to person or property sustained in the course of the recent disturbance in Ireland. As I understand the Attorney-General, he has stated that the Government propose to compensate out of public funds—that is from the British Exchequer—for losses sustained by reason of the injuries that were inflicted, and thus relieve the local authorities. The first question I would like to ask is: Will that be done by a Bill? because certainly it is a matter which ought not to be done without a discussion in this House. The second thing I would like to ask is this: As I understand, reading the newspapers, the only promise made is to compensate for loss of building and property. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend, where he is abolishing the compensation to individuals, which under the law they have a right to get for malicious injuries to persons apart from property, which is often very much more important to them —in many cases, I know, this is important in reference to the recent rebellion— is the Government out of public funds going to compensate those who were shot or injured in the rebellion? We have had no declaration as regards that at all up to the present moment. I shall oppose this sixth Clause until these facts are made perfectly clear. If property owners are to be compensated out of public funds for the injury to property caused by the acts of rebels, persons who were shot or who received bodily injury have just as
762
much right to compensation as property owners have. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to let us know what are the views of the Government in relation to that matter.
Again, I should like to know whether Clause 6 takes away the right of constables who have been injured in the discharge of their duty to obtain recompense. There were a number of constables shot and some were wounded. I think in one case there were fourteen shot dead. What is the compensation, or is there any compensation, going to be paid to the representatives of these people? My recollection is, though I have not had time to look into it, that there were provisions in the old Malicious Injuries Act or in the Constables Act which enabled constables who received injuries in the discharge of their duties to claim against the local authorities. This would come under Section 6. I would like, as regards them also, to know what is going to be given in lieu of the provisions which are being taken away under Clause 6? All these matters are of very great importance. I hope that my right hon. Friend does not mean to rush this Bill without our having a full opportunity of understanding this whole question as to how compensation is going to be given for property and to individuals and to enable people whose rights to compensation are taken away under this Bill. There are also two minor points. One is this question of perpetuating testimony and substituting proved copies for original documents. Who is to bear the cost of that? Is it to come out of public funds or to be borne by the individuals affected? Then Section 9 provides that the Act shall not apply to criminal matters or proceedings. I do not quite understand what that means. Does it mean that if the records in any court relating to criminal proceedings have been destroyed no effort shall be made to substitute for them copies, as is done in the case of civil matters. Why is this limitation put in? These are the points, mainly, I admit, Committee points, which I wish to put. But the question of compensation out of public funds is a matter of very great * importance, and I hope that before we are asked to proceed further with this Bill—I am not going to oppose the Second Reading—we shall have the whole scheme of the Government in reference to compensation and cost fully before the-House.
Mr. HEALY: I think that this Bill is reasonable and necessary, but I do think at the same time that there is something in what the senior Member for Trinity College has said as to the question of compensation. My view is that, though the words are necessary, they are a little too wide. The basis of this Bill is that the Government are going to compensate property owners for their losses in connection with the rebellion. Well, now, they are not. That is the vice of the Clause to which the senior Member for Trinity College has objected. In connection with this they rely on the Bill which is next on the Order Paper, which makes an extreme modification in the supposition—it is only a legal supposition —on which this first Bill is founded. What the Government has done is this: In theory they have not acted unreasonably. They have set up in Dublin, under the chairmanship of a very distinguished man, Sir William Goulding, a Committee to consider losses. The terms of reference to that Committee, I understand, exclude all questions of contingent or remote damage—what are called consequential damages—they also exclude anything in the nature of trading loss consequent on the rebellion, and in my reading of the terms of reference—I do not say that it is in any sense final—they have confined themselves to allowing them to give compensation on the basis of what an insurance company would give for the shell or structure of the building and for any goods that might at that moment have been there. In other words, all loss of trade or any matters of the kind are excluded from their consideration.
But having done that, and done it without Statute, and done it on what is called an ex gratia basis, they then proceed to introduce Bill No. 5, which is this: Before anybody knows what Sir William Goulding's Committee will give any of the ruined or burned out shopkeepers of Dublin, they have promised to one or two members of the Dublin Corporation, without any resolution of the corporation itself—because I have most carefully gone through their agenda—and they have introduced in legislative form this proposal, that, forsooth, where Sir William" Goulding's Committee do not give a sufficient sum as an ex gratia grant, the corporation, in what is called the interests of the beautification of the city, may lend money to the burned out shopkeepers, and in addition to that, that the State may
764
advance that money to the corporation. In other words, that the basis upon which this Bill is founded, which is a theory, has no existence, and that Sir William Goulding's Committee will not give sufficient money to compensate the shopkeepers. A more appalling proposal I have never heard than this proposal, that first we shall get the measure of Sir William Goulding's Committee's idea of what the shopkeepers are entitled to for the shells of their buildings and goods therein stored, and then when they have ascertained that, which may take months and months, the ruined shopkeepers, with their premises unbuilt, and without getting a start during this coming winter, before which it will have become necessary to build, are then to submit plans and specifications to the Corporation of Dublin, which has a sort of aesthetic committee, presided over by the Sub-Sheriff of Dublin, and this committee is to say how much in addition is to be spent on domes or cupolas or garden lawns for the buildings, for which funds have been provided for by Sir William Goulding's Committee, and then the corporation may lend the extra money required as mortgagees, and force the ruined shopkeepers to mortgage their premises, which probably have been already mortgaged— a sort of tail mortgage.
That is denying the hope which has been held out to them, and with that, as the senior Member for Trinity College has pointed out, you take away the right of these shopkeepers to apply for compensation under the Malicious Injuries Act. I am in sympathy with the Government in taking away that right, for this reason: I think that it would be a most unfortuate thing if tie City of Dublin was onerated with the millions of money necessary to pay the loss caused by a rebellion which was deliberately connived at by the Government, because I do not hesitate to say that the rebellion in Dublin was artificially created and brought about by officials in Dublin Castle. I do not hesitate further to say that a great deal of the damage which was done was really unnecessary from any military consideration. However, some day, when it suits the Member for Water-ford, we shall get a day to debate this question. Certainly I shall not intrude my views at the present time into the discussion of this Bill, but I will maintain that this rebellion was connived at and that its responsibility should be borne

765
by those who brought it about, the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland and Sir Matthew Nathan. I therefore want to know this from the Government: Take the case of a shopkeeper who will not be compensated by Sir William Goulding's Committee who is not insured. Is that man to be deprived of his right of going to the local authority and saying, "I am one of the lost sheep. I have not been dealt with by Sir William Goulding's Committee. I was not insured. Are you going to take away the last plank which I have? Why should I also have no right under this Bill of coming to the local authorities for compensation?"
8.0 P.M.
It seems to me, therefore, that the senior Member for Trinity College is within the bounds of justice in saying that this particular Clause needs a little more examination than has been given. But my chief ground of complaint in all this business is the appalling delay that these measures are giving rise to. Here we have this Bill No. 5 brought in, and I venture to say that it is directly repugnant to the Bill which is now before the House, and if persisted in will impose years of delay until the committee of the corporation make up their mind, first, as to what the Goulding Committee has given, and, second, as to how far that will suffice to beautify the city and third, how far the plans, which already in some cases have been put into operation, are involved. I would not be in favour of opposing this Bill to-night in the sense of delaying it. I do not think that would be right. It would seem to show that we are slow to recognise the action of the Government as it originally stood. We do recognise the action of the Government as it originally staad before the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill was introduced. With that reservation, I give my assent to this Bill, subject to any Amendment that may be moved in Committee for the purpose of securing the right to compensation of persons whose losses have not been covered by insurance or the ex gratia Grants to be awarded by the Goulding Commission. The Recorder of Dublin managed to dispose of the valuation of the City of Dublin in a couple of weeks. Why, then, should there be this delay with regard to the shopkeepers? It is three months since the rebellion took place and since these houses were burnt down. What would be said of any insurance company of good standing, such as the Ocean Acci-
766
dent, or any of the other big insurance companies who are so honourable and prompt in their repayments, if they had delayed three months? We are now in the month of August, and, unless the buildings are started before the winter when the frost comes, there will be practically another year's delay. The people who brought about the rebellion are not the Sinn Feiners, but His Majesty's Government. Ordinary good government would have prevented it. I do not hesitate to say, and say it in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman, that if his appointment as Lord Chancellor had been stuck to twelve months ago we should not have had this rebellion. I do not hesitate to say that, and very few compliments have ever passed between us.
I want to know how much longer the citizens and the public of Dublin are to be deprived of the use of their streets, their buildings, and their shops. I want to know how much longer the working classes of Dublin are to be deprived of that necessary employment which they desires. Let me call the attention of the House to this fact. Under one of the rules which the Defence of the Realm Committee have made no man may enter upon building operations involving the expenditure of more than £500. They never thought of Dublin. They did not for a moment dream that there was a rebellion in Dublin. Perhaps they never heard about it, but we have who have to live in the city and who have to watch all these numerous Regulations. They are like a litter all over the place, and, though ignorance of the law excuses nobody, I venture to say that there is not a lawyer in the Kingdom who could say what is the present state of the law. I therefore press upon the Government to immediately drop the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill. I know that it has some friends, but a Bill which contains jobbery has far more friends than a Bill which does not contain jobbery.
Let us get rid of this delay. The Recorder of Dublin managed to value the whole city in the course of a few weeks. Nine-tenths of the city has not been injured, and there is no reason in the world why Sir William Goulding's Committee and the five assessors assisting Sir William in that responsible and onerous work should not long since have completed their labours. There is considerable suspicion in some quarters—it was given expression to by the hon. Member for Westmeath

767
(Mr. Ginnell) before his expulsion—with regard to the action of the Government as to one of these buildings. I will not mention what the building is. It is a building upon which the first shell of the revolutionists fell, and I am told that when the shell fell upon it and exploded it to pieces the whole of the revolutionists cheered. I leave the House to imagine what the building is. There is considerable suspicion in many minds with regard to the sum which is to be allotted, and with regard to the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill which is to follow. I can only say, if the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill is intended in any way to further the publications of a particular class favourable to one section of this Government, that it will have much more serious opposition than the Government imagines. I think they should drop the Bill altogether, let the shopkeepers of Dublin have their money, and allow building operations to be started forthwith.
Mr. CLANCY: I gather from the speech that has just been delivered and also from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) that this Bill is not to be opposed on the Second Reading, and under ordinary circumstances, therefore, I should never have risen to say anything at all in support of its provisions, but the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College and of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork have introduced some considerations which I think ought to be noticed. Nearly nine-tenths of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork, if I may say so without any disrespect to him, was absolutely irrelevant to this Bill. He dealt, as far as I could hear and understand, with the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill, which is to come after this Bill. I might discuss that Bill and show that it is a proper and just Bill and one that ought to he passed, but I expect, if you allowed me to do so, it would only be by stretching the Rules of Order. I therefore do not propose to discuss it. I merely desire to draw attention to what I understand to be the case made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College. If I correctly understood him, he assumed that compensation would not be made for contingent losses caused to the traders of
768
Dublin by the late disturbances. That point was also made by the hon. and learned Member for Cork. I am sure, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College had retained that knowledge of the Criminal Injury Court of Ireland which he possessed before he came to the English Bar he would have known that the present Malicious Injury Court of Ireland would not help him in the least in respect of contingent losses. In saying that I state a fact which is within the knowledge of the Minister now in charge of the Bill. The Criminal Injury Court of Ireland allows no compensation for contingent or trade losses at all. If a man's house is destroyed and he rebuilds it the Criminal Injury Court of Ireland does not allow him the cost of the house that is rebuilt, but only the value of the old house as it existed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, would not gain anything whatever by striking out this Clause.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also cited the case of policemen injured in the recent disturbances. Police officers, as a matter of fact, may be compensated under the Criminal Injury Court of Ire land, if they are injured or maimed in the preservation of peace, but, as I understand it, all the Metropolitan Police immediately after the disturbances began were with drawn. One was killed and two or three of them were injured, not in preserving the peace at all, but simply because they were in the street and were shot by accident. They could not benefit by striking out this Clause. Therefore, all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman urged is absolutely without foundation so far as it furnishes an argument in favour of retaining the old law of compensation under the Criminal Injury Court of Ireland. I did not under stand the point of the hon. and learned Member for Cork at all. It would really be grossly unjust to omit this Clause. In the first place, the Government are bound to this Clause. The Under-Secretary for Ireland publicly promised it in a letter addressed to myself, in which he thanked me for making the suggestion that such a Clause should be inserted in the Bill. The Attorney-General also addressed a letter—I am not telling anything that is not public—
Mr. HEALY: You were also promised Home Rule in writing, but you did not get it.
Mr. CLANCY: I do not reply to that observation because it is irrelevant. The Attorney-General addressed a letter to the Recorder of Dublin in which he promised this Clause, and in consequence of the receipt of that letter the Recorder of Dublin actually struck out cases which had come before him under the Criminal Injury Law as it exists. These two facts, to my mind, render it impossible for the Government to go back upon this Clause. In the third place, what injury in the name of Heaven is done to any property owner in Dublin by this Clause? He is already to be paid for his loss by the Goulding Commission. Supposing he is paid by the Goulding Commission, as the Government have promised to pay him, is it right that he should be paid a second time at the cost of the ratepayer, if he could prove malice on the part of the ratepayers, which it would be impossible in a great many cases to prove, because these buildings were destroyed by the artillery of the British Army, and you could not prove malice under such circumstances against His Majesty's Government? The Goulding Commission have all the facts before them, and that body consists of two Englishmen and one distinguished Irish Unionist. I say it is a monstrous supposition and it would be a most ridiculous thing to provide that the Recorder of Dublin should be asked to give him compensation where the Commission, untrammelled by any petty rules of procedure or law, had refused him compensation. I really think that the case for this Clause is overwhelming. This is not the time to argue it fully. That time will come, I suppose, when the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) and anyone who supports him move to omit the Clause, and then I think it will become perfectly plain from the Debate that the Clause is a proper one, and the Government will be faced with another charge of breach of faith made in the face of the Irish people if they fail to stand by its provisions from the first line to the last.
Sir F. BANBURY: I think, as far as one can make out either in this Bill or by the other one to which reference has been made, the English taxpayer will have to find the money, and we ought to have, before we proceed very much further—I do not mean to-day but later on—some general statement as to what the Government intend to do and upon what grounds they are going to put this charge upon the
770
English taxpayer. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) said that the revolution was caused by the Government.
Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think he will say that the English taxpayer had anything to do with it. It may be necessary that the English taxpayer should have to pay something, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will convey to the Prime Minister the impression which my right hon. and learned Friend the Senior Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson) holds very strongly, that before we go much further that either on this Bill or the next Bill we should have some general statement of the Government as to the course they propose to take with regard to these proceedings for compensation in Ireland.
Mr. CAMPBELLI desire to say a word or two with reference to the remarks addressed from different parts of the House with regard to this Bill and which were practically confined to the sixth Clause. My right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson), perhaps not unnaturally, having regard to the long time he has been away and unfamiliar with procedure in Ireland, has forgotten that there is no remedy-under the Malicious Injury Acts for civilians who are injured. I know of no legislation in Ireland which makes the ratepayers of any locality liable for ordinary injuries received by civilians. There is a Statute which enables compensation to be paid to police officers, or, in case of their death, to their relatives, but that is limited to cases in which the injury or the death has resulted from their previous efforts to bring offenders to justice. In other words, the decisions of the Courts have so circumscribed the Act that compensation can only be recovered not for the actual injury causing death, but if the Court is satisfied that it was inflicted on the constable not for his efforts on that particular occasion, but by reason of his previous efforts to bring offenders to justice. It was aimed at cases in which an energetic police officer made himself unpopular in a particular neighbourhood and some criminal wreaked his vengeance upon him. The consequence is that the number of cases which come within this Act for the compensation of police officers or their relatives is infinitesimal. A test case was brought to see how far that Act could be applied to cases under the recent rebellion, and after very elaborate and full argu-

771
ment, the judge was of opinion that having regard to the decisions on the point that no compensation could be recovered.
Then as regards the cases of injuries to property I have considered those most carefully, and I really do not think a single instance could be found arising out of the recent rebellion in which a claim could be sustained under the Malicious Injury Act even as regards property, be cause you have got to prove that the injury was wanton and malicious. That could hardly be attributed to the acts of the military in demolishing these public buildings under the necessity of public safety. I do not think there is much evidence of actual injury to property, certainly to buildings, resulting from the direct acts of the rebels themselves. I think the bulk of the injury to buildings and property was the necessary result of proper military operations. Therefore I think very little relief is given to the local authorities by this Clause 6. I do not mean to say for a moment that the ingenuity of man may not discover certain cases in which they could proceed under the existing Malicious In jury Act, but I know of no case in which they could proceed which is not covered by the action of the Government in pro viding voluntary compensation. The cases coming within that are at present being investigated by the Commission to which allusion has been made, and presided over by Sir William Goulding. My right hon. Friend asked with regard to those cases where the money was to come from and whether it was proposed to bring in legislation to deal with that matter and to authorise the grant of this money. I under stand the intention of the Government is not to have any legislation with regard to this, but to make those Grants from the Treasury, and opportunity, of course, will be given to anyone—
Sir F. BANBURY: There is to be no legislation?
Mr. CAMPBELL: There is to be no legislation with regard to the moneys that have been paid, or will be paid, as a result of this Commission to persons whose property was damaged by the military operations—that is, as I understand the matter.
Sir F. BANBURY: What power has the Government to pay money without sanction?
Mr. CAMPBELL: All I can say is I do not think the sanction will be sought for in
772
the shape of legislation. I am not quite aware of what their intentions are, but by the time we come to Cominittee I feel quite certain information will be forthcoming. The Home Secretary has just informed me that he does not think it is the intention of the Government to proceed in regard to this compensation by way of actual Bill. There is one other matter about which the right hon. and learned Member (Sir E. Carson) wanted information, and that was as to what course the Government proposed to take with regard to persons, as distinguished from property, who were injured in this outbreak, and who themselves were perfectly innocent parties. No doubt those cases are very numerous, and they are coming in from day to day. So far as I have any interest in the matter, and as far as my own individual powers are concerned, I am most anxious that those persons, or their relatives, should be properly and fully compensated. I cannot, of course, bind His Majesty's Government, and it is a matter in connection with the Treasury, but I admit that I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that if persons whose property has been injured as a result of this outbreak are to be compensated, that there is an equally strong claim, if not stronger, in the case of relatives of those who have been killed, or in the case of persons who themselves were injured being perfectly innocent in any way of any complicity in the outbreak.
Mr. HEALY: Irrespective of how the deaths were caused?
Mr. CAMPBELL: I am not going to bind the Government, nor have I any power or authority to bind them, but it seems to me that if you are going to compensate owners of property irrespective of how the damage accrued, then in the case of loss of life or limb the same principle ought to apply. I do not know that that has yet been fully considered. All I know is that cases are coming in with regard to personal injuries and are being very carefully examined, although I believe no definite conclusion has yet been arrived at as to the amount, measure, or principle of compensation. For present purposes, I do not think I need say more. I do not believe that even the omission of Clause 1 (6) would involve any real liability on the local authorities, because my own view is that it is almost impossible to conceive a case resulting out of the recent rebellion in which, having regard to the construe-

773
tion placed upon the Act, a claim for malicious injury could be sustained. Of course I cannot bind the Courts; therefore I think it is a wise precaution to relieve the local authorities from the necessity of investigating these claims. Having regard to the fact that the Government are taking over the responsibility for compensation in almost every conceivable case that could come under the Malicious Injuries Clauses, it seems to me that this is a reasonable Clause to put in, and if it is necessary to defend it in Committee I think I shall be in a position to satisfy hon. Members that the Clause should remain in the Bill.
Mr. RAWL1NSON: I should not have spoken had it not been for the speech of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland. He has told us that in connection with the rebellion, in which there was much loss of property and much injury to people, the Government proposes to pay compensation. An hon. Member from Ireland has told us that the rebellion was entirely the fault of the Government. Even assuming that to be so, the Government, after all, represents the House of Commons, and in the House of Commons there are Irish Members. To that extent I think we must all take a certain amount of blame. But, without doubt, those who did literally raise the rebellion were the Irish Sinn Feiners. Therefore there is something to be said as to how the burden of compensation should fall. We learn now that the House of Commons is to have no voice in the allocation of the amount of compensation for persons or property. That is something which we have watched for and, I will not say anticipated, but feared might happen. The Vote of Credit passed by this House—very exceptional legislation—was simply and solely for the purpose of carrying on the War. It is true that the late Government made a Grant of over £100,000 out of the first Vote of Credit in respect of certain trade unions. I have not the least objection, but at the time I brought the matter forward on two or three occasions, and I understood most distinctly that the Government gave a pledge that no matter how useful might be the object for which the Government proposed to use money from a Vote of Credit, it should not be so used without the sanction of the House of Commons being first obtained. Whether that pledge was given or not— and I do not say that it was definitely given in the form of a pledge—surely it
774
goes to the root of the control which the House of Commons ought to have over finance. I am not saying in the least that money ought not to be granted for compensation in Dublin. I am not discussing that question now. When the facts are placed before me I shall be able to form a judgment. But I submit most strongly that the House of Commons before passing a Bill of this kind is entitled to have clearly stated the amount of money— English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish money —which it is proposed to spend for this purpose. We ought to have it definitely in blaok-and-white, and sanctioned by the House of Commons before the Bill becomes law and before any such money is spent in Ireland.
Mr. BRADY: I rise only for the purpose of saying that as far as I am concerned I have heard with great pleasure the timely and sympathetic references of the Attorney-General to the cases of those who have sustained personal loss, whether by death or by injury, in connection with the recent disturbances in Dublin. The expression of the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, which I quite understand we are not to take as binding the Government, will be welcomed very much to-morrow morning in Dublin, because there are many cases of the saddest description in which very grave injuries have been sustained by people who had no sympathy whatever with the recent disturbances, and who took no part at all in the terrible occurrences of Easter week. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to press on his colleagues in the Government the view which he has so eloquently expressed. An overwhelming case can be made for these unfortunate people who, through no fault of their own, have in many cases sustained injuries, the mark of which they will carry to their dying day, while in other cases men have lost their lives, leaving behind them dependants who in consequence of the death of the breadwinner, are absolutely without means of livelihood. I might, perhaps, refer to a matter raised by the senior Member for Dublin University regarding the costs of the proceedings dealt with m Sub-section (4). In consequence of the total destruction of many original documents in solicitors' offices and elsewhere, recourse will be necessary to an old form of procedure known as the perpetuation of testimony. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, he asked the representative of the Government how the costs

775
of these proceedings would be provided for. It is quite clear that it would be hardly fair that those costs should be borne by the litigants who must take these proceedings to make good their title, and so on, and it is equally clear that the costs should not come out of the unfortunate solicitor's pocket. The proceedings will become absolutely necessary because the documents have been destroyed, and as the Government are dealing with the whole matter in a broad and generous manner, I think they might go the whole way and provide a fund in some way, which doubtless could easily be found, for the payment of these costs. As I have the honour to belong to the profession to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, I desire to thank him, on behalf of my brethren in Dublin—the burnt-out solicitors, as they are called—who will be safeguarded by the Sub-section to which he referred.
Mr. FIELD: As one of the Members for Dublin, I wish to support the view expressed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Brady). There is no question whatever that as large portions of the principal thoroughfares and streets in Dublin have been destroyed by operations in connection with the disturbances, it is incumbent upon the Government to do what they can to restore the city to something like the position it was in before these occurances took place. Therefore, I desire, as one of the representatives of the City of Dublin, strongly to impress on the Government the absolute necessity, whatever criticisms may be passed upon their action on certain points, for going forward. All the Members of the City of Dublin join, I think, in supporting this Bill. It was put forward by the corporation. The corporation represent the citizens. The citizens wish to have Dublin replaced in its former position.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has mistaken the Bill. This is not the Bill to which he is alluding. We have not reached that yet.
Mr. FIELD: I only wish, then, to support what the hon. Gentleman before me has said.
Colonel GRETTON: We have learned a very remarkable fact in regard to this Bill, that this House has received no estimate and, according to the statement which has been made, the Bill is going to give unlimited power to the authority set up to administer the provisions of the Bill
776
and to find compensation for the damage done in Dublin during the rebellion. The authority have unlimited power to dip into the Vote of Credit and spend any sum it may think fit without reference to this House. All Members of the House of Commons who care for constitutional procedure, and who have in mind the limitations, privileges, and duties of this House, will do well to note that fact. I am not discussing the merits or details of the Bill. As regards the nature of the particular compensation that is to be paid, we are all agreed about that. But we should see that Parliamentary control is exercised over the money. If a Commission is sent over and there is no control, there is nothing easier than for the Commissioners to save themselves trouble, and to get credit for acting in a generous spirit—at the expense of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. That, of course, cannot be tolerated. This practice of spending money out of the control of the House of Commons will undoubtedly have to cease, whether it ceases over this Bill, or over something more serious. The House will be wise when this Bill gets into Committee to take care that there is some provision inserted that estimates should be laid before the House and proper accounts should be presented for the approval of Parliament. I agree with hon. Members below the Gangway that compensation ought to be paid. What compensation should be paid is a matter for investigation. But the Government —and here I agree with some remarks that have been uttered—is largely responsible for the expenditure under this Bill being incurred. If they had performed their duty there would have been no rebellion. There is much reason to complain of hon. Members who sit below the Gangway, especially those hon. Members who represent the City of Dublin, that they did nothing to warn this House of what was going on in Ireland, or of the sedition and intended rebellion in Dublin.
Mr. HEALY: You would not listen to us.
Colonel GRETTON: I am quite willing to accept advice which seems to me to be good, from whatever quarter it comes. I do not propose to oppose this Bill, but I think it will require some careful examination when it reaches the Committee stage.
Mr. NUGENT: I desire to support the passing of this Bill. I cannot exactly

777
follow the line of the hon. Member above the Gangway who took exception to compensation being paid.
Colonel GRETTON: No. I made no suggestion that compensation should not be paid. What I said was that the amount of the compensation was a matter for a Committee to decide.
Mr. NUGENT: After all, the Irish taxpayer contributes to these amounts as well as the British taxpayer. People have to recognise that the rebellion in Ireland was undoubtedly due to the War and German efforts to create trouble for this country. That was the real cause. My principal reason, however, in intervening is to express the satisfaction that we on these benches feel at the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General of his own views in reference to compensation for those people who have lost their lives. I hope he will strongly urge his views upon his colleagues in the Cabinet. Coming fresh from Ireland and knowing the circumstances there, I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will strongly urge his view that compensation, and adequate compensation, should be given, not alone to those who it was suggested were shot by the participators in the insurrection, by accident or by the Eegular soldiers, because, after all, these people, who were non-combatants, no matter by whom shot, have the right to compensation. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's view that the dependants of those people that have lost their lives, as well as the people who have been injured in the shooting, will receive compensation. I am confident now, after his statement, that within a few weeks—and I think the quicker the belter—the matter will be attended to. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork that there should be the least possible delay in getting forward with this matter, so as to assuage the feeling that exists in Ireland.
Mr. HAZLETON: As a resident of Dublin, I would like to support the remarks that have been made on the Second Beading of this Bill by the hon. Members for Dublin. I should like to deal with one particular point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced this Bill made it clear to the House that he is strongly in favour of Sub-section (6) of Clause 1. We are all glad to hear that. I hope that he will not on any account, during the further stages of this Bill, give way upon that Sub-section. The
778
Attorney-General, in dealing with this, stated that on two grounds he did not really think it was important whether or not this Sub-section was retained. The first ground was that, of course, there is the Commission in Dublin which is considering the compensation for those people whose property has been destroyed. I do not know whether if that is so it will affect the law on the question of compensation for malicious injuries. I think the law will still stand. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, no doubt, was on stronger ground when he came to deal with the second point. He said, in his opinion, as a Law Officer of the Crown, it would be practically impossible to establish a case for malicious injury in those cases under the law as it stands at present. We all value the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a matter of this kind very largely, but as he is very strongly with us as to the justice of the case that these malicious claims ought not under all the circumstances to lie against the local authorities, it would be very unwise if he were to yield to pressure from any quarter and leave a loophole, because, if under any circumstance it is found in the future that the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman is different to that which may be taken by the Court, or that from any other reason the Malicious Injuries Acts do apply, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be under the necessity of coining back to the House of Commons later in the Session and asking for further powers to deal with this one particular point. It is unthinkable that, under all the circumstances, the ratepayers of the City of Dublin should be burdened by a charge such as malicious injury claims would involve in this case. Therefore, when we go into Committee on this Bill I hope he will stand hard and fast by this Sub-section (6).
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

DUBLIN RECONSTRUCTION (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Tuesday being proposed for the Second Reading,
Mr. HEALY: Before you put that Question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this Bill is marked "(to be reported upon by the Examiners)." I wish to know by what

779
authority that statement is put against the Order. Is it by the authority of the Chair or of the Government? We are also entitled to know, I think, what is the necessity for it.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that question had better be put to Mr. Speaker. I presume the authorities of the House, on the general appearance of a Bill, decide whether or not it should go before the Examiners. But the Bill is not before us to-day; it has been called for To-morrow.
Mr. HEALY: Is it intended to take it effectively to-morrow?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House. It cannot be debated now.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

EDUCATION (FEE GRANT) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
I have, I hope with sufficient fullness, explained the provisions of this small Bill. The outstanding point is that it will facilitate the payment of education Grants and save an enormous amount of clerical work at the Board of Education, by the local education authorities, and in the schools. I have not heard any opposition from any quarter of the House, and, I hope the House will afford the Bill a Second Reading.
Sir F. BANBURY: I cannot say that I have heard any explanation at all about the Bill. I presume the right hon. Gentleman refers to the occasion when the Resolution on which the Bill was founded was taken. I suppose I was not here, but that is no excuse, although I heard nothing whatever about it. I do not quite follow what the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of the Bill is. The Bill, as it seems to me, does this, and this only: It allows a Grant to be made in respect of children who remain at school after the age of fifteen. I understand that cannot be done now. This is increasing expenditure, and has nothing whatever to do with the War, and I do not think it ought to be brought in at all. The understanding was that no Bills were to be brought in unless emergency Bills dealing with the War. This
780
may be a good Bill, or it may be a bad Bill, but it is a Bill dealing with the education of children, and I do not think it ought to be proceeded with. Neither do I follow the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. LEWIS: If I knew the right hon. Gentleman was interested in this matter—
Sir F. BANBURY: I am always interested in economy, and also in the observance of an undertaking given to the House that Bills unconnected with the War should not be brought forward.
Mr. LEWIS: I am delighted to know the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of economy, because that is really the one object of this Bill. It is perhaps a natural misconception, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the fact that there has been a financial Resolution, to suppose that the object of this Bill is to spend some more money upon education. Perhaps under the circumstances it would be desirable that I should make a brief explanation of the purport and objects of the Bill. The Education Act of 1891, which established free education, provided a new fee Grant of 10s. per child for every child in average attendance at the elementary school between the ages of three and fifteen The plan of the Act was to provide that in schools where fees did not exceed 10s. per child no fees should be charged and that in schools where the fee had exceeded 10s. a child the fee should be reduced by 10s. a child. This Bill does not in any way propose to alter any of the main principles of the Act of 1891. Any attempt of that kind would be one of an entirely controversial character, and would very rightly meet, from his point of view, the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman. But I can assure him that no object of that kind is intended in any ray whatever. All that the Bill does is to abolish the provision of the Act of 1891 under which no Fee Grant can be paid in respect of any child over fifteen. Now at the time when that Grant was made there was theoretically no restriction whatever as to age in elementary schools. But that was altered by subsequent legislation. By the Act of 1902 it is provided that any scholar may remain at a public elementary school until the end of the year, which is in some cases the end of the school year, and in others the end of the educational year, in which he completes fifteen years of age, but he may not remain there any longer except at a school which has

781
been specially permitted fey the Board of Education to retain its scholars beyond that age.
All other educational Grants are paid in respect of all the children that are in public elementary schools, but this special provisipn as to age for the purposes of the fee Grant makes it necessary—and here I want to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the great difficulty to which the present system gives rise—to provide separate registers and separate returns to the Board of Education on attendances of scholars over fifteen years of age. The average attendance has to be separately calculated by the local education authorities, it has to be checked by the Board of Education, and the distinction has to be carried on into the forms which notify the payment, and into the forms in which it is recorded at the Board of Education. I hope the House will realise that the existence of this provision in the Act of 1891 does impose a very serious and very unnecessary burden upon the local education authorities of the country. We are constantly having complaints from them as to the number of forms which they have to fill up, and I am bound to say that the requirements of the Legislature—and they have been imposed by the Legislature in that respect—are very numerous and very exacting. This is an attempt on the part of the Board of Education—and I do sincerely hope the House will support us in it—to simplify some of these forms. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the amount of money concerned. May I explain that the number of children in elementary schools over fifteen years of age was, according to the Return for 1913–14 only 2,630. The actual cost of this, therefore, would be about £1,300 a year. It simply means that the ratepayers will have to pay that much less and the Exchequer that much more. It does not mean that another penny will have to be expended upon education. There will be payments to the local education authorities throughout the country, but they will only receive very small sums. Very few of them will get more than £5. I do not know of any authority except London that will get more than £40, and London will only get about £218 altogether. I put it to the House that this is a reform of a reasonable and much-needed character. I think it goes all in the direction that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London wishes to guide all our footsteps, and that
782
is in the direction of economy, and I hope for these reasons the House will allow the Bill to have a Second Reading.
Colonel GRETTON: Any proposal which makes for the simplification of forms and returns, of course, is to the good, but this Bill appears, after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, to have something else in it. The State, I understand, is to take over the education of scholars over fifteen years of age in elementary schools. Hitherto the cost of that has been borne by the localities. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the numbers for 1913–14, and placed them at about 2,600 altogether in the Kingdom. If that number was likely to remain stationary, there is nothing very much to be said in regard to the cost, but I should like to know whether this Bill is going further in this connection than mere economy in forms and returns. Is it not opening the way to a large extension of the aid paid for by the State, and, therefore, opening the road, by the very persuasive speech of the right hon. Gentleman, to a very large and extensive alteration in our educational system which will entail ultimately a great cost on the Exchequer? If the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that this Bill does not have that effect, and is really limited to forms and returns, then I approve of it, but this is not the time to alter our educational system by raising the standard of the age. If the right hon. Gentleman can give the assurance for which I have asked, I should be very much obliged.
Mr. LEWIS: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member need have any apprehension upon that score. As a matter of fact, the age is already limited by the Act of 1902, and until the dispositions of parents in this country change very considerably it is not at all likely that there will be any addition in the' future except of a very small character.
Colonel GRETTON: Any general change would mean legislation?
Mr. LEWIS: Yes.
9.0 P.M.
Major WEDGWOOD: I quite see the advantage to the Board of Education of getting this Bill through, but I do not see that this is a Bill which should pass through during a time of war. I think it is bad in principle. I admit that the amount is small, but you have no right to transfer the burden from the local authorities to the Exchequer. I do not think the local authorities should be allowed to transfer their burdens to the

783
Exchequer, because then they will have to be borne by the mass of the people. On that ground the principle is a bad one. There is another reason why the Board of Education should not have introduced this measure during war time. You are now dealing with only part of the very big problem. You are dealing not only with the Grant for the education of a child and the part concerned in this Bill, but you have another Grant paid by the central authorities on the basis of efficiency, and everybody knows that the solution is to get one uniform Grant and do away with all these different forms of bookkeeping. You have also the Grants for necessitous areas which you are not touching. You cannot solve the education, problem by dealing with it piecemeal. You want some comprehensive measure dealing with the whole question of education Grant and local grants in a solid manner. I am glad the Parliamentary-Secretary to the Board of Education is in charge of this Bill because I know he does take a real interest in the question of education, and particularly in the hopelessly complex working of the Grants and subventions for education. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that this is a step in the right direction I will say no more about it, but I hope the Government will sum up courage at a' time when there is nothing doing in education to bring forward a Bill dealing with this question of local subventions and central subventions, so that we may get the foundation of a sound system before the end of the War. If we could deal with this problem on a wider basis, you would be doing an enormous service to education, and you would establish a system which would be really useful to the children of this country.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: It has been said that this Bill means that there will be a transference of a charge from the local rates to the central exchequer. Is that quite the case? According to the Act of 1891 the managers of a school were prevented from charging fees for children between three and fifteen, and they got in place of that a fee Grant of 10s. They were allowed to charge the children over fifteen, and there was no prevention of this under the Act of 1891. I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether he intends that there is still to be a charge for children over fifteen. If so, that is obvi-
784
ously unjust. Of course, if you were obtaining by adding to your fee Grant further education for a larger number of children, it would be very fair, but there is nothing in this amending Act that takes away, as far as I can gather, the permission that is given under the Act of 1891 to continue to charge fees for children over fifteen. What I want to know is whether the local education authorities are to be allowed, as they at present have power to do, to go on charging fees for these children over fifteen and at the same time to receive fee Grants for those in respect of whom they have the power of charging? If so, I do not really think there is anything very much in the Bill, except to save the local education authorities a little trouble, and to pay into their hands a sum of money to which I do not think they are entitled unless they cease to charge the fee.
Mr. LEWIS: I do not think the hon. Member need have any apprehension whatever upon that particular point. The effect of the amending Bill will be to place scholars over fifteen, as regards the right to charge fees and the schools which they attend, in the same position as those under fifteen. If, however, there is any doubt whatever on the subject, I shall look into it between now and the Committee stage.
Sir H. CRAIK: You intend that they shall not charge fees for scholars over fifteen?
Mr. LEWIS: That is certainly what I conceive to be the intention of the Bill, but, as I have said, I will look into the matter.
Sir H. CRAIK: I do not think the Bill carries that out.
Sir J. YOXALL: Under the Fee Grant the managers of the school are empowered to charge a partial fee, a small part of the former fee, to make up any loss of revenue which might arise in the course of the year. The point arises in this way: If the local authority receive more money in Grants, they could yet go on charging the partial fee. That is the point which will have to be looked into in Committee. If you are going to give the local authority more money in fee Grant, you might at the same time take away any right that they have now to charge fees to the parents.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(User of Land and Buildings for Telegraphie Lines.)
  If the owner, lessee or occupier of any land or building refuses or fails to give his consent to the placing of a telegraphic line under, in, upon, over, along or across the land or building within one month after being required to do so by notice from the Postmaster-General, a difference shall be deemed to have arisen between the Postmaster-General and that owner, lessee or occupier, and Sections three, four and five of the Telegraph Act, 1878, shall apply accordingly as if it were a difference arising under that Act.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: I beg to move, to leave out the words, "If the owner, lessee or occupier, of any land or building, refuses or fails to give his consent to the placing of a telegraphic line under, in, upon, over, along, or across the land or the building within one month after being required to do so by notice from the Postmaster-General," and to insert instead thereof the words, "Where any telegraphic line of the Postmaster-General has been lawfully placed under, in, upon, over, along, or across any land or building, and the owner, lessee, or occupier of such land or building shall duly require its removal, such requisition to remove shall, if the Postmaster-General objects to such removal, be deemed to be a failure to consent under Section three of the Telegraph Act, 1878, and."
  The object of my Amendment is to give effect to a proposal which I made on the Second Reading of this Bill. On that occasion I admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had very good ground for asking for certain powers to be given to the Post Office to prevent the Department from being pressed to do certain work in regard to telegraph poles during the War, and I admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had made out a considerable case, and that this part of the Bill certainly came under the category of a war measure. On the previous occasion, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that certain unscrupulous persons who are annoyed by the present increase of taxation, or by other things of a similar kind, came down to the Post Office and tried to take advantage of the power they had to try and make the Post Office remove at this moment the
  786
  telegraph poles from their property. That is an intolerable position, and I think one which the Post Office has a right to resist. But the Bill, as it stands, empowers the Department, also, to go a great deal further, and to erect new poles and new apparatus on other property, which I designated on the Second Reading as being a kind of power which was not required more now than at any time within the last ten years, or any other period, and that therefore that part of the Bill could not be classed as a war measure. A very considerable point was raised on that part, and it is certainly a very contentious one. I think the Bill might be confined to the power to refuse to remove poles already existing, and to abandon the far greater power which is sought of extending the system in a way which has not hitherto been found necessary. The object of my Amendment is to give effect to that suggestion, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to curtailing the Bill to what I admit is absolutely necessary as a war measure.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Joseph Pease): I cannot make any concession to the hon. Member for Windsor, for although his proposal would leave the Bill operative in regard to existing plant, it might prevent any extension whatsoever, of lines which are absolutely required in the interests of the public service. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that we should still be at the mercy of unscrupulous individuals, who might desire to escape war taxation, even after this period. War taxation, unfortunately, must continue for some time ahead, and our experience is that while there is only a limited number of these black sheep, against whom this Bill is directed, yet these unscrupulous people would not if the Bill did not extend to the future as well as to the present merely resist us as they do to-day, but, if this Amendment were accepted, some of them would hereafter be encouraged to ask extortionate or unreasonable terms. Let me give an illustration of 'two landowners in the neighbourhood of a village. One landlord at the present time is quite reasonable in his terms of wayleave; we have had no difficulty in coming to an amicable arrangement, and he has already given his consent to our wires going across his land. Munition works have been established at the other side of the village, and telephonic communication is required. If

  787
  there is to be an extension of the lines to these works to this place for a new industry, it would be open to the other landowner to demand terms so excessive as to place him in a preferential position as compared with his neighbour. Be would be able to ask terms unreasonable and extortionate; and it is because we want to look after the interests of the public and to be able to extend lines from one place to another, where it is essential to the public interest, that we seek these powers, and we believe that in every instance these powers will enable us to make amicable arrangements and to come to terms with the landowners and property owners. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, after the word "If" ["If the owner"], to insert the words "the Postmaster-General considers that the inhabitants of any district or any public authority are debarred from the convenience of telegraphic communication owing to the refusal or failure of any person being."
  This Bill deals with a large matter of principle, and includes telegraphic and telephonic lines which already exist, while it also deals with the future extension of telegraphic and telephonic lines on lands or buildings. The Bill is drawn for the protection of the owner of any land or building which has been included in connection with telegraphic and telephonic communications. I understand that the Postmaster-General will only exercise the powers if there be real public necessity for their enforcement. No doubt this Bill implies that he will only exercise those powers on that ground. It does not say so, and by the omission to say what every Act, except the Act of 1863, has enacted previously, it implies that he need not do so. As no doubt the Postmaster-General knows, if an interpretation is not stated in an Act it is not administered, and if any particular provision or principle is not so stated it is not administered. The Courts adhere to the wording of the Act, and in this case it would be an argument which, I should imagine, would be comparatively easy to sustain that, there was a reason, and that it was intended to omit this, and that the provision was not intended to be applied. Of course, in recent years there has been a considerable
  788
  change in the spirit of legislation and the' administration of the law. A generation or two ago the right of private owners was considered to be paramount, and the State or public companies only infringed or interfered with those rights under stringent conditions. The spirit is entirely changed now, and in this House and outside there is a tendency to consider that the powers of the State are paramount, and that the public interest must override all private rights. No doubt that principle is capable of very large application, but it does not mean the entire abrogation of private rights and liberties whenever the representative of the State chooses to exert himself, and to claim that he desires to do something. It is really a maintenance of principle that when the Postmaster-General goes before the Railway Commission, or before the County Court, he should prove that he really needs these lines which he is claiming to maintain, or to place, and that he should have to prove that there is a reason, that that is the right place to go, and that he cannot go elsewhere, in the interests of the State. I think I have on principle a claim that these words should be inserted, and that there should be no objection to the State when it desires to contest the claim of private rights, at any rate, proving that it is urgently necessary that the State should go there, and override the private rights and convenience, whatever they may be.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to support this Amendment. It is, verbally, almost the same as one which stands in my name, and although I think it will be found when the matter is looked into that it will be preferable to take the rather longer words I have used, the same material is contained in both proposed Amendments. The reason why I support this Amendment I can explain in a very few words. We all have a sympathy with this Bill. The Postmaster-General has explained, and explained very clearly, that he wants to have the simplest possible method of dealing with a refractory owner, lessee, or occupier who misuses the position-in which he is placed to try and exact terms from the Postmaster-General to the detriment of the public interest and for the purpose of enhancing his own private and personal gain. It is quite clear that the Postmaster-General ought to be entitled to have powers in order to deal with anyone who is so unpatriotic at the

  789
  present time. If I follow the Clause, it gives the Postmaster-General, by asserting that a difference has arisen within the certain Acts referred to, a much speedier method of dealing with a refractory owner, lessee, or occupier than he would have if this Bill were not passed. So we are all in agreement. We are all agreed that there should be this power; and we are with the Postmaster-General in saying that he wants a handier weapon than he has otherwise, and that, therefore, he ought to have the facilities granted by the first three or four lines of Clause 1.
  Having stated that, just let us see whether this Bill, and this Section, does not go a good deal further. It must not be forgotten that the Schedule of this Bill is important, and it will be found that the Telegraph Act, 1892, Section 2, is repealed, and that the Telegraph Construction Act, 1908, Sections 1 and 4, are repealed. What were these Sections? The Section of the Act of 1892, Section 2, is the one which contains the overriding words which both the hon. Member for Rutland (Colonel Gretton) and I propose should be reintroduced into the present Clause, that which contains these words:
  "If the Postmaster-General considers that the inhabitants of any district or any public authority are de barred from the public convenience of telegraphic communication owing to the refusal or failure of any person being the occupier, lessee, or owner of any land or building to consent to the construction or maintenance of a work by the Postmaster-General—"
  Do not let us forget that the effect of this Bill, if it is passed into an Act, will be that you will have cleared away that overriding limitation, which is that the Postmaster-General has to be satisfied that the public need requires that the particular course should' be followed, and all you would have left after having struck out Section 2 of the Act of 1892, and Section 4 of the Act of 1908, would be simply that, whether the Postmaster-General considers that the public means requires it or no, you have simply the case of where the owner or occupier of land refuses to consent. Just let us consider for a moment how that would work. Suppose it is desired to put up a new line of telegraph or telephone in a particular country district. There may be two ways
  790
  of doing it. One may be a way in which you may avoid a certain amount of public property, and it may perhaps be a little longer. The other may be the more highhanded way, of going over private property, and it may be that the private owner, lessee, or occupier, on perfectly reasonable grounds, refuses to consent. Once you have that failure to consent these powers are in operation, and you have taken away from this Bill all the important questions that it lies upon the Postmaster-General to decide, whether or not in the exercise of what is necessary, the public interest is being unfairly and adversely affected. Let me take Section 4 of the Act of 1902 which is to be repealed—
  "The provisions of Section 2 of the Telegraph Act, 1892—"
  which is what I have just quoted—
  "shall apply where, on the application of the Postmaster-General, the Railway and Canal Commission are satisfied, that owing to the refusal or failure of any person, being the occupier, lessee, or owner of any land or building, to consent to the construction or maintenance of a work by the Postmaster-General, telegraphic communication cannot be supplied to any district or place, except at unreasonable cost or on unreasonable conditions."
  All that is 3wept away, and therefore we find no longer the safeguard we ought to have, the safeguard that belongs to and is enshrined in the Postmaster-General, that before any course of this kind is followed he must be satisfied that the general interest of the public is being defeated by reason of a failure to consent. I hope I have made my point clear, because I feel sure the Postmaster-General, when his attention is called to this, will be really ready to meet us. It is a one-Clause Bill for the purpose of giving a speedier method to the Postmaster-General for overcoming difficulties. Let us agree to that. Why do we want the Schedule? If it is to apply to these refractory persons, why repeal the responsibility that under these two Acts lies with the Postmaster-General? If you insert the words my hon. and gallant Friend proposes, you safeguard the position, and we are all satisfied, but if you do not it might be that an arbitrary controversy might arise between the owner of the land and the persons who were endeavouring to exercise these public powers. Personally I very much prefer,

  791
  as I think most persons, including the Postmaster-General himself, will prefer, to have this sort of powers restrained and restricted to cases where the public interest is involved, which I suppose it was originally intended should be done by the Bill. Probably it has not been considered what the result would be of repealing these Sections and leaving the first Clause in the bare way in which it stands. I hope the Postmaster-General will feel that the Bill goes a little too far and that he will be prepared to put in these words.
  Mr. PEASE: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Pollock) or the Mover of the Amendment realises that, from the draftsman's point of view, if the words were inserted the Clause would not apply if the owner consented to the line being constructed, but if anyone demanded an extortionate price they would apply. Be that as it may, I want to point out to the hon. Members that Section 2 of the Act of 1892, from which they have extracted their words, has been, in actual practice, a dead letter. A procedure was set up by that particular Section which really has never been put into operation. A new procedure is now proposed which will deal with the new grievance for which hon. Members have admitted I have made out a case. The reason why that particular Section has never been operative is, that no past Postmaster-General could ever prove to any Court, to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, or any other tribunal, that any individual could not obtain communication in some other way. That was the Section which required the antecedent condition that the Postmaster - General should consider that the inhabitants were "debarred." The Postmaster-General never could consider that people were debarred, because there was always some other route, some more circuitous way and some more expensive method of securing telegraphic communication. It might be secured in some cases by a private wire. If I accepted the words proposed by the hon. Members it would prevent me or my successors resorting to the tribunal whenever certain things have to be done in connection with the public service in the interests of economy and of efficiency
  Let me take an illustration. Suppose a telegraph line goes up to a colliery district and away to another village. At the moment the colliery district is a most important district, and requires tele-
  792
  graphic communication. The line goes along two sides of a isosceles triangle. Suppose the colliery is worked out, then no longer telegraphic communication is required for that community, which disappears. The Postmaster-General, in the interests of economy and efficiency, proposes to erect a short line at the base of the isosceles triangle and to do away with the two long lines. If I accepted these words I should be prevented from being able to do what is obviously in the interests of the community. I recognise, however, as hon. Members realise, that individuals who have property and certain rights should be protected, and I have endeavoured to see that they shall be protected hereafter as they were protected in 1863 when a company owned the telegraphic system and the State did not. Whilst I want them to be safeguarded, I do not think they should be safeguarded merely on account of the refusal or failure of any person, as is suggested by the Amendment. I think I can quite well accept an Amendment, which I trust will meet their views, to insert after the words "Postmaster-General" the words "and if the Postmaster-General considers that such refusal or failure is contrary to the public interest." In that way we shall safeguard the interests of the public. It will be for the Postmaster-General to look after the in terests of the public service and he will not act arbitrarily or in the high-handed way which this Amendment is intended to avoid.
  Major NEWMAN: We are getting along way from the refractory owners and dealing with them during the period of the War. We now find that the Postmaster-General, where a telegraphic line is running from a colliery to a laundry, if the colliery is worked out, deciding that it would be economical to put up a line on the base of the triangle. Where does the owner come in? As a matter of fact, along the base of the triangle might be a valuable piece of property where telegraph or telephone poles would do a lot of harm. We have there the main objection which some of us feel to this Bill. When we were told just now that this Bill was aimed at one or two refractory owners it assumed a very different complexion. Now we have it from the Post-master General it is to operate in the future and not against a refractory owner at all, but in the interests of economy.

  793
  That economy may be exercised at the expense of the private owner. I am not at all inclined to agree with the suggestion made by the Postmaster-General.
  Mr. PEASE: I would point out to the hon. Member that we must ask leave to go upon property. We have to secure the consent of the individual. If we fail to secure the consent of the individual, and if we cannot make other arrangements in the interests of the public service, we go to the tribunal in order to seek powers.
  Major NEWMAN: To the Railway and Canal Commission?
  Mr. PEASE: No; first of all to a judge of the County Court. It is a settled procedure which has been in operation for thirty-eight years in connection with public authorities, and it has worked quite smoothly. We should have to satisfy the tribunal that the places where we are going to put the poles are reasonable, and all the conditions upon which there is any disagreement between ourselves and the owners of the property can be determined by the tribunal in the event of our being successful in our contention that the telegraph line was in the interests of the public and that the place was desirable land where the telegraph ought to be.
  Mr. PETO: In his answer to my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pollock) the Post-master-Generall has attempted to explain why the Sections in the two Acts referred to in the Schedule should be omitted, namely, that they have not been found to be operative because in all cases it has been found that there was some method of telegraphic or telephonic communication which could be found. That may be very well, but the right hon. Gentleman entirely failed to explain why he should take the widely extended powers in place of these restricted powers, which he now proposes to repeal altogether. If he had wanted to carry out logically the purpose of his speech he would have accepted the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend with the addition of, say, a couple of words, such as "reasonably convenient or reasonably direct and convenient communication, by telegraph," because then we should have maintained the principle which my hon. and learned Friend was pleading for, namely, that it is the reasonable convenience of the public which should be the overmastering necessity which should compel the Postmaster-General to override private interests. I do not think the Postmaster-General, and I do not think
  794
  my hon. and learned Friend, entirely dealt with what is the more ordinary way in which this thing works. As long as the private owner of property had some right of bargaining with the Post Office he had a means of arriving at a reasonable compromise. If the Post Office authorities wanted to take their line in a bee-line across his property, regardless of the damage done, by destroying views, or whatever it might be, if there was a right of objection the Postmaster-General could very easily be persuaded to take his line upon a reasonable course, doing a minimum of damage to the property. On the words the Postmaster-General proposes to insert we really fall from one alternative to another. It always turns out to be the choice of the Postmaster-General.
  Mr. PEASE: The hon. Member has not studied an Amendment which I propose to move later, which adopts all the powers of the Act of 1863, one of the Sections of which deals with exactly the point the hon. Member mentions about the necessary consent, and also about full compensation being paid.
  Mr. PETO: I have not dealt with the question of compensation, which is a little outside the Amendment, but I do not see that the Postmaster-General has made out any case for the repeal of these Sections in the previous Act or any case really for opposing the Amendment before the Committee, and I think before these very statutory provisions, which may have been rendered ineffective are swept away altogether, he should consider the acceptance of this Amendment, with the addition of such words as I have suggested, which would have rendered the words which were rightly put into these old Acts operative, instead of telling the Committee that because they had not been found to be operative on account of their omissions, therefore he proposes to sweep away the protection which private property owners desire.
  Mr. BOYTON: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept the Amendment. I hope he will not think that the opposition displayed to this Bill is at all factious. We are only doing what was done by this House in the Act of 1863—looking after the interests of all and sundry—and it is a pity that he opposes it. If you leave out Section 2 of the Act of 1892, the right hon. Gentleman is placing himself in a most

  795
  autocratic position. Everything is left to him. The Railway and Canal Commission is not to be applied to to make a Provisional Order, and we are to be left entirely in the hands of the Department. The Amendment is practically taken from Section 4 of the Act of 1908. Since 1863 the House has had a good many nibbles at this sort of thing. I should have thought what was good in 1908 ought to be good enough to-night, and that the right hon. Gentleman might very well have accepted the Amendment.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Cannot the Government accept this Amendment? This is an Emergency Bill to deal with certain refractory people who are making Post Office work impossible. It is a wonder how the National Telephone Company managed to do without this power.
  Mr. PEASE: They often managed very badly.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: They did a great deal better than the Government has done. Be that as it may, it is merely to deal with certain refractory people. If that is really the object of the Bill, what can be the harm of this Amendment? It puts it perfectly plainly, and the existing law is that the powers of the bureaucracy shall only come in in case there is really an obstruction or prevention of a particular district getting proper telephonic communication. One Amendment has been rejected already. There can be no harm in accepting this. The right hon. Gentleman suggests instead an Amendment below, which means nothing at all— "provided that the Postmaster-General considers that such refusal or failure is contrary to the public interest." Of course he would not deal with the matter at all if he did not think the refusal was contrary to the public interest. He would not ask to go upon a man's land unless he thought the public interest was affected. This Amendment as it stands has something in it. I think if the Postmaster-General will leave off looking at it from the point of view of the Department only, there is a very grave case for accepting the Amendment, which can certainly do him no harm as far as the case he has made out before the House is concerned. But if he takes these very wide powers, someone less reasonable than himself may be holding the office and the officials under him may act somewhat high-handedly, and if no restriction is put upon them this House
  796
  would certainly complain. This is a reasonable Amendment, and it should be accepted. I hope he will reconsider his position. If not, I shall certainly vote for the Amendment.
  Major WEDGWOOD: I hope the Postmaster-General will stand to his telegraph poles. I am, as a rule, a desperate opponent of bureaucracy, but it seems to me that on this question, when you see on the Paper a string of Amendments down in the interest of owners of property, we ought, as a whole, to look to the interests of the public. The Government administration is always open to the shafts of criticism from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and if they act unjustly they can be called to account. It is not fair to compare the position of the Government in this matter with the position of the National Telephone Company. If these powers had been given to the National Telephone Company, owners of property might very well have resented and resisted it, but you are giving them to a Government which can be called to account by question or comment in this House day after day, and you are really not making a fair comparison between the two authorities. It seems to me that the Amendment proposed by the Postmaster-General is not only reasonable but generous. I do earnestly protest against taking the opportunity of Bills of this character, at a period such as this to load the Order Paper with Amendments directed solely towards the benefit of vested interests concerned, with disregard of the vital interests of the taxpayers of this country. The Amendment goes a great deal further. It makes every case of the putting up of a telegraph pole on a man's land subject to special inquiry by the Postmaster-General. That is the effect of the Amendment, whatever the wording may be. I protest against these obstructive tactics towards a Department which in the past has done its duty very well, and towards a Bill which we all want to see become law.
  Mr. POLLOCK: A good many of the comments of the hon. and gallant Member seem to indicate that he has not heard the discussion which has taken place upon this Amendment, and I am not quite certain that he has appreciated when he talks about a war emergency measure that what we are doing is trying to keep the law as it is at present, and the Postmaster-General is taking the opportunity of this Bill, which he wants for one purpose, to

  797
  cut out effective Clauses which have stood the test of time for something like twenty years in the public interest, and have been enshrined in the Telegraph Act, 1892, and reaffirmed in the Act of 1908. If the hon. and gallant Member's observations are directed to anybody they should fall upon the head of the Postmaster-General, who is making use of this opportunity to alter the law, not for what is required at the present time, but in the interests of bureaucracy, to use the hon. and gallant Member's own phrase. Let me thank the Postmaster-General for endeavouring to deal with this matter. I quite appreciate that he is endeavouring to deal with it. So far from wishing to overload the Order Paper with Amendments, I would point out that there are only two or three. I want to see whether we cannot agree to accept some terms. The Postmaster-General's difficulty, as I understand it, is that in the past the Postmaster-General has been unable to prove that his Department is debarred from a public convenience. I quite recognise that that may have involved a burden which he was unable to discharge. He has pointed out that that is the difficulty from his experience, and he offers to us these words, "And if the Postmaster-General considers that such refusal or failure is contrary to the public interest." We are getting very near one another now. If he agrees that something ought to be done by the Postmaster-General which should be in lieu of the Sections which he is cutting out, I want to see whether we cannot find words which would really meet the case. The word "considers" really leaves the matter entirely with the Postmaster-General. Supposing the words read in this way, "And if the Postmaster-General proves that such refusal is contrary to or endangers the public interest," the proof then that he would have to give is a proof that would come from his own Department that as a matter of fact it would be to the public interest to have a short cut for economical working, decreased outlay, and so on. If I put in the further words "or endangers" I meet him still nearer, because he would then only have to prove that such refusal would be contrary to or endangers the public interest. The phrase "or endangers" would be still more easy for him to prove. I hope that the Amendment in that form would be one which he could accept. If so, it would get over the difficulty, and he would have met what undoubtedly is felt by a great number of
  798
  persons to be a considerable disadvantage. I hope that these wider words which I suggest will be accepted.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: I hope the Postmaster-General will not accept the Amendment, either as moved or as suggested. Anyone who listened to the evidence given in connection with the Holt Committee will be convinced that the Post Office ought to acquire far greater powers than they have in regard to telephones and telegraphs, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to the wiles of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken. It seems to me that we have Members in this House who, if the Germans were on this side of the Channel, would apply for a mandamus to prevent them crossing a certain field. That is not the time for that. We want the public services of this country as free as we can possibly get them, and if there is any proof required from anyone with regard to whether a telegraph pole ought to be erected, or whether a telephone wire ought to be taken through certain land, then the onus of proof that it is against the public interest ought to rest upon the owners of the land, and not upon the Postmaster-General. The public interests must be considered first, and private interests afterwards. I hope that the Postmaster-General will not make any concession whatever, either with regard to the Amendment as it has been moved, or as it has been suggested.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I hope the Postmaster-General will accept this Amendment as altered. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have assisted as much as is in my power, and I think that something of this sort is necessary. It appears to me that the hon. Member (Mr. Tyson Wilson) has not gone into the matter properly. He appears to think that this only relates to landowners, to whom apparently he has some objection. The greatest objection comes from the county councils, and this Amendment is necessary in order to check a too autocratic Government, or a too autocratic Department. We all know what autocratic departments are. You can frighten a private company, but you cannot frighten a department. As to putting questions in this House, everyone knows that in nine cases out of ten questions in this House are met by right hon. Gentlemen opposite with an official answer. Nothing further happens, and nothing whatever is done. The power

  799
  of questions in this House is very much exaggerated, and Ministers are not in the least afraid of them, unless there has been some very flagrant act committed, which appears in the Press, and they think they cannot get out of it by an official answer; but those are of very rare occurrence. In these circumstances, and especially as we have endeavoured on this side of the House to meet the Postmaster-General, I do hope he will accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, which goes a long way to meet his requirements. It cannot possibly be left to the Postmaster-General to "consider" the cases, because it makes him an autocratic entity. He must show some grounds.
  Mr. PEASE: The words "and if the Postmaster-General considers" are the very words which hon. Members proposed to insert at the beginning of their own Amendment, and it was with a view to adopting that portion of their Amendment that I inserted these words. If it would meet their views, I am quite prepared to omit from my Amendment "and if the Postmaster-General considers that," and simply leave it "and if such refusal or failure is contrary to the public interest." Those words would come in after the words "Postmaster-General" in line 9. If the hon. Member approves he can withdraw his Amendment, and I will substitute mine.
  Colonel GRETTON: I think that the Postmaster-General, though he has not gone so far as we would like, has met us very fairly, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Mr. ANDERSON: As the Amendment stood, the question was, "if the Postmaster-General considers." From that it would follow that the Postmaster-General would go into the matter personally and reach a certain decision. These words are now entirely deleted, and the only condition provided is—this is in the public interest or opposed to the public interest. This leaves the matter very vague. What I want to know from the Postmaster-General is, how it is going to be ascertained whether it is in the public interest? Is it going to involve some legal tribunal with legal expense, because a very large amount of expenditure might be involved?
  Mr. PEASE: The hon. Member was not in the House on the last occasion when the Bill was debated and when I explained that the procedure was going to be
  800
  exactly similar to that which has been in operation in connection with local authorities ever since 1878. That procedure is the simplest and cheapest which was able to be devised at that time, and we are proposing to adopt it now in connection with private owners. It was subsequently extended to private property in connection with hedge-banks and roadside waste. Now, owing to a limited number of individuals being extortionists, we are trying to extend these powers to private property. As a rule there is no difference between the Post Office and the owner. We are able to come to an arrangement, and I think with these powers we shall still be able to come to an arrangement. If there is a difference we shall then have resort to the cheapest tribunal which can be set up, and which is already in existence—the County Court, It will determine whether the line is right and the terms are reasonable. But if there is any difference as to the decision of the County Courts there would be an appeal. This right has comparatively rarely been exercised in the course of the thirty-eight years.
  Amendment negatived.
  Major NEWMAN: I beg to move to leave out the words "lessee or occupier."
  10.0 P.M.
  I move this Amendment for the purpose of getting some information. I am afraid that where a patriotic lessee or occupier gives leave to put up telegraph or telephone poles and he has a comparatively short lease, and does not tell the owner until the month was up and no objection is lodged, the owner might possibly be able to come down on the lessee or occupier for dilapidation or something of that sort. Possibly there is some Clause in some Act of Parliament which deals with this, and if so I will withdraw my Amendment. But I would like some explanation from the Postmaster-General.
  Mr. PEASE: The effect of the hon. Member's Amendment is, I understand, that an occupier or a lessee of land would be debarred from having his assent secured, and he could therefore, if he was sufficiently unreasonable, prevent all telegraphic communication. I have in my mind the case of a hotel lessee. He tells me that at this moment that, owing to one thing or another which has been imposed upon him during the War, unless I will give him and all those who lodge with him in his hotel a telephone

  801
  free he will insist upon serving notice upon me to remove a pole which will cut off over a hundred subscribers to the telephone service, and I am at his mercy and would have to spend several hundred pounds. The hon. Member I know does not intend to debar me from dealing with that difficult case. He is dealing with the case of an individual who has given a short lease and may be put in a difficult position at the termination of the lease. The arrangement always made in these cases is that a reasonable period is given for termination, and if anybody has got a lease for five years he would probably insist upon a notice in the terms of arrangement of three or six months before the expiration of the lease. In that case the difficulty is avoided. But if we do what I propose we shall do, obtain in every case the consent of the owner and the occupier in connection with the property, I think that we shall meet all reasonable demands. As I understand it it will be necessary for us hereafter to obtain the consent both of the owner and the occupier, so that all concerned shall understand exactly on what terms poles may be erected.
  Major NEWMAN: After hearing that explanation, I ask leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Major NEWMAN: I beg to more to leave out the word "one" ["within one month"], and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
  Under the Bill an owner, lessee, or occupier is allowed one month after the Postmaster-General asks for leave to place his telegraphic line in which to raise objection. I submit it would be fairer to give three months. The owner might very well be abroad serving with the Forces and not get the request of the Postmaster-General for a fortnight or even longer. In that case he would not have time to urge his objection. A great many officers have gone to the front without leaving a Power of Attorney to some trusted solicitor or other gentleman, with the result that several things have happened to them, which would not have happened if they had been more careful or if they had been upon the spot. I know of one case in which a man was made bankrupt in that way. I suggest, in the special circumstances, and as this is a measure dealing with the war period, that it would be fairer to give the owner something more than a month in which to raise objection.
  Mr. PEASE: I do not think it is quite necessary to extend the period to three months. Under the Act of 1878, which deals with railway and road authorities, only twenty-one days' notice is required, and the Act of 1908 provides for one months' notice. I recognise, however, that in a period of war there is some difference in the case of owners of property who may be absent serving abroad with the Colours, and perhaps some extension is required. If the hon. Member, therefore, will accept two months instead of three months, I am quite prepared to meet him.
  Major NEWMAN: I am quite ready to do that.
  Question, "That the word 'one' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Word "two" there inserted.
  Question, "That the word 'month' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Word "months" there inserted.
  Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause to add the words "Provided that the tribunal to which the difference is referred under those Sections shall not give its consent to the placing of the line unless satisfied such refusal or failure is contrary to the national interest."
  I think the Amendment would be far better in that form than in the form as it appears upon the Order Paper. Of course, you must get the difference before you come to the tribunal. This leaves it to the tribunal to say whether it is in the public interest or not to treat the refusal as improper.
  Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: I should like to ask why the word "national" is substituted for the word "public"? It may be a technical point which a lawyer can probably explain, but it might be in the interests of a small portion of the public and yet not be a national matter, and as the word has been changed I should like to know the reason.
  Sir G. CAVE: I think the word "public" is better, and I will substitute it.
  Amendment made: In the proposed Amendment leave out the word "national," and insert insead thereof the word "public."—[Sir G. Cave.]
  Mr. PEASE: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words
  "Provided that, subject as aforesaid, all the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1863, shall apply in the case of the exercise of any powers authorised to be exercised under this Section, and such owner, lessee, or occupier shall have and enjoy all the benefits of such provisions."
  This is an Amendment on which I agreed with several authorities, and it makes it quite clear that the Act of 1863 with its numerous provisions for the protection of owners, lessees, and occupiers shall apply in the future as in the past. Section 21 provides for the consent of the owners being secured in advance. Section 7 provides that the Postmaster-General shall make full compensation to all bodies and persons interested for all damage sustained by them by reason or in consequence of the exercise of the Postmaster-General's powers, and Section 30 of that Act confers on the persons interested in land and desiring to build upon or use the land in any manner in which it was not actually used when the telegraphs were placed there an absolute power to require the removal or alteration of the telegraphs by and at the expense of the Postmaster-General. I think those Sections should be incorporated and that it should be made quite clear that they still apply.
  Major WEDGWOOD: I am always suspicious of Amendments put in at the request of authorities who interview Government Departments. I assume that the Department and their legal advisers saw that the Bill was drafted in accordance with the Act of 1863 and with a reasonable respect for the rights of property. When one finds certain interests which we have not had specified—I gather it is the London County Council which interviewed the Postmaster-General in private—putting pressure upon the Postmaster-General to accept this Amendment, I think in the public interest one may well be suspicious. Pressure may be only too easily exercised. They have only got to get one or two Members to raise the matter at this point of the Session, and, if they persist, the Bill has to be dropped. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us whether it is the county council or landlords or what vested interest has got this put in. His explanation is admirable. It seems to me, if the 1863 Act is what we have been working under up to now, he
  804
  is perfectly justified in specifically stating that that Act shall continue in operation in regard to the special operations made by this Act; but is the Act of 1863 the Act we have been working under and is there not an Act of 1878, and how far does that Act supersede the provision of the 1863 Act? I do wish there was always somebody to act as a kind of advocatus diaboli in order to check these public Departments when they make concessions to the more or less unauthorised bodies who ask for such. I do not know whether this Amendment is right or wrong, but I do protest against Amendments put in at the last hour at the biddings of vested authorities who secure secret interviews with the Departments concerned.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I ventured on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations to submit this matter to the right hon. Gentleman. What he has done is no concession at all. The Postmaster-General in a letter expressed the opinion that he did not think for a moment the local authorities would be in the slightest degree damaged, and added, "but to make the matter clear I am putting down an Amendment." The Amendment is not a concession, but is simply to make clear what was originally intended by the Bill.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: This is a slight departure from the common form. I understand that this is intended to be in the nature of a Saving Clause, and the general wording in a case of that kind is, "Except as aforesaid nothing here shall affect the application of such and such Acts." As proposed here you may actually extend the application of the Acts, while if you use the common form you leave the application of the Acts untouched as before.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Period to which Act Applies.)
  This Act shall only be in force during the continuance of the War and six months after.— [Major Newman.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Major NEWMAN: I put this, new Clause down on reading remarks made by the

  805
  Postmaster-General, and in order to ascertain from him whether this was really a war measure. I take it from what he has said to-night that that is not so. The concessions the right hon. Gentleman has given make my opposition a great deal less than it was before, and therefore I do not propose to move the Second Reading of this Clause.
  The following new Clause stood on the Paper in the name of Major NEWMAN:
  "Provided always that in the exercise of any powers given to the Postmaster-General by this Act he shall do as little damage as may be, and shall make full compensation to all bodies and persons interested for all damage sustained by them by reason or in consequence of the exercise of such powers, the amount and application of such compensation to be determined in manner provided by the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, and any Act amending that Act, and further provided that the costs of any proceedings under such Act and its amending Acts shall be borne by the Postmaster-General in any event."
  Major NEWMAN: I desire to move this Clause, to which I attach some importance.
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will consider whether this new Clause, if inserted in the Bill, would not contradict all the other Clauses of the Bill.
  Major NEWMAN: I am in your hands.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am inclined to think that it would. We have already discussed and decided the method of compensation. We cannot have two separate methods. I think the Clause falls on that ground.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction on Power of Entry for Construction and Maintenance.)
  "Before entering on land or buildings for the purpose of the construction or maintenance of any telegraphic line the Postmaster-General shall, except in case of emergency, endeavour to make an arrangement with the occupier of the land as to the times of entry for such purpose, and if any difference arises between the Postmaster-General and the occupier it shall be determined in mannaer aforesaid."— [Sir F. Banbury.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  806
  The effect of this Clause, which I understand the right hon. Gentleman is willing to accept, is to give the Postmaster-General the same power for making arrangements as to entering on any houses where there are telegraphic or telephonic lines requiring construction or repair as he has when he enters on property in order to set up a new line. It is necessary that something of this sort should be done, otherwise an arbitrary official might go to somebody's house in the middle of the night and say he had come to repair the telephone or telegraph. Something of that sort actually happened to me many years ago, not from the Postmaster-General, but from a company. I will not say which it was. Very early in the morning, when it was just light, I suddenly found two or three men getting in through the window. On being asked what they were doing they said they had come to repair the telephone. I was naturally somewhat angry, and said, "You may take the telephone away," and as a matter of fact it was removed. I think a Clause of this sort should be inserted, so that reasonable arrangements shall be made and the legal powers are only those which the Postmaster-General has already accepted and put in in Clause 1.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (COPYRIGHT—No. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Sir F. BANBURY: I think we have already in the last Bill allowed all stages to be taken, including the Third Reading. I dare say it is all right, but it is rather late in the evening, I think, to finish this Bill. I think the Third Reading ought to be taken to-morrow. I do not like taking so many stages of a Bill offhand.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: This is a very essential Bill.
Sir F. BANBURY: I dare say; I suppose they are all essential Bills.

WAR CHARITIES BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. DICKINSON in the Chair.]

WAR CHARITIES BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition against Raising Money for War Charities Unless Registered.)
  It shall not be lawful to make any appeal to the public for donations or subscriptions in money or in kind to any war charity as hereinafter denned, or to raise or attempt to raise money for any such charity by promoting or taking part in any bazaar, sale, entertainment, or exhibition, or by any similar means, unless the charity is registered under this Act and the approval of the Committee or other governing body of the charity has been obtained, and if any person contravenes the provisions of this Section he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act:
  Provided that this provision shall not apply to any collection at Divine service in a place of public worship nor to any charity which may, subject to any Regulations made under this Act, be exempted by the registration authority from the provisions of this Section.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: This Bill is one with which I am entirely in sympathy, but I think it is rather too weak in some places and rather too strong in others, and for that reason I beg to move an Amendment—
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, where this Amendment comes in?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is just going to read it.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to move to leave out the words "money for any such charity by promoting or taking part in any bazaar, sale, entertainment, or exhibition, or by any similar means, unless the charity is registered under this Act, and the approval of the Committee or other governing body of the," and to insert instead thereof the words "collect or receive money or goods for any such charity unless it has been registered under this Act, or for any person to solicit or receive goods or money for or promote or assist in promoting any bazaar, sale, exhibition, or entertainment on behalf of any war charity unless the approval of the governing body, or committee, or sub-committee, or official, or agent of such."
  808
  It may appear at first sight that there is very little difference between the wording of the Bill and the wording of my Amendment. As a matter of fact, I do not think there is much substantial difference in intention. In the wording of the Bill as it stands the same offence is committed and the same penalty may be exacted from the person who collects money for a charity which is not registered as from a person who good-naturedly sings a song at a concert on behalf of a charity without the organisers of that charity having obtained the permission of the controlling body. I think the Committee will agree that there is a vast difference between those who take upon themselves the responsibility of appealing for money and collecting money, of handling, and spending, or administering the money, and those who are really contributors to that charity by giving their time and talents to assist to some extent. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, after consideration, will come to the conclusion that it is advisable that the wording should be correctly fitted into the right place.
  We all want to get hold of the rogue who is exploiting these war charities for his own benefit, and we all want to check and control people who are carelessly administering these war charities, or perhaps administering them extravagantly, with the result that a very large percentage of the money collected is spent and wasted, and does not finally reach our soldiers and sailors. But I am sure we none of us wish that the general public should be discouraged from taking part in these various endeavours to raise money innocently and properly for the benefit of our soldiers and sailors, and I suggest that if this Clause as it stands remains in the Bill many people of the general public will be discouraged from taking any part in assisting those war charities, because they will feel that, for all they know to the contrary, they may be subject to a fine of £10C or three months' imprisonment with or without hard labour. I think if that idea got about the country that people who bonâ fide assisted in these matters, and were not responsible for the promotion or organisation, might be severely penalised, I am sure that the people in common prudence would say, "We had better keep clear of this and not assist. We are sorry for the soldiers and sailors, and we would

  809
  like to do many things, but there are pains and penalties on anybody who takes part in any bazaar, sale, entertainment, or exhibition." Therefore, I have endeavoured to devise my Amendment in such a manner that there are established three clear offences. The Bill itself says that the consent must be obtained of the committee or other governing body of the charity, but many of these charities have branches in nearly every town in the Kingdom. They have sub-committees and local committees, and m smaller places they have not even a real committee, but they have some person who acts as an official. In my Amendment I suggest that no person shall be liable to these pains and penalties for doing any of these things on behalf of a war charity if they have obtained the approval of a governing body or a committee or sub-committee, or an official or agent of such charity.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I think there is a very great deal of substance in this Amendment, especially that part of it which deals with the possibility of somebody who has taken part in a bargain sale or entertainment being prosecuted. I think that is a very grave danger, because, after all, the responsibility should be upon the persons who promote it, and not those who take part. A person taking part in a function of this kind may be quite innocent whether the charity or concert had the approval of the registration authority. Therefore, I think, there is a very great deal of substance in what the hon. Member has said. There is one part, however, of his Amendment which I do not quite comprehend, and that is the second part dealing with anyone who collects anything. I think that is going beyond the terms of the Clause, because they should not get authority to collect unless it is the authority of the local body.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: That is understood.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: In that case I think there is substance in what has been proposed. Otherwise there might be grave danger that this proposal would check the free work now given by a great many people who assist at our concerts in favour of war charities, and that would be the case if these people are liable to be prosecuted. I hope, for these reasons, the Government will accept this Amendment.
  Mr. J. MASON: I think what is desired might be done in a much simpler way. It is suggested that people who attempt to raise money for charities shall be made liable, but that those who take part in concerts should be protected. I think that can be perfectly well done by leaving out the words "promote or takeing part," and inserting instead the words "to raise or attempt to raise." That would cut out the people taking part in the concert and would only affect those who are attempting to raise the money.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I feel quite certain that the Amendment will not achieve its object, although I am convinced that some Amendment is required. The words "taking part in" are altogether too wide, and I would suggest that the Under-Secretary should consider this matter before the Report stage, and see what can be done. What has been asked for in the Amendment is an entirely reasonable thing. It is quite reasonable that people merely taking part in a concert shall not be held liable like the promoters.
  Mr. BRACE: I could not accept the language used by the hon. Member for Windsor, because I gather that he proposes to leave out the word "promote." If the Committee are satisfied with taking out of the words "or taking part in" I think that would relieve the situation very considerably. We do not want to embarrass any charitably disposed people from attempting to raise funds for a great object, but we do certainly wish to close the door to a continuation of the exploitation of the public by people who think only of war charity as a secondary consideration. If it will meet the case, I should be prepared to agree to leave out the words "or taking part in." I shall be glad to move that.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: If it had been such a very simple matter as the hon. Member for Windsor says, with respect to the object of my Amendment, as cutting out the words "or taking part in," I should have been very glad to assent. As a matter of fact that was my idea, but I only abandoned it because it would still have left a weakness in the drafting of the Clause, which you will find, if you read it, imposes a penalty for collecting money or soliciting money for a society which is unregistered. There is also a penalty for getting up a bazaar or entertainment without the authority of the governing body of the charity. But there is nothing in the

  811
  Bill to prevent anybody from soliciting money on behalf of a charity without the authority of the charity. Therefore, if my words seem to be rather ambiguous, it is because I have endeavoured to follow the words of the Bill as far as possible, and merely to strengthen and back those words where they appeared not to be strong enough and to soften them where they were too harsh. A private Member like myself would not be guilty of the impudence of starting off his own bat to redraft the Clause. Any ambiguity which may appear in the words I propose arises from the fact of my having tried to keep as closely as possible to the words of the Bill. I do not like to press this Amendment on such short notice, but if the hon. Gentleman takes this matter into careful consideration between now and the Report stage probably he may be able to move a Government Amendment covering the points raised.
  Mr. BRACE: I shall be very glad to do so between now and the Report stage.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The Amendment of my hon. Friend goes far further than the proposed Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, which raises points which should be considered before the Report stage. We cannot do the Amendment full justice without seeing it on the Paper.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: And there is the point of the committees also. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: After the word "promoting" ["promoting, or taking part in"], leave out the words "or taking part in."—[Mr. Brace.]
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I beg to move, after the word "sale" ["bazaar, sale, entertainment"], to insert the word "flag-day"—
  Mr. BRACE: I understand the hon. Member is going to move an Amendment which I have not seen, and it will be quite impossible for me—
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend, and I wish just to explain it to the Committee. I think it is very important that flag-days should be cited in the Bill because there is no form in which any of our towns are raising more money than by the sale of flags. [HON. MEMBBBS: "Make the Amendment: "Sale of flags!"]
  Mr. POLLOCK: On a point of Order. May I ask if the hon. Gentleman has considered the words at the beginning of the Clause—
  "It shall not be lawful to make any appeal to the public for donations or subscription, in money or in kind."
  Why does that not cover an appeal on flag-days? If it does not, will the hon. Gentleman explain what "flag-day" means?
  The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dickinson): I do not understand that that is a point of Order. I understand the Amendment is to add the word "flag-day" to "bazaar, sale, or entertainment."
  Mr. H. SAMUEL: I am proposing to say "flag-day." It is a common expression. With regard to the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pollock), it does not follow that because you make an appeal to the public for donations and subscriptions that the sale of flags means "subscriptions or donations." It does not mean that you may have donations and subscriptions and moneys received from the sale of flags. I think it is very essential that it should be made clear, so that anybody who desires to have what is termed a flag-day for any charity arising out of the War should have to obtain consent and to register what is the object of such a flag-day
  I certainly think there is a very large amount of money raised in the streets in all parts of the country, and we hear a very large number of complaints. I am given to understand that in London no day can be set aside for the sale of flags unless the consent of the police at Scotland Yard is obtained. In the provinces that cannot be done, unless it is by the mayor's advisory committees. Very often they are ignored, and I think it should be specified that flag-days should come within this Bill so that we can prevent any fraud in this direction.
  Mr. T. WILSON: On a point of Order. I submit that this Amendment limits the operation of the Bill. If we put in "flag-day," we must have "rose-day," "geranium-day," and all the rest of them. I suggest that the word "sale" in the Clause covers them all.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is a point of Order.
  Mr. PETO: I desire to point out that there is no question that when any of the

  813
  charitable public purchase a flag in the street they get very little value in the way of the sale, and that all that is not covered by the actual cost of the flag must be a donation, and absolutely covered by the first lines of the Clause. I do not believe there is any substance whatever in the Amendment which has been moved, and I hope the hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill (Mr. Brace) will not accept it, and that the House may proceed to the next Amendment.
  Mr. BRACE: I am advised that the point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. J. Samuel) is really covered by the Police Act—that is the question of street collections—and that there is no necessity for including it in this Bill. Even if we were to accept the Amendment we should have to use very different language from that suggested, and it would have to be in the form of a Schedule which would include rose days, button days, and all the rest of the days. The Committee would be well advised to accept the broad language of "sale" used in the Bill.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I put the Amendment down simply in order to obtain a public declaration on the part of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill on the subject. I ask leave to withdraw it.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
  Leave withheld.
  Major WEDGWOOD: Does not the Police Act apply to provincial towns?
  Mr. BRACE: Yes.
  Mr. POLLOCK: It would be unfortunate if the Under-Secretary's observations were not limited in their scope. What he said seemed to imply that all sales on "flag-days" or other "days" are not within the Bill but are within the Police Act. Such a statement from the Front Bench might have an unfortunate result. I have read the Bill, and think I shall be supported by other lawyers in the Committee. The point raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. Wilson) is a good one. It is covered by the first two lines of the Bill. It would be unfortunate if we were to leave out the very large proportion of flag-days and other days from the Bill we are now passing.
  Major WEDGWOOD: I should like to know whether, in the opinion of the Under-Secretary to the Home Office, the
  814
  question of flag days and button days is included in the Police Act or not? The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Pollock) thinks they are included in that Act and ought to go into this Bill.
  Mr. POLLOCK: They are included in this Bill. I am not sure whether they are included in the Police Act.
  Major WEDGWOOD: Are they not included in the words "subscriptions in money or in kind"? [An HON. MEMBEK: "The word 'sale' is in."]
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: Scotland had an Act which applies to flag days, and the Committee on War Charities recommended that that Act should be extended to England. That extension was made a few weeks ago in the Police Act, which received the Royal Assent. That removes it from the direct jurisdiction of this Bill. It may be covered by this Bill, but it is already covered in another way.
  Question, "That the words 'flag days' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I beg to move, after the word "means" ["or by any similar means"] to insert the words "or use or disburse money already raised.'
  I want to be quite sure that this control is not only going to extend in respect of future appeals for money, but is also going to be exercised for the large accumulations of charitable money already piled up in these various organisations. I am not quite sure that my words are the best, but that does not matter. What I want to be clear about is the principle behind it. There is a definition of war charity in a later Clause—any fund or institution which may have been started either before the passing of this measure or after it. If that is so we want to be sure that the Act is going to extend to all the money accumulated before the passing of the Act, and I want a definite assurance of that kind because I think it is very important. Many charities do not require to raise any more money till the end of the War. They have raised all the money they need to raise. In many cases they have an income for life, so that I think supervision over existing funds is absolutely essential, and we want to be sure that the control which is to affect any money raised in future equally holds good in regard to money already raised. Unless that is done you open the door to all sorts of almost diversion of funds from the purpose for which they were originally

  815
  proposed. The Act itself will be of very little good if it is not going to be retrospective to that extent because the great bulk of the war charity money has already been raised. It is not going to be raised between now and the end of the War. It is in hand already, and I want a most definite assurance that this control which we desire to establish is going to be equally stringent over funds now in hand as for any future appeal which may be made.
  Mr. SALTER: What does the hon. Member propose shall be done with the money in such a case? Here you have a body of people who have collected a large sum for some charity. If it does not get registration it becomes a crime to hand the money to it. What is to become of the money?
  Mr. ANDERSON: That is already dealt with in the Bill. The money will be held up, and it will automatically pass into public control I gather.
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. BRACE: The Amendment made by my hon. Friend is one of great substance. To all intents and purposes it is an attempt to make the operation of this measure retrospective, so as to include all the funds which have been raised for war purposes since the commencement of the War. That is not the intention of the Bill. The Bill has been drafted to deal with war charities in the future. It is not so easy to deal with war charities of the past. That question was under consideration, and it is because it was impossible to get evidence of a character that would enable the authorities to deal with those war charities of the past that this Bill was made necessary. What is proposed is that all charities should be registered. If a charity will not register, then it can make no further appeal for money. I frankly confess that I should have been glad to have dealt with that phase of the war charity problem which my hon. Friend has raised, but it is because I am advised by the authorities that that is at present impossible, that I am unable to accept the hon. Member's Amendment. I hope he will not press it. If any of these charities in question attempt to make any further appeal for funds after the passing of this Bill, then we shall be able to get at their funds and at their methods of administration, and to deal with the matter effectively, and, at any rate, to put an end to
  816
  the scandal which my hon. Friend complains about. Suppose they will not register, then they will keep the money they have. If I saw my way clear to introduce an effective Clause in this Bill for dealing with the problem, I should be very glad to do so, but it is because I am advised that it is quite impossible to successfully grapple with that difficulty that we have introduced the Bill in its present form. I ask my hon Friend to take it from me that this is not the first time that we have dealt with this matter. It has been the subject of many conferences. We shall deal with the problem by compiling a register. If they register it gives us the opportunity to inspect and examine their books. If they will not register, then that fund must become defunct, and the problem is dealt with in that way.
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider this point, because I think it is a great weakness in the Bill. We have read the report of the committee which was presided over by my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Wilson), which dealt with the frauds committed all over the country by those who raised large sums of money for war purpose, and spent very large sums in expenses. I think it is very important that all these funds should be registered. It is a very simple matter to issue notices in the Press or otherwise, calling upon all these charities to register. For whatever war purpose they have collected money we ought to have a census and a return for the money raised, so that we can put this money, in a sense, under lock and key, and see that it is spent in a proper way. I think the Committee is indebted to the hon. Member for raising this point. Unless this Amendment or something like it is carried, I am certain that the great, purpose of this Bill is defeated, because if these people in future will not register for new collections, they will not come under the Bill. One of my hon. Friends says that they have already collected large sums of money, and can continue paying their expenses without requiring to register in order to collect further money. Therefore that part of the argument falls to the ground. I hope that before the Report stage the Home Office will consider this question in spite of the report which has been presented to the House, and that we shall have the existing charities registered and made liable in the same way as the others under the Bill.
  Major WEDGWOOD: I wish that the report of my right lion. Friend (Mr. Wilson) had come earlier, and that the Government had legislated earlier. It would then have been easier to deal with these charities. But as matters stand it does seem to me, in spite of the very pointed arguments of the Under-Secretary, that it would be a good thing to introduce these words into the Bill. We cannot make an Act of Parliament water-tight No doubt there is a certain number of societies which would not register, and might not be caught, but we have never passed an Act of Parliament which has caught everybody. If we make it an offence, and put the responsibility on the offenders to register or become liable to punishment, we are doing all we can. It does not seem to me to be so very difficult to catch societies that have already raised charitable funds. The committee over which my right hon. Friend sat has got ample evidence about existing societies, and the appeals in the Press, and very often the local appeals can be discovered very readily at present without any extravagant trouble on the part of the Home Office. This Bill was based on the report of that committee. It was introduced to deal with the difficulties and scandals which that committee exposed, and I think that we should be failing in our duty to pass the Bill as it stands if we fail to deal with all those more or less fraudulent charitable concerns that have blossomed out in the War. I cannot see that we should be imposing undue difficulty on the Home Office or should risk an undue number of societies escaping the penalties prescribed if we pass this Amendment. If we insert this Amendment in Committee, and if afterwards the Home Office find that the form of words is not the best to effect the object in view, it is perfectly easy for the Home Office with their legal draughtsmen before the Report stage to find a better form. We can never insure that an Act of Parliament will be carried out fully by the Department concerned, so that we need not be frightened away from this Amendment by being told that it is difficult to put it into execution. As long as we make it a crime for a society which has already collected funds not to register we have done all we can in an Act of Parliament.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I hope that the Under-Secretary will adhere to his resolution because it is quite impossible to go back two years and include all the
  818
  societies which have collected money during that period. If that were done what would happen? Clause 3 says that charities registered under this Act should comply with the following conditions— they shall be administered by a responsible committee of the local body, consisting of not fewer than three persons, minutes shall be kept of meetings of the committee, and proper books shall be kept. Take the case of a charity started two years ago, a perfectly lawful charity in which there was no fraud, and which collected a considerable sum of money.
  Major WEDGWOOD: It only deals with charities which have not dispersed their money, and the majority of those to which the right hon. Gentleman refers have dispersed their money.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They have dispersed some of their funds, but not the whole of them. If this were carried they would have to get out back accounts and appoint a committee and go to any amount of trouble and worry when they had been perfectly honest and had already given a great deal of their time and had gone to a great deal of trouble for a charitable object. That alone is sufficient argument to show that the Under-Secretary was right in his refusal to accept the Amendment. If there has been any fraud they can be prosecuted and punished under the present law. If they come forward and ask for further money they will come under this Bill, but we ought not to ask societies which do not intend to appeal for further money to go back a year or two years and produce accounts which very likely are not in existence, and to set up the committees and frame the regulations and rules required under this Bill. It would cause a tremendous amount of trouble and worry to people who after all have only done their best to meet the grievances and serve the interests of other people.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I am not impressed by the argument of the right hon. Baronet. If you bring in so-called charities which have previously existed, it by no means follows that you need have detailed accounts from the very first day in the way in which it becomes necessary after they have become registered and are brought within the purview of the Act. The argument that if they have committed fraud they will be punished, and if they have not they ought to be left alone is inconclusive, because you want to find out

  819
  how they have dispersed the money which has been asked for month after month, as to which no balance-sheet may have appeared, and as to the management of which the public are entirely ignorant. It is not suggested that there is fraud, certainly not conscious fraud, but surely if you pass this Bill you ought to pass it in such a form that any society or individual who has been publicly advertising and requesting support for a war charity ought to be brought in and made to disclose what proportion of the takings have gone in expenses, and what has been the general conduct of the charity so that public confidence may attach to it. Is it too late? I submit that it is not. I shall support the Amendment, though it appears to me to require further Amendments giving the Registration Authority power to call upon any individual or society which has been asking for subscriptions or donations since the beginning of the War for war purposes, either to show that the charity has ceased altogether and that all the money has been dispersed, or to come forward and get registered. The object of this Bill is to satisfy public opinion, which is naturally and properly aroused, and that public opinion will not be satisfied if you limit the operation of the Bill merely to those charities which continue to ask for money. There are very few Members of this House who profess to be able at a moment's notice to draft three or four Amendments, but I am confident that it would not be impossible to give to local authorities power to inquire into any charity and bring it into line with those which are affected by the Bill because they continue to ask for money. I know of no other way of advancing that object at this moment than by voting for the Amendment. Voting for Amendments in opposition to the Government is an unprofitable pursuit, although occasionally it does lead to the results desired. I do ask the Under-Secretary when he meets his advisers to make it perfectly clear is, as I believe it to be, that the Bill ought to be extended in this way. It really would be a scandalous thing if the Government draftsman could not devise some way of bringing all those charities which are known to the public within the purview of the Registration Authority in order to see what sort of balance-sheet they can produce, and satisfy the public that the money has gone in proper proportions for the objects for which it was obtained.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I am in broad sympathy with the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson), but I do not think it is possible to carry out all he desires, and I think a great deal more is done by the Bill than attention has been called to. By Clause 9 "The expression 'war charity' means any fund, institution or association, whether established before or after the commencement of this Act." If that be so then all the charities established before the passing of the Act have got to conform to its terms.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Only if they want more money, and not with regard to the money already obtained.
  Mr. POLLOCK: If there is any fraud they will probably want to make an appeal, and if they have exhausted their money, and if they are registered, all the powers under Clause 3 would apply, and by that all moneys collected have to be paid into a separate account at such bank as may be specified. By Clause 5 they can be removed from the register if the charity is not carried out in good faith or if the conditions imposed are not complied with. Thus you have with regard to any charity, whether before or after the Act, very considerable powers. It is really very little use having a sort of inquisition, as to how the money collected has been already spent, and will involve a considerable amount of trouble, and will not result in anything.
  Mr. ANDERSON: We do not propose that.
  Mr. POLLOCK: With regard to all charities which do appeal or come under the Act you can probably get all the hon. Member desires, but I do not think you can get to the point under discussion. It would be quite impossible to do so under Clause 1, and would require a special Clause to come on at a later stage.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: I wish to emphasise the point that has just been referred to by the hon. Member (Sir R. Adkins). The Committee did not contemplate a final Clause with regard to retrospective or moribund societies. It was too much to expect that to be undertaken now. The recommendation was concentrated on preventing more money being taken from the public without proper safeguards. We had a great many cases submitted to us, and except in one or two, and I have one in mind that probably has some money left, with the great

  821
  number of them the money that has been obtained on false pretences has been already misappropriated, and would not be got back again by any such provision as this. The machinery of the Act is based on the first line: "It shall not be lawful to make any appeal to the public." That was the definite point we could emphasise and protect for the future. But if it is to be retrospective and to necessitate an inquiry as to what has become of the funds, whether there is any left or not, I submit that that should be the subject, if not of a separate Bill, at any rate of a separate part of the Bill, it could not well be included in this Clause, however much the Committee might desire it. I am glad to find that Members in their keenness go even further than we were able to recommend in our report, but I do not think their desire could be carried out by the same machinery. If these societies appeal for another shilling they render themselves liable to prosecution if they appeal without being registered. The great bulk of the societies will be brought in from what we saw. I do not believe there is any large number that have any money that could be recovered by any penal Amendment. Therefore, I think the Under-Secretary is right on this point.
  Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he thinks there are some societies, although perhaps very few, that have any money in hand, and therefore will not need to appeal again, but will be able to disburse the money they have in their own illegitimate way. It seems to me that that is a just point in this Amendment, because if some such words were adopted they would enable the authorities to get at the small number of societies of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. I agree that it is not possible to make all the societies that have collected during the War give accounts. That is not the proposal. But I think the right hon. Gentleman's statement is really an argument in favour of the Amendment, and I hope that between now and the Report stage the Under-Secretary will consider whether some such words could not be introduced.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I think the sense of the Committee is that if it is at all possible the Under-Secretary ought to meet the point raised by the Amendment. I believe the proposer of the Amendment was entirely right when he said that in a great many cases large sums had already been
  822
  collected in connection with these war charities, and that many societies and organisations, which are perfectly legitimate and genuine, will not need to make further appeals to the public. I would suggest that many of the difficulties raised in this discussion have not really any substance at all. If it were a question of the Home Office or even the Charity Commissioners themselves having to deal with the registration in the first instance, I could understand that it would be practically impossible for them to hunt up all the various charitable organisations that have been at work during the past two years. But there is no point in that difficulty, because the registration authorities are the local authorities up and down the country, whose members will be perfectly familiar with what goes on in this connection in their own district.
  The point is raised that practically a good many of these charities have been practically wound up, and have no money left, so that there is no real reason why this Bill should be extended to them. I entirely agree that where the transaction is completed this Bill is not necessary. I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Member for Attercliffc might go a little further and continue his proposed words by saying, "or use or disburse money already received—and not entirely expended at the time of the passing of this Act." If the Under-Secretary agrees to meet the wish of the majority of the Committee it would be very easy to fix upon a suitable form of words later. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London said it would be a very complicated matter to go into the accounts of all these societies for the past two years. I think it would be very easy for the Under-Secretary to devise words to amend Clause 3 to bring the existing charities in, and empower or enable them to form the necessary committees and keep the necessary accounts suggested in the Bill from the time of the passing of this Act. There is no need to go into an inquisition of past transactions in the case of perfectly genuine societies. But take charities having large sums still to disburse. There is nothing to prevent them from following out the provisions of the Act from its passing, and in connection with the sums in hand and to be dealt with in future accounts. I hope the Under-Secretary will further consider this matter, and see if he cannot give way to the wishes of the Committee.
  Mr. CARADOC REES: There are to be considered the tremendous funds which have been collected and have not been distributed; for after this Bill is passed probably very little will be collected, because of the cumbersomeness of getting a charity together, getting it registered, and going through the necessary formalities. Consequently the important thing is not what is to be collected, but the distribution of the amounts in hand. I take it in respect to these funds the idea is to prevent fraud. But fraud may be, and very likely will have been, more in the past when there were no formalties or control. There is nothing in the Bill to enable the Home Office, or whoever is the authority, to get at this fraud in the past, I should like some assurance that something will be done to meet this case. It is quite clear that all these provisions would not apply, certainly to funds in being at the present time. Something should be put into the Bill forcing charities to register for a certain period, and giving to the Home Office power to ask for the production of such books or balance-sheets as they might deem necessary. Unless something like that is put in it seems to me the whole fraud we are aiming at might continue.
  Mr. BRACE: Might I venture to endeavour to shorten this discussion? Of course I am entirely in the hands of the Committee, but hon. Members have placed me in a difficulty by handing in important Amendments which I have not had an opportunity of seeing before or consulting my advisers upon. I therefore could not accept my hon. Friend's Amendment at this moment, and I hope he will withdraw it so that I can consult my advisers to see what can be done, and inform the House when we come to the Report stage.
  Major WEDGWOOD: Under Clause 4 the Charity Commissioners may make Regulations generally for carrying this Act into effect. That is an extremely wide power. I think if some such Amendment as is proposed were made in the Bill the Charity Commissioners could meet, under Regulations, the specific difficulty of charities with funds already in hand.
  Mr. ANDERSON: It is only a few days since we had the Second Reading of the Bill, and really we have not had very much time to consider the Bill and put down Amendments. I sent my Amendments to the Clerk at the Table in the hope that
  824
  they would be taken to-morrow, but they were only received this morning, so that there has been somewhat of a rush. Therefore hon. Members are not so much to blame as would appear from the fact that we have not all the Amendments on the Paper. I have no desire to start an inquisition, as some hon. Members appear to think, into all the funds up to the present time. I think that would be quite a useless and hopeless enterprise. All we are asking for in this Amendment is, not to investigate the past, but from now onward to control the spending of charitable money. You cannot overtake the money that has been spent. Therefore I am quite willing, subject to the promise that has been given, that between now and the Report stage the Government will consider the form of words—I do not attach any particular importance to these words; I think they are perhaps not the best words—but, subject to something being done between now and the Report to meet what, I believe, is the practically unanimous opinion of the Committee on this matter, I withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. PERCY HARRIS (Paddington, S.): I beg to move, after the word "registered" ["unless the charity is registered under this Act"], to insert the word "annually."
  This Amendment raises the question whether registration ought not to be annual. It is true that the Bill relates only to charities connected with the present War, but many of those charities will go on for a long time, and, unless you have annual registration, I do not think you will get that annual review which is desirable. There are many precedents for making registration annual, such as the Acts relating to employment agencies and nursing homes. I raise the point in order to get consideration of it by the Government.
  Mr. BRACE: I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment because it is absolutely unnecessary. This is a Bill for the duration of the War and there is always a power of removal of any charity under the Bill. I think that we had better leave this matter to the Regulations and I am advised that the word "annually" is quite unnecessary.
  Mr. HARRIS: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move after the word "approval" ["approval of the Committee"] to insert the words "of the registration authority and."
  The object of this Bill is to prevent fraud in connection with war charities. There are two different methods of doing this. Firstly, where you have a bogus charity which is now practically nonexistent; and secondly, you have a good charity but the person who collects works in a way which the Committee would not approve of. Either he embezzles money, in which case he can be dealt with under the ordinary law, or else he gets up an entertainment in the country with the consent of some respectable charity, spends an excessive amount on the entertainment and takes for himself an excessive amount for his own expenses. The first method is dealt with under the Bill, but the second is not. If someone writes to a London charity for permission to get up a concert it is quite impossible for that charity in London to make inquiries, and in many cases they would make enemies if they asked too many questions. I know it is provided that the approval of the charity is necessary, but something more is required, and I suggest the approval of the registration authority. There are the people in the locality who registered the charity and they are the proper people to carry out the arrangements for an entertainment or bazaar.
  Reference has been made to an Act which I am unfamiliar with as it is still only in the form of a Bill. No doubt street collections can be dealt with by the police under certain circumstances, and they have power to make regulations. Whether any such regulations have been made I do not know, but they have to receive the approval of the Home Office. I do not think, however, that that is sufficient precaution because the regulations of the police would be more concerned with good order and obstructing the thoroughfare. The regulations required would be to fix a maximum percentage which the promoters of entertainments would be entitled to deduct as expenses; and in the next place a regulation is required as to the class of person employed collecting money and making a general appeal to the public. I hope the Government will be able to accept my Amendment, and something might be added providing that the local authority or the Home Office might make regula-
  826
  tions as to the circumstances under which leave should be given for these entertainments and the way in which abuses could be done away with. I submit that it is a very important matter that when people give money to charities too large an amount should not be taken in expenses. This Bill does not touch that part of the case, and that is the reason why I have moved this Amendment.
  Mr. BRACE: I hope that the hon. and learned Member will not press his Amendment. The person who made an appeal for aid would be guilty of an illegal act if such appeal was made without the consent of the Red Cross central authority. If this authority's consent is obtained, would not citizens say that they were not called upon to take unnecessary trouble, trouble very irksome to them, by having to go to the registration authority to get their consent as well, having already got the Red Cross consent. We are dealing with registered societies, and you start with the proposition that the Red Cross Society will be registered. Some persons in the country may desire to help the Red Cross Society, and they would write that they were going to get up a bazaar, or make a subscription, or have a concert at which an appeal would be made for funds. Would not these people be choked off, if I may use that term; had they to take the trouble of going to the Red Cross Society and to the registration authority as well. We have to be really careful not to surround these sympathetic and charitable undertakings with regulations. We are compelling everybody who desires to make an appeal for funds to go to the Red Cross central authority before doing so, and we provide safeguards to the full extent. If the registration authority is to be charged with the responsibility of registering all these appeals that may be made, every day of the week they would require an enormous staff, and the registration fee of a few shillings would not be sufficient to cover the expenditure of the office. I do hope that no one will make an appeal without the consent of the central authority, and we are protecting the public to the fullest extent in the circumstances.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I am very sorry to hear the answer of the Under-Secretary. I think this Amendment is a most valuable one, and one which picks out one of the weakest spots of the whole Bill. It is one which to my mind is absolutely necessary, or the Bill to a large extent will be worth-

  827
  less. The Bill is not promoted to deal with the Red Cross Society; nor not dealing with the well-known and established charities. The Bill is intended to deal with cases where by gross neglect the money is ill-spent, wasted, or squandered. It is also intended to deal with a second branch, that is cases which are actually fraudulent. Let me take a fraudulent case. Supposing a charity desires to become registered; all that has got to be done under Clause 3, is to have a committee of not less than three persons to administer that charity. It is quite easy to put forward a plausible case for registration. Three persons get registered, and become registered as a charity. When they are registered, an appeal is going to be made, and all that has to be done in order that the requirements of the Bill may Le met is to obtain the approval of the committee or other governing body of the charity. It may be that under Clause 3 they are just three or four persons bound together for the purpose of fraud, and thereupon persons conducting a fraudulent charity make an appeal. What is the good of the Bill when it becomes an Act, then? It is really waste paper. You do not deal at all with the cases of fraudulent appeals. They will be perfectly easy, and will go on without limit or any protection against them at all. I quite appreciate the hon. Gentleman's effort not to deal with bonâ fide charities, with citizens who are desirous of doing good to their fellow members, and that sort of thing. That is quite right, but it can all be done, and simply done, by making easy regulations for getting approval, though you want the approval of persons in a public position, such as the registration authority, and persons who, by reason of the public information which is available to them, could say: "No, no, this is not the sort of appeal we ought to allow, because we know something about the persons conducting this charity, and it is one which ought not to appeal to the public." If this Amendment is not accepted you establish a system of dealing with charities which are all right in themselves, which do not want looking after, and take absolutely no protection of any sort or kind against fraudulent charities. I venture to ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision, to go back to his advisers and see what they say about this matter, because I am satisfied that unless an Amendment of this character is accepted, you may just as well leave the
  828
  Bill as it is, and say you are only going to deal with charities that are perfectly sound and good, and are going lo make no effort of any sort or kind to deal with appeals put forward on behalf of fraudulent charities.
  Mr. REES: In the beginning of this Clause reference is made to promoters or promoting, or taking part in any bazaar, sale, etc. I take it "promoting" would refer to the promoters, while "taking part in" would probably mean the collectors. In the latter part of the Clause, therefore, you get two descriptions of two things, one dealing with promoters and the other with collectors—
  "— to raise money for any charity by promoting or taking part in any bazaar, sale, entertainment, or exhibition, or by any similar means, unless the charity is registered"
  I take it that that hits the promoters—
  "and the approval of the committee or other governing body of the charity has been obtained—"
  I take it that is to hit the collectors. It seems to me to be that, because once the promoters of it have registered, they can only do it if the registration authority is satisfied that it is a bonâ fide charity. The promoters having done that, and secured the approval of the registration authority for the charity, the collectors come in, and ought to be authorised, not by the registration authority, but by the promoters of the charity, because if it is to be by the registration authority it will never work at all. If everyone has to go to the district superintendent before he can collect, the scheme will be unworkable altogether. The words "or taking part in," ought to be left out if the collectors are not to come in. If they are, they should get their authorisation from the charity and not from the registration authority.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I am very glad the hon. Gentleman has not accepted the Amendment. I am wholly against it because I believe that if it were inserted you would absolutely strangle the working of this Bill with red-tape. The hon. and learned Gentleman who proposed this Amendment must have overlooked Subsection (2) of Clause 2, which says that
  "Applications for registration under this Act shall be sent to the registration authority for the area in which the administrative centre of the charity is situate——"

  829
  Take the illustration used by the Under-Secretary, that of a Red Cross charity. Are we to understand that if it is desired to raise money for that purpose the society must be registered not only in the central administrative area, which I presume would be London, but also in every part of the country where it is proposed to raise money? That is not the intention of this Bill at all. Red Cross Societies or similar charities are only to be registered in one particular place. The Mover of the Amendment must see that, while we have every desire to prevent fraud, it will not work in that direction, because if the central authority in London, which controls the charity, has to give permission, what earthly good would it do to have to write up to the registration authority in London as well? They would know nothing about the local conditions in various parts of the country. It would be multiplying useless labour. I, for one, trust to the fragment of knowledge of the local members of charities such as the Red Cross, and hold that the machinery of the Bill ought to stand as it is.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I would suggest to the last speaker that the Bill is not aimed at the Red Cross Society. There is no doubt whatever about the honesty of that association. Therefore the Bill, although it applies to them, does not affect them.
  Mr. HAZLETON: The Under-Secretary used the illustration.
  Mr. WILSON: I suggest that there is something in the Amendment, and, while the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill may not be able to accept it, he might consider between now and the Report stage whether he will not put in words to safeguard the matter. If the principle of the Amendment, along with that of an Amendment on the next page in the name of the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Aneurin Williams), were accepted, it would to a very large extent safeguard the public interest
  Mr. ANDERSON: I do not see very much substance in the Amendment. Nothing can be done unless the charity is registered, therefore you have the safeguard that no step can be taken unless the charity is registered. A charity will not be registered unless it meets with the approval of the registration authority. That being so, the Amendment is superfluous.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I am afraid the matter has been misunderstood. There is real substance in the Amendment. The point is this: You register a society. There are two types of society, one absolutely honest. Take that case first. Somebody writes to them, say from Norwich—it may be a man who owns a hall—and says: "I am going to offer to hold a bazaar or sale of work on behalf of your excellent society." The people in London cannot afford to send somebody down to Norwich to make inquiries, so they say, provided the man is all right, "Very well, hold the bazaar." The bazaar is held. The man takes an excessive amount for rent and an excessive amount for expenses, and sends up to the Society in London a balance of £5 when perhaps £100 has been collected. The next case which I want to catch, and which is not met by this Bill, is a fraudulent case. The case I put before is not one of a fraudulent society. The second class of case is that of a society which is formed in London and manages to get registered. The County Council in London may know very little about them. They have a certain number of members, a treasurer, secretary, and small bank account, and there is nothing against them. A person, an accomplice, goes round in Liverpool, Manchester, Norwich, or anywhere else, holding entertainments for the benefit of the society. He takes £100 and sends a certain sum to the society in London. The fraud takes place—
  Mr. HAZLETON: How would this Amendment help that?
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The society keeps its books perfectly well, and the person in Liverpool or Manchester is not hit at all. That is the second type of case which I want to hit, and which is not touched by this Bill. The Committee had a certain number of cases before them, and they were rushed by the bogus society cases which were most flagrant, thereby missing cases much more common which ought to be got at, and unless they are got at this Bill will not be worth the paper it is written on. That explanation, I think, meets the objection of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rees) who has misread the word "promoters." The promoters are the people who are promoting the particular thing in Norwich and other places, and they are not registered at all. In both cases I have mentioned it is the London society which is registered, and in

  831
  one case a society that is honest, and in the other case a fraudulent society. The promoters are not registered in any shape or form. The hon. Member (Mr. Hazleton) raises the point as to how this Amendment meets the case. I quite agree that there is strength in the question. The registration authority to give the licence will be the registration authority for the district in which the bazaar is held. If I did not say so, I admit at once that the words of the Amendment do not carry out the object as fully as I desire. Perhaps such words as "registration of the authority in the district in which the collection or bazaar is held" might be necessary. I rather think it is not necessary, but if it is necessary some words to that effect could be inserted. Of course, there may be better words for the purpose. The hon. Member (Mr. Anderson) understands the point I am trying to make. I want to hit certain cases, and it is vital to this Bill that they should be hit. It is an absolutely useless Bill unless you hit these cases. You will be putting people to a tremendous amount of trouble by this Bill, registering every form of society, some of which do not need any more registration than a Government office —societies like the Red Cross and others— and at the some time other people can ride through the Bill if they like by forming a society in London and collecting by outside means. This Bill does not touch the collecting evils I have indicated, affecting a good society in one case and a fraudulent society in another, and I do urge the Government to go into these matters and make the Bill a real one and not a sham.
  12.0 M.
  Mr. J. W. WILSON: Does the hon. Member really contemplate that for the purpose of getting these particular societies checked in some way, such as he suggests, he is going to lay upon the registration authorities, for a few shillings fee, the duty of being consulted about every circular that is issued, every concert that is held, every bazaar that is hold by a Red Cross or any other respectable society? To put all this on the already overworked officials of local authorities and expect them to do all this for nothing is perfectly monstrous from the local government point of view. I do not think anybody could possibly expect local authorities to work the Bill and become sponsors and censors of every appeal of every sort in
  832
  connection with the funds of these societies. The thing only needs to be stated to be put aside.
  Mr. RAWL1NSON: You already have to get leave when you take money at the door.
  Mr. WILSON: No.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: If you give a concert and take money at the door you have to get leave of the local authority. If my hon. Friend had taken part in as many of these concerts as I have, he would know that he has to send to the County Council, and it is sometimes very troublesome.
  Mr. REES: Is not the point that in Clause 3 all monies collected by or on behalf of charities shall be paid into a State bank or account as may be specified? The charity has to be registered, and it runs the risk of being struck off if it allows subsidiary people to do wrong.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. BRACE: I do not think I ought to ask the Committee to get through the Bill to-night. There is a number of very substantial Amendments down, and I think I should be consulting the convenience of the Committee if I asked leave to report Progress. In the meantime I would ask hon. Members who wish to move Amendments to put them down so that we may have an opportunity of seeing what they are, so that when we next get into Committee we may make real progress, as I am very anxious to have the Bill an Act of Parliament before we adjourn.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the question of extending this Bill to Ireland?
  Mr. BRACE: There is an objection to extending it to Ireland. If the hon. Member who put the Amendment down moves it, the Attorney-General will be here to deal with it.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKEB adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes after Twelve o'clock.

WAR.
  COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEE.
  COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEE.
MUNITIONS.
  CEKTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  CEKTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
  CLERICAL WAR WORK.
  CLERICAL WAR WORK.
  BUSHIRE EXPEDITION.
  BUSHIRE EXPEDITION.
  SPECIAL RESERVE AND TERRITORIAL FORCE (OFFICERS).
  SPECIAL RESERVE AND TERRITORIAL FORCE (OFFICERS).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  LAY READERS.
  LAY READERS.
  SIR FRANCIS VANE.
  SIR FRANCIS VANE.
  OFFICERS IN EGYPT (COLONIAL ALLOWANCE).
  OFFICERS IN EGYPT (COLONIAL ALLOWANCE).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (SAPPER BENSON).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (SAPPER BENSON).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  HAY (PURCHASES BY LOCAL TRADERS).
  HAY (PURCHASES BY LOCAL TRADERS).
  ALLEGED FRAUDS ON RESERVISTS.
  ALLEGED FRAUDS ON RESERVISTS.
  COCAINE (UNREGISTERED DENTISTS).
  COCAINE (UNREGISTERED DENTISTS).
  KOWLSTON MILITARY CAMP (SEWAGE).
  KOWLSTON MILITARY CAMP (SEWAGE).
  OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION) ACT.
  OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION) ACT.
  PRICE OF COAL (LIMITATION) ACT.
  PRICE OF COAL (LIMITATION) ACT.
  ENEMY FIRMS.
  ENEMY FIRMS.
  LEATHER PRICES.
  LEATHER PRICES.
  GERMAN AUTHORITIES IN FRENCH TERRITORY.
  GERMAN AUTHORITIES IN FRENCH TERRITORY.
  Historical Manuscripts Commission.
  Historical Manuscripts Commission.
  Eviction (County Cavan).
  Eviction (County Cavan).
  Larceny Bill (Joint Select Committee).
  Larceny Bill (Joint Select Committee).