Sitting of 14 August 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Clayton Aniline Company (Railways) Bill [Lords],
Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Supply Board Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time,—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Craven Estates Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

TREATY SERIES (No. 3, 1916).
Copy presented of Convention between the United Kingdom and Denmark renewing for a further period of five years the Arbitration Convention of 25th October, 1905. Signed at London, 3rd May, 1916 [Ratifications exchanged at London, 31st July, 1916] [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PRISONERS OF WAR (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 26, 1916).
Copy presented of Further Correspondence with the United States Ambassador respecting the treatment of British Prisoners of War and Interned Civilians in Germany (in continuation of Miscellaneous, No. 16, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY.
Copy presented of Interim Report of the Committee on the Administration and Command of the Royal Flying Corps, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copies presented of Colonial Reports Nos. 887 (Fiji, Report for 1915), 888 (Sierra Leone, Report for 1915), and 889 (Turks and Caicos Islands, Report for 1915) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FEDERATED MALAY STATES.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 10th August, 1916, as to the application of proceeds of Local War Loan [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copies presented of Three Orders numbered D.I.P. 366–368, inclusive, declaring the areas described in the Schedules thereto to be infected with American Gooseberry Mildew and infected areas for the purposes of the American Gooseberry Mildew (Infected Areas) Order of 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Return presented relative thereto [Address 10th August; Mr. Brace]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 116.]
COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) (ENGLAND).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House: Copy of Directions, dated 9th August, 1916, made by the Lord Chancellor under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1914 to 1916 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      RUSSIAN POLAND.
      Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has received official information that a large number of British prisoners of war have been sent to work in Russian Poland as a measure of retaliation for the treatment received by German prisoners working at British camps in France; whether favourable reports upon these camps have been received from the American Embassy in Paris; and whether the refusal by the State Department at Washington to allow them to be published prolongs the period of hardship which British prisoners are being compelled to undergo?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): A large number of British prisoners of war have been sent to work in Russian territory in German occupation. With regard to the second part of the question, I regret to state that the German Government have so far refused to allow the United States Embassy at Berlin to visit these prisoners; there are, therefore, no reports to publish. A report on the camp at Rouen, where German prisoners of war are employed, was published in the Press on the 11th August. It is most unsatisfactory that the German Government have not the common fairness to allow United States inspection of British prisoners working in Poland, as we have from the beginning allowed and invited inspection of German prisoners taken by us but working in France. It is to be hoped that one result of the War will be to make them understand that ill-treatment of prisoners is disadvantageous to themselves.
      Mr. G. FABER: How are we to make them understand?
      Lord R. CECIL: We must wait until the end of the War.
      Mr. MALCOLM: Is there not at least one other camp to which German prisoners are sent in France, and are we going to have a report upon them?
      Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that question.
      Mr. MALCOLM: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Library did not get a copy of the report published in the Press last Thursday?
      Lord R. CECIL: I will inquire.

      KUT-EL-AMABA.
      Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information as to the treatment and condition of the British prisoners of war from Kut-el-Amara, who are reported to have been removed to Angora and other places in Asia Minor?
      Lord R. CECIL: We have received no further official information as to the prisoners' treatment and condition since my reply of the 7th August to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green was given. As stated in that reply, the United States Embassy at Constantinople send clothing, comforts and money to the prisoners as soon as their arrival at an internment camp is known. I have no doubt that they will send us further information shortly. The main cause of our uneasiness as to the treatment of our prisoners of war by the Turks is their refusal to allow them to be visited by American officials. This appears to be due to the perversity or worse of the Turkish Government. Individual Turkish officers have by all accounts generally behaved with humanity and consideration to British prisoners. As I stated in my answer on Monday last, we have heard of the arrival of a considerable number of British prisoners at various places of internment, and several private messages received from them are, I understand, of a reassuring character.

      ENEMY TRADES (NEUTRAL COUNTRIES).
      Mr. BOOTHasked if the official Reports received show that the Act to deal with enemy traders in neutral countries has been a success; and will he say how many German firms have been condemned and placed on the black list in South America?
      Lord R. CECIL: Reports received show that the objects aimed at are being gradually accomplished. There are 443 names on the Statutory Lists for South America, of which the majority are those of German firms or persons.

      ALBANIA AND MONTENEGRO.
      Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the reported defeat of Austrian troops in Albania and Montenegro, and as to the position of affairs at present in these two countries?
      Lord R. CECIL: I have received, and read in the Press, reports as to disturbances in Montenegro and Albania, but I have received no reliable information or confirmation regarding these incidents. As regards the second part of the question, I regret to state that it is to be feared from reports which have reached the Foreign Office that very great suffering prevails in those two countries.

      COAL PEICES.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade how many resolutions he has received from various organisations in the different parts of the country protesting against the Board of Trade giving power to the South Wales colliery owners to increase their price of coal from 4s. to 6s. 6d. over and above the pre-war prices; if he is aware that it means increasing the price of coal from at least 4s. per ton over and above the prices paid before the extra 2s. 6d. was put on; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
      The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): About twenty resolutions have been received. I am afraid I do not follow the second part of the question, as an increase in the maximum price of 2s. 6d. should not produce an increase of 4s. in the prices charged.
      Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the organised workers of South Wales and in this country have protested in a most emphatic manner against the action of the President of the Board of Trade, and whether he thinks if he had come to this House for permission it would have been absolutely refused?
      Mr. HARCOURT: I said that resolutions of protest have been received.
      Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that when prices are increased at the pit's mouth the merchants and the dealers put something on that price?
      Mr. HARCOURT: There has been an arrangement made between merchants in London and in the large provincial towns to prevent that.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that large gas consuming corporations are to-day being charged by coal owners anything up to 4s. a ton above the standard price fixed under the Act?
      Mr. THORNE: Do the Government intend to keep to the price as fixed, or are they going to make any alteration? Do you think you are going to get the support of the Labour party if you exploit the consumers in this way?
      Mr. ANDERSONasked whether any decision has been reached in regard to the application received from the coalowners of the Forest of Dean for permission to increase the price of coals; whether he is aware that the owners of this district at the time of the passing of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act were granted the concession of charging 5s. per ton above pre-war prices, as compared with 4s. a ton to other owners; whether he is aware that some collieries in this district have made large profits in consequence; will he state on what grounds the owners now apply for a further concession, seeing that nearly the whole of the coal produced in this district is for home consumption; and what steps, if any, the Board of Trade proposes to take to ascertain the cost of production in this district since the passing of the Act?
      Mr. HARCOURT: I have not yet been furnished with definite particulars of working costs in this case. As I informed the hon. Member on the 24th July, the application was made by the Forest of Dean Joint Minimum Wage Board on behalf of the miners as well as the owners, and it is largely based on wages considerations. The increase of the standard amount to 5s. was granted in order to avoid a reduction of wages, and only operates for a portion of the year, and I have no reason to think that large profits have been made in consequence of this increase.

      LINEN TRADE (PROHIBITIONS).
      Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the transfer of linen duck woven from List C to List B of prohibited imports

      1393
      has caused uncertainty in the linen trade as to the particular class of goods affected by the prohibition, with the result that goods are being held up from shipment and the stoppage of looms and the throwing out of employment of many workers is threatened; and if he will take steps to have the prohibitions affecting linen stated in a more comprehensive form?
      Mr. HARCOURT: As stated in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry to the question put by the hon. Baronet on the 9th instant, I am in communication with the War Trade Department on this subject. I hope to be in a position to deal with the whole question at an early date.

      PETROL SUPPLY.
      Mr. BOOTHasked if any petrol has been allotted to alien enemies in this country; and if he is aware that Germans are taking joy-rides in the parks whilst munition firms on urgent war work cannot obtain the necessary supply?
      Mr. HARCOURT: Alien enemies are prohibited under the Aliens Restriction Orders from being in possession of any motor car or motor cycle, without the permission of the registration officer of their district, and I understand that the prohibition is strictly enforced. Everything possible is being done to assist munition firms in the matter of licences for petrol.
      Mr. BOOTH: If I bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend the name of an alien who drives a motor car about London will he immediately take steps to deprive him of petrol?
      Mr. HARCOURT: I shall be glad to consider that suggestion.
      Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will ascertain the period during which the prohibition of the export of petrol and benzine from Roumania was effective, and whether or not there has been any prohibition of export from Roumania of kerosine, lubricating and fuel oils, or of any other of the various petroleum products which are necessities of war?
      Mr. HARCOURT: I will have inquiry made.
      Major HUNTasked whether, in view of the fact that the Shell Transport and Trading Company have no information as
      1394
      to the business of the Astra Romana Company, i.e., as to the quantities of petrol, benzine, kerosene, and other petroleum products which have been sold or delivered by that company to enemy countries during the War, or as to the value of the products so supplied to enemy countries, or as to the amount of profits derived therefrom, he can request the Shell Company to obtain such information from their partners, the Bataafsche Company, which, having paid dividends in respect of the profits made by their subsidiary companies in the years 1914 and 1915, are presumably in possession of the information or, if not, can easily obtain it, seeing that there is free postal communication between Holland and Roumania?
      Mr. HARCOURT: I do not at present propose to have further inquiries made into the business of the Astra Romana Company, which is incorporated in Roumania and is not under the control of any British company.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the members of the Sheffield Tribunal have threatened to resign their office on account of the failure of the military authorities to allow the attendance before the tribunal of a man whose certificate of exemption the tribunal had decided to review on the application of the military representative; whether he is aware that the chairman stated that the man had been passed into the Army wrong fully, having been given exemption for three months and the period not having expired; and whether he will arrange with the War Office that all men under their control whose cases are to be heard before the tribunals shall be given an opportunity to be present at the hearing?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I am in communication with the War Office respecting this matter.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if, in the circular issued by him for the information of the military service tribunals, giving particulars of some fifty cases which have

      1395
      been decided by the Central Tribunal, there is no instance of two common types of cases which the tribunals have to decide, namely, what constitutes a moral conscientious objection as distinct from a religious or political objection, and there is no decision on the point as to whether the work of a professional school teacher is work of national importance and if such work might, in connection with a conscientious objection to military service, be regarded as fulfilling the conditions of the Act; and will he, therefore, have two cases of these classes submitted to the Central Tribunal for their determination?
      Mr. LONG: It is for the Central Tribunal to decide cases which come before them in the ordinary course. They also determine of which of their decisions it is desirable to circulate particulars. I understand that a decision will shortly be circulated with regard to a claim for exemption on conscientious objection based on moral grounds. It is for the tribunal granting an exemption to determine on what work of national importance a man shall be engaged as a condition of exemption.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the conditions under which prisoners are confined in the detention cells at Great Scotland Yard, where, on a recent occasion, some conscientious objectors were detained all night in a cell about 20 ft. by 10 ft., in which about twenty persons were assembled; that there were no sanitary arrangements beyond an open pail for these twenty persons; and will he take immediate steps to have such a state of things altered?
      Mr. FORSTER: As a result of the inquiries made up to the present in regard to this matter, it has not been found possible to obtain confirmation of the facts as stated in the question. I should be obliged if the hon. Member would furnish me with further particulars as to the date of the occurrence he mentions, and as to the names of any men who were concerned.

      APPEAL TRIBUNALS.
      Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Chester and West Cheshire Appeal Tribunal, on the 8th instant, refused the appeal of Mr. George Beardsworth, of Birkenhead, on the ground that his objection to military service was
      1396
      political and not conscientious, although Mr. Beardsworth called witnesses to prove that he had a moral objection to war previous to August, 1914, and that from the attitude of the members of the tribunal it was clear that they were influenced against Mr. Beardsworth by the fact that he is a Socialist and that he has taken part in the opposition to Conscription; whether he will instruct the tribunal that a moral objection to war, apart from a religious objection, is recognised as a ground for exemption by the Act; and what action he proposes to take in this particular case?
      Mr. LONG: I am not acquainted with the facts of this case; but I have no reason to think that the Appeal Tribunal are not aware that exemption may be granted in respect of a conscientious objection based on moral grounds, and I do not see sufficient reason for my intervention. I propose to send to the tribunal a copy of the hon. Member's question and of my reply.
      Mr. LAMBERTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Salford Hundred Appeal Tribunal, on the 8th instant, refused the appeal of Mr. Charles Dukes, East Lancashire organiser of the Gas Workers and General Labourers' Union, although his anti-militarist views have beer, well known in the district for years; and what action he proposes to take?
      Mr. LONG: I am aware of the decision of the Appeal Tribunal and do not see any reason for my intervention. The appeal was made on conscientious grounds and the Appeal Tribunal are obviously in a much better position than I am to judge of the merits of the case.

      WAGON BUILDER (DISCHARGE).
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a wagon builder by the name of W. Hallsworth, who worked for the Gittis Wagon Building Company, Penistone, Yorkshire, for many years, was discharged on 20th July for trade union activity; if he is aware that the management allowed some one to write on the man's discharge note, "Wanted for military"; whether he exceeded his duty by to doing; whether he is aware that the man started work at Oammel, Lairds, Penistone, on 1st August, breaking shell; is he aware that on 3rd August, at 5.50 p.m., he received a military

      1397
      note to appear before the military authority at Barnsley on 4th August at 9.30; if he is aware that Major Skinner, of Barnsley, and the manager of the wagon works of Penistone, are personal friends; if BO, does it look like collusion between the two persons to get the man into the Army; whether wagon building is a reserved occupation; whether the man in question was entitled to at least fourteen days' notice before being called up; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am having inquiry made about this man's case, and when the necessary information is received it will be communicated to my hon. Friend, with his permission, by letter.

      NON-COMBATANT COUPS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War if he will order the immediate transfer to a non-combatant corps of Private G. R. E. Murray, No. 4033, C Company, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, now stationed at Bedford, seeing that this man has a certificate of exemption from combatant service granted to him by the Urms-ton local tribunal; and seeing that this man has been illegally and deliberately attached to a combatant unit notwithstanding his protests, will suitable punishment be inflicted upon the military authorities responsible for this outrage?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have made inquiries into this case and I am informed by the Officer Commanding 2/5th Battalion, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, that it was first brought to his notice on the 3rd August, when he found on investigation that Private Murray held an exemption certificate from combatant service. So far as the evidence available shows it was the man's own fault for not stating earlier that he held a non-combatant certificate. Steps were at once taken by the Commanding Officer for the transfer of Private Murray to the Non-Combatant Corps, and the matter is being dealt with accordingly.

      IBISH MIGBATOBY LABOTJBEES.
      Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Prime Minister whether the Government still adhere to the declaration that the National Registration Act should not be made the ground on which to enforce compulsory military service; whether he is aware that the fact of registration is being taken as sufficient evidence of ordinary residence in Great Britain in the case of Irishmen whose names appear upon the register
      1398
      and that migratory labourers who filled registration forms in Great Britain last year are being served with notices to join the Colours under the Military Service Act and are being treated as deserters if they fail to appear; and what steps it is proposed to take in the matter?
      Mr. FORSTER: When the question of National Registration was before Parliament, the Government had not come to a decision to introduce compulsory military service, but my hon. Friend will clearly realise that after Parliament has passed Acts enforcing compulsory military service the information provided by the National Register must be used for purposes connected with the administration of these Acts. As my hon. Friend is aware, under the Military Service Acts the question whether a man is ordinarily resident in Great Britain can only be decided in case of dispute by the Civil Courts. Irish labourers who come over to Great Britain as temporary harvest labourers and who do not remain in Great Britain after the harvest period do not come within the provisions of the Military Service Acts, and if such a man gets a notice calling him up he has only to see the recruiting officer upon the matter and satisfy him that he is a temporary harvest labourer.
      Mr. LAW: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that numbers of these men who are excepted from the Act and who are undoubtedly entitled to exemption according to law have been arrested within the past few days in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, denied the opportunity of getting food or putting on their clothes, and have been marched down handcuffed through the streets in many cases; and whether I drew attention to the matter a fortnight ago, and that up to the present nothing whatever seems to have beep done?
      Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I supplement my hon. Friend's question by asking the hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that labour is very deficient, not only in agriculture, but in other industries in this country; whether, at this very moment, some of the manufacturers of munitions are making a serious effort to supplement the deficiency of the staffs at their disposal by importing Irish labour; and whether proceedings like this are calculated to encourage the efforts to bring Irish labour to this country?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot carry the matter very much further. I

      1399
      will consult with my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State to see what steps can be taken. I hope some satisfactory steps will be taken.
      Sir EDWARD CARSON: Will the hon. Gentleman at the same time consider whether the Government ought not to apply the Military Service Act to Ireland?
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the hon. Gentleman also consider whether the best solution of this matter is not to repeal the Military Service Act in this country and give us the same freedom as the Irish have?
      Mr. HAZLETON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the new position assumed by the authorities at Motherwell is that after twenty-eight days' residence there Irish immigrants are officially regarded as ordinarily resident in Great Britain; and will he take steps to see that the law is carried out in this respect?
      Mr. FORSTER: I will see that that point is very carefully considered. Speaking off-hand, I cannot imagine that a residence of twenty-eight days only can be taken as bringing a man within the Act.
      Mr. LAW: In view of the unsatisfactory notice of the reply and the great need of clearing up the whole question so that we may know where we are, I beg to give notice that I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

      INCREASED RENT (WAR RESTRICTIONS) ACT.
      Sir E. CORNWALLasked the President of the Local Government Board how many prosecutions there have been under the Act prohibiting increases in ordinary rants during the War; and whether his reports up to the present show that the Act has answered its purpose?
      Mr. LONG: The Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act, 1915, does not authorise prosecutions, but any increase in the standard rent or standard rate of interest is made irrecoverable. I have no administrative authority under the Act, and no reports are required to be made to me respecting it, but I have no reason to suppose that speaking generally it is not serving its purpose.

      NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Civil Liabilities Committee are prepared to consider the case of indentured apprentices who have had to break their indentures on being called up for service?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. As at present advised, I doubt whether a case of this kind would be covered by the Regulations.
      Mr. HOGGE: Supposing a lad who had paid a considerable amount of money were called up compulsorily and his employers refused to meet him, could not he apply to the Civil Liabilities Committee?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: My hon. Friend knows the Regulations as well as I do, and, as I have said, it is doubtful whether the case he mentions is covered by them.
      Mr. E. HARVEY: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of making a supplementary Regulation dealing with this matter?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: That is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he has yet been able to arrange the promised conference between representatives of the mayors and provosts and the representatives of the Statutory Committee?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Lord Mayor of Liverpool had an interview with the Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee and myself last week, and suggested a date in September as probably the most convenient for the conference with representatives of the mayors and provosts. The matter was left in his hands to arrange.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the date of the conference has been fixed so late as 26th September?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: The date was provisionally fixed for 26th September because the Lord Mayor of Liverpool did not think that he could get a committee together before, but if he finds that he can get a committee together before that date we shall be very glad.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether there is at present an almost complete absence of co-ordination in respect of the payment and administration of pensions, separation allowances, and civil liabilities of soldiers and sailors and their dependants: whether the work is divided between such institutions and committees as the War Office, the Admiralty, Greenwich Hospital, the Chelsea Commissioners, the Statut6ry Committee, the Civil Liabilities Committee, the Appeals Committee, and the National Relief Committee; whether this frequently involves much uncertainty, overlapping, and delay and inequality of treatment; and whether he will consider the question of obtaining greater uniformity of treatment and efficiency of administration by placing the treatment of all soldiers, sailors, and those dependent on them under a Department directly responsible to this House?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I can assure my hon. Friend that his suggestion will have the sympathetic consideration of the Government, though I am happy to think he somewhat exaggerates the defects of the present arrangements.

      NERVE-SHAKEN SOLDIERS.
      Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the number of soldiers who have been discharged to their homes, still suffering or not thoroughly recovered from injuries to their nervous system caused either by wounds or shell shock, who, from want of an institution where they can get expert diagnosis and skilful treatment, suffer a relapse and eventually become certifiably insane; and whether he will direct the Statutory Committee to give attention to the need for such an institution?
      Mr. MACMASTERasked the Minister of Munitions what provision is made for the care and medical treatment of discharged soldiers and sailors in the rank and file who have become disabled for service by reason of nervous shock; and specially whether any facilities exist except such as are under lunacy control?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: This question should have been addressed to me as representing the Statutory Committee. Perhaps I may be allowed to answer at the same time Question No. 29, addressed to
      1402
      the Minister of Munitions by the hon. Member for the Chertsey Division. The Statutory Committee are giving very careful consideration to the question of institutions or some alternative treatment for uncertifiable nerve-shaken soldiers. I am informed that under the arrangements made by the War Office such men are retained in military hospitals as long as they require specialist medical in-patient treatment.
      Mr. GOLDSTONE: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that my question is directed to men who have been discharged and who, therefore, are men over whom the War Office has no jurisdiction?
      Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have already informed my hon. Friend that the Statutory Committee are giving very careful consideration to alternative methods of treating these cases.

      PRESS BUREAU (WAR PENSIONS).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Press Bureau, in a statement issued to the Press at 6.30 p.m. on 9th August, placed at the disposal of the newspapers an official defence of the War Pensions Statutory Committee, its work and methods, and emphasising the fact that the supplementary Grants are not given as a right but merely to meet hardship in exceptional cases, and that the Press were advised that if they made use of the statement, serial number C 2,355, nothing should he published to indicate its origin; and will he explain why the Press were forbidden to disclose the official source of the information and upon what grounds the Press Bureau claims to impose such restrictions in respect of matters that have nothing to do with naval or military operations or national defence?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I understand that the War Pensions Committee thought it would be useful to draw public attention to certain considerations relating to War pensions, with a view to removing misapprehensions, but did not think it necessary to put forward these considerations in official form. The Press Bureau acted as the means of communicating the statement to the Press. The statement was not a defence of the War Pensions Committee: it merely drew attention to certain points in connection

      1403
      with their statutory duties which had been overlooked; and it was in order to avoid giving it an appearance of official authority that the newspapers were asked not to treat it as a Press Bureau communiqué.
      Mr. ANDERSON: Are we to understand that the various Government Departments are to issue statements to the Press, not dealing with naval or military matters but with matters of domestic controversy, and to instruct the Press at the same time that they are not to print or disclose the source from which these statements come? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that is a very grave departure, and can be carried a very considerable distance with regard to Government statements?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I must say I do not think that the practice is desirable.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the case that the statement issued by the Press Bureau referred to the Debate in the House of Commons and dealt with the question whether or not the Grants made by the Statutory Committee are superimposed upon the flat rate, which is a very debatable point; and are we to understand that Members who deal with subjects in this House by way of debate are to be answered by what appear to be spontaneous statements in the Press, but which really emanate from Government sources?
      Mr. SAMUEL: For the contents of the communiqué I must refer my hon. Friend to the Department concerned. The Press Bureau was merely the vehicle.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow his Department to be made the vehicle of any Ministerial statement which ought to be given in the House of Commons?
      Mr. KING: Will ordinary Members have the advantage of this vehicle for making their views known?

      CIVIL SERVICE WAR BONUS.
      Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state how many messengers and porters, temporary and permanent, serving in Government Departments are in receipt of salaries of less that 40s. per week; whether none of these Civil servants have received a war bonus; and whether, in view of the increase in the cost of living,
      1404
      the Treasury will reconsider the question of granting a war bonus to the lower-paid classes in the Civil Service?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The information asked for in the first part of the question could not be obtained without an undue expenditure of time and labour. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. The question of granting a war bonus to the lower-paid classes in the Civil Service is under consideration.

      SCOTTISH BANK NOTES.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether Treasury notes are accepted as legal tender in Scotland by post offices; and, if so, why Scottish bank notes are not accepted except at a discount in England?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Under the provisions of the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1914, currency notes issued by the Treasury are legal tender throughout the United Kingdom. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on the 7th instant.
      Mr. HOGGE: Why cannot my right hon. Friend make that rule applicable to Scottish notes in England?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is quite impossible; Scottish notes were not legal tender before the War; they were only made-legal tender in Scotland for the time being.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is it the case that Scottish notes were not legal tender before the War?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir.
      Mr. HOGGE: You said so just now.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will make a provisional arrangement for the duration of the War whereby men in uniform can receive full value for Scottish bank notes at any post office?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As regards the question of the encashment of Scottish notes at English post offices, I fear I cannot add anything to my previous replies on this subject, but I will communicate with the War Office and ascertain whether in the case of Scottish soldiers any further

      1405
      facilities for cashing Scottish notes in other parts of the United Kingdom can be given through Army paymasters.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if you present an English note in such a condition that the number appears on it you can get 20s. for it, whereas it you present a Scottish note which is defaced you do not get full value for it? Why have English notes this preference?

      INCOME TAX (REBATE).
      Mr. FENWICKasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether an unmarried workman, and the sole support of other members of the family under sixteen years of age, is entitled to a rebate on his Income Tax; and, if so, to what extent?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: An unmarried workman is entitled, for Income Tax purposes, to the ordinary statutory allowances, e.g., for exemption, abatement, life insurance premiums, etc. The Income Tax Acts do not authorise any allowance in respect of the support of relations other than children.

      OFFENSIVE TELEGRAMS FROM PERSONS OF ENEMY ORIGIN.
      Mr. BOOTHasked the Postmaster-General if persons of enemy origin are allowed to send telegrams mentioning a Member of this House by name in an abusive manner; and whether, in the case of an unsigned telegram of this character, he will reveal the name and address given by the sender or at least state whether the original document indicates a similarity to German handwriting?
      The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J. Pease): Telegrams containing grossly offensive matter are not allowed to be transmitted. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any offensive telegram which has been sent forward, I will endeavour to trace it. The contents of a telegram cannot be made public except on subpoena, but a telegram is usually shown to an addressee or his authorised agent, on application.
      Mr. BOOTH: Are we to understand from that reply that any of these Germans who are knocking about with this freedom can go to any telegraph office and send
      1406
      abusive telegrams mentioning Members of Parliament by name; and have we no redress?
      Mr. PEASE: If they are offensive they will not be allowed to be transmitted. If they are inoffensive they are bound to be accepted.
      Mr. BOOTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that unsigned telegrams referring to a Member of this House by name and saying that amazing charges will be brought against him, that he is a desperate character, and so on—does he consider that his Department is the proper vehicle for the transmission of that without disclosing who is the offender?
      Mr. PEASE: Of course I cannot say who is the individual referred to, and so I cannot say whether those terms might be offensive or otherwise. But if the hon. Member will only send me particulars of any cases I will investigate them at once.
      Sir J. SIMON: Is it not the rule that in the case of telegrams unsigned on the face, the name and address of the sender have to be written on the back?
      Mr. PEASE: That is so.
      Mr. BOOTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman disclose the name of the sender if he thinks the circumstances warrant it, in order that proceedings may be taken to stop it?
      Mr. PEASE: On subpoena the telegram containing the whole of the particulars will be produced in Court, and if the Court decided that the telegram should be made public it would then become public property; but otherwise I have no justification for publishing any telegram.
      Mr. BOOTH: I quite accept that.
      Mr. BILLING: Has a Minister access to telegrams sent to Members of this House?
      Mr. PEASE: Not unless he has got the authority through the Court on a subpœna
      Mr. BILLING: Does the same rule apply to letters?

      ADMIRALS OF THE FLEET (PROMOTION).
      Admiral of the Fleet Sir HEDWORTH MEUXasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will say why, when the change in the King's Regulations affecting promotions to Admirals of the Fleet was promulgated on the 1st August, 1914, the

      1407
      Board's decisions as to qualifications were kept secret from the admirals who by their decisions were debarred from attaining the rank they would have been promoted to by the old Regulations?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It is neither usual nor necessary to publish decisions which are intended for guidance in administering Regulations. In this particular case, so far, only one officer has been selected since the Regulations were changed in 1914, and he was eligible both under the old and the new qualifications.
      Sir H. MEUX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first officer to whom this Regulation applies is an admiral who has been Commander-in-Chief twice, and who in his younger career was mentioned three times in dispatches, and who, if these Regulations had not been brought up, would have been Admiral of the Fleet next February or March?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of that.

      BRITISH COLUMBIAN ELECTION (SOLDIER VOTERS).
      Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of British Columbia has made arrangements whereby electors entitled to vote for members of the Legislative Assembly can record their votes while in England or on active service at the front; and, if so, whether he will have printed and published as a White Paper a statement describing the electoral machinery employed for this purpose?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): Yes, Sir; but it has not been found possible to provide facilities for voting except in Great Britain. The arrangements for voting are set out in the Acts of the Provincial Legislature, and I will place a copy in the Library of the House as soon as copies reach me.
      Sir E. CARSON: Is that election going on at present in this country?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that it is.

      SIR FRANCIS VANE.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that
      1408
      Major Sir Francis Vane volunteered in August, 1914, for duty on the Staff; that he had acted in a staff capacity during the South African War under Lord Nicholson and Colonel Lambert, who reported favourably upon him; and whether, instead of being relegated to unemployment for having given information concerning the murders on 26th April in the Portobello Barracks, he will now receive some Staff appointment?
      Mr. FORSTER: It is possible that Temporary Captain Sir Francis Vane volunteered in August, 1914, for duty on the Staff, but if he did so, he only did what hundreds of others did, including many who had had previous Staff service during the South African War. The reason suggested, in the third part of the question, for Sir Francis Vane's being now unemployed is not correct, and the answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
      Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for State for War whether he is aware that the three officers who reported adversely on Major Sir Francis Vane were retained in command of troops for twelve months from October, 1914, and that they successfully passed the medical examination for active service in July, 1915; and whether he can give the reasons why these three officers were removed from their commands within two months of their departure for the front?
      Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I see no reason why exception should be made to the standing rule against the disclosure of the reasons why officers have been removed from their command.

      CENSORSHIP (PRIVATE LETTERS AND TELEGRAMS).
      Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Prime Minister whether steps can be taken to secure that the contents of private letters and telegrams examined under the censorship are not made available or used for purposes other than naval and military services and the defence of the realm?
      Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether steps will be taken to secure that the contents of private letters and telegrams examined under the censorship are not made available or used for purposes other than naval and military services and the defence of the realm?
      Mr. FORSTER: The contents of private 'letters and telegrams examined tinder the censorship are not made available or used for purposes other than naval or military services and the defence of the realm. Information likely to conduce to the successful prosecution of the War is, and must be, passed to the Government Department concerned.

      NATIONAL RELIEF FUND.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether the arbitration between the War Office and the National Relief Fund has yet been concluded; and, if so, what amount has been agreed upon?
      Mr. FORSTER: The arbitration has not been concluded.
      Mr. HOGGE: When is this arbitration going to be concluded?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not know.
      Mr. HOGGE: I will raise the question oh the Adjournment to-night unless it is concluded. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that £2,500,000 of money which belongs to the fund and which was raised for certain purposes is at the present moment in the hands of the War Office and, until this matter is determined, cannot be devoted to those purposes?
      Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend must see that when a mattes is referred to arbitration it must be left to the arbitrator. The arbitrator is not under the control of the War Office, and it would be most improper if he were.

      SALONIKA (RATIONS).
      Mr. GRANTasked the Secretary of; State for War if many complaints are reaching this country from men serving at the front at Salonika about the shortage of rations; and if he is in a position to give a reassuring statement on the point?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am informed by the General Officer Commanding that there is no foundation for this complaint.
      Mr. GRANT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certain complaints have reached this country?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have heard of them and have been in communication with the General Officer Commanding, who says there is no foundation for them.

      MERCHANT TONNAGE.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether the Australian Government has rejected a British firm's offer of six 11,000-ton steamers on account of the price; and whether he will advise the Government to commandeer the six steamers in question at cost price for the benefit of the nation?
      Mr. HARCOURT: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. The statement in the first part of the question is not correct, as the Commonwealth Government do not propose to purchase additional ships. The question of commandeering therefore does not arise.
      Mr. THORNEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government of New Zealand have decided to commence a State line of 20,000-ton steamers of about 20 knots to run between New Zealand and Great Britain, with a view of keeping down shipping freights; and if the Government will build a number of steamers of about the same size to be used for the same purpose?
      Mr. HARCOURT: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I have seen a Press statement on this subject, but have no further information. It is not proposed to take the course suggested in the second part of the question.

      QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
      Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the amount of time and labour, occupied by the Ministers and officials of the Government Departments in the preparation of answers, both oral and written, to questions to Ministers; and whether, having regard to the pressure on Ministers and officials at the present time, he will consider the advisability of limiting by Standing Order the number of questions by any individual Member to a total number not exceeding two per sitting?
      Major HUNT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask him whether he is aware that questions are now about the only means which private Members have left to them of getting any public information at all?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am well aware of the time and labour expended by Ministers and their Departments in the preparation of answers to

      1411
      Parliamentary questions, and I have often pointed this out to the House. I should indeed be glad if this strain could be somewhat relieved. The daily number of questions, however, is not regulated by Standing Order, but by the custom of the House, and I should hesitate to propose a Standing Order on the somewhat stringent lines suggested, unless I were persuaded that such a proposal would meet with the universal consent of the House.
      Mr. ROBERTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain the general feeling of the House through the usual channels?
      The PRIME MINISTERindicated assent.
      Mr. HOGGE: What are the usual channels?

      PATRIOTIC DEMONSTRATIONS.
      Mr. BROOKESasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has taken steps to ensure the widest diffuson throughout the British Empire and neutral countries generally of the essential facts of the patriotic demonstrations in this country at the close of the second year of the War?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I am satisfied that all possible steps have been taken to make the facts referred to widely known throughout neutral countries. With regard to the British Empire, the demonstrations were organised this year, as last, by the Central Committee for National Patriotic Organisations (of which I am the hon. president), under the chairmanship of Mr. Harry Cust, to whom, together with his fellow workers, the Government and the country owe a great debt of gratitude for their unremitting services throughout the War. On both occasions meetings were held in every part of the United Kingdom and of the British Empire, and an identical resolution was passed. Many meetings were also held in the Allied countries.

      WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE.
      Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, in reply to a deputation of women's suffrage societies, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that he would not assent to any alteration in the franchise,
      1412
      even for the purpose of giving a vote to men risking their lives in the service of the country, unless it was accompanied by enfranchisement for women; and whether this complication of a measure of justice to those serving in the Army, by stipulating that it shall be accompanied by a measure on which there is a wide divergence of opinion, has the approval of the Cabinet?
      The PRIME MINISTER: My Noble Friend informs me that the first part of the question does not give an accurate version of his speech; with regard to the second part of the question, I shall make a statement on the subject of registration this afternoon.

    MUNITIONS.

      CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
      Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Prime Minister if he will take immediate steps to amend the Order in Council establishing the Central Control Liquor Board so as to provide that the Orders of the Board shall be under the control of the Minister of Munitions or of some other Minister responsible to this House?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I will bring this suggestion to the notice of my colleagues.

      EDUCATION.
      Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister whether, as an alternative to setting up separate Committees to inquire into the education question, he will appoint a Minister as President of the Board of Education who has not only sympathy for better education of the people, but a wide knowledge of the subject; and whether the Government has any intention of carrying out a reform, the necessity of which is generally acknowledged, namely, the provision of day-time continuation classes for boys and girls as a supplement to elementary education?
      The PRIME MINISTER: As no vacancy in this Office has yet been announced the first part of the question does not arise; the matter mentioned in the second part is being investigated by a Departmental Committer appointed by the President of the Board of Education, and their recommendations will be carefully considered by the Government.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is in fact anybody holding the office of the President of the Board of Education?
      The, PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yes, Sir. It is continued to be held for the moment by my right hon. Friend. It will be filled up in a day or two.
      Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to put this office on full equality with other offices in the Cabinet, in view of its great importance to the nation?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I hope I shall.

      WOMEN DOCTORS.
      Mr. DICKINSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether women doctors are now being employed upon foreign service under the War Office; and, if so, whether they are entitled to receive the same pay as male doctors so employed; whether they are given the same allowances for rations, foreign service, etc., as the men; and, if not, what is the reason for this differentiation?
      Mr. FORSTER: Women doctors will receive the same pay and allowances as male doctors similarly employed.

      FIGHTING IN EGYPT (GERMAN PRISONERS).
      Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for War how many German officers and men were found among the prisoners taken by the British in the recent fighting in Egypt?
      Mr. FORSTER: Between the 3rd of August and the evening of 11th August the number of Germans captured was twenty-five rank and file.

      SECOND-LINE YEOMANRY REGIMENTS.
      Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for War when the second-line Yeomanry regiments are going to be used for foreign service; and if he is aware that there is a feeling of disappointment among the officers and men owing to the way in which they have been treated?
      Mr. FORSTER: I cannot, I fear, add anything to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Devizes Division on the 13th July.

      JAM (ARMY CONTRACTS).
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War whether contracts for the supply of jam to the Army are open to tender, or whether they are now being confined to a small number of firms without competition; and, if they are being so confined, by what means prices are fixed?
      Mr. FORSTER: Contracts for the supply of jam of the present season's make are confined to a selected number of manufacturers. The War Department pays the actual cost of the fruit and sugar, and the quantities apportioned to each of the selected firms have been determined by the competitive prices submitted by those firms for making the jam.
      Mr. W. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman give the names of these selected firms?
      Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Member will give notice I will consider it.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Am I to understand that anything in the nature of competition in these contracts has been absolutely done away with?
      Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Member reads my answer he will see that the allocation of the contract depends upon the competitive price.
      Mr. SCOTT: Competitive price offered by whom—by a small selected ring?
      Mr. FORSTER: By the people who are invited.
      Mr. SCOTT: Has the hon. Gentleman not told me that the only people who are invited to tender are a small selected ring, and that therefore there is no open competition in the tendering for these contracts?
      Mr. FORSTER: What the hon. Member calls a small and select ring comprises the firms which have made the great bulk of the jam for years past.
      Mr. SCOTT: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication of the number of the firms? Is it not a very small, limited, select number of firms against whom there

      1415
      is no opportunity for a competitive tender by other well-established and recognised firms who have done the work in the past?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not think I can give the number without notice.
      Colonel YATE: Is there any clause in the contract by which any portion of the plum jam served out, for instance, is to be made from plums?

      SOLDIERS AND CIVILIAN WORK.
      Mr. WARDLEasked the Secretary of State for War under whose authority soldiers have been loaned to the Llanelly Steel Company for civilian work; whether they are being employed at military rates of pay and under military control; under what Act of Parliament this has been sanctioned; and whether this is a breach of the arrangement which has been observed in all previous cases whereby men so lent have been paid full civilian wages and been entirely under civilian control during the time they are so working?
      Mr. FORSTER: These soldiers were employed under the authority of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, acting under general instructions from the War Office. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. There is a clear distinction between such military working parties and the employment of soldiers individually released from the Army for lengthy periods for work in munition factories. I have, however, arranged that in future, when it is found necessary to lend military working parties, the pay of the men shall be based on the current local rates for similar civilian labour.
      Mr. WARDLE: What is the period during which men who have been enlisted are allowed to be employed?
      Mr. FORSTER: It was contemplated that it would be for a very short emergency period only. As a matter of fact, no working party can be employed for more than two months without special authority.
      Mr. O'GRADY: Is the money actually paid to the soldiers themselves, and will they be allowed to spend it in their own way?
      Mr. FORSTER: What I contemplate is that the civilian wages will be paid to the
      1416
      soldier less a deduction of some 3s. 6d. a day to make up for food, lodging, clothing and so forth. The man will receive the balance in cash and can spend it as he likes.
      Mr. WARDLE: Is this arrangement made under any Army Order or under any Act passed by this House?
      Mr. FORSTER: I think under the Army Act.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the 3s. 6d. a day is calculated?
      Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me notice.
      Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: In the case of soldiers who are lent to farmers for harvest work, may they be given some extra pay? It appears that they get nothing at all.
      Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

      SERGEANTS TRANSFERRED.
      Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that seven sergeants of the 2/4th Buffs who had signed the foreign service obligation were sent to join the 3/4th Buffs at Crow-borough, and that they were then reduced to privates and the allowance to their wives and children reduced; whether he is aware- that these men had held their stripes from eighteen months to two years; and is there any special reason why these men on being transferred should be reduced?
      Mr. FORSTER: On the information contained in the question I can only assume that the men in question were never substantive sergeants, but were acting-sergeants. It has been frequently explained that acting rank is given up when the holder no longer performs the duties of the acting rank. I think this must have happened in the case of these men.
      Mr. ROWLANDS: Is it not a fact that other sergeants transferred have not been reduced in the same manner, and is not the action that has been taken causing serious discontent?
      Mr. FORSTER: It depends whether the men are acting.
      Sir F. FLANNERY: Can steps be taken to alter the Regulation under which men who have been acting-sergeants for eighteen months are reduced to the ranks?
      Mr. FORSTER: I will have that considered.

      MECHANICAL TRANSPORT (SUPPLIES).
      Mr. PRINGLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether any change has been made in the control of supplies for mechanical transport; if so, what has been the nature of the change and what results have attended it?
      Mr. FORSTER: The question of the transfer of the control of supplies for mechanical transport from the War Office to the Ministry of Munitions is now under consideration, and a decision will be arrived at in the course of the next few days.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether any transfer has actually taken place?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not think it has been finally decided.
      Mr. HOUSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the object of the transfer?
      Mr. FORSTER: It is to organise the mode of procedure.

      ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUNS (EAST COAST).
      Sir ALFRED GELDERasked the Secretary of State for War why the protection by anti-aircraft guns has been taken away from a certain city on the East Coast, after having been used so effectively to repel attacks by Zeppelins for several months past; whether he is aware that the removal of such guns has resulted in a serious loss of life and property on 7th August; and whether the military authorities are taking proper steps to immediately replace the guns removed by others of at least equal capacity and number, together with suitable searchlights, for the due protection of the city so that at least it may be guarded as fully as in the past?
      Major BAIRD: The suggestions contained in
      1418
      this question are based on an entire misapprehension of the facts in regard to the defences of the particular town which I presume that the hon. Member has in mind. It would not be in the public interest to make any detailed statement on the matter. No guns have been removed except on replacement by guns of greater efficiency. The searchlights available in this town are of the approved pattern, and are effective under normal conditions, but their efficiency is inevitably diminished should there happen to be fog and mist.
      Sir A. GELDER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the statement of last Thursday in reply to the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Ferens) and also the statement made to-day are quite contrary to the testimony of thousands of people who witnessed the raid, and who deny some of the statements which have been made?
      Major BAIRD: I am aware that there have been statements of that kind made, but I have given the hon. Gentleman the facts, and you cannot get over them. The facts are as stated.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Is the Air Board responsible for these arrangements?
      Major BAIRD: No.
      Sir A. GELDER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that guns and searchlights will not again be removed except when more adequate and complete arrangements are made for repelling the enemy?
      Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.
      Mr. R. HARCOURT: May I ask whether questions on this subject are now addressed to the Air Board, and not to the War Office?
      Major BAIRD: I am asked to answer these questions by my right hen. Friend.
      Mr. BILLING: Does the hon. and galgant Gentleman definitely state that no guns whatsoever were removed from this particular town between the last raid and the one previous to it?
      Major BAIRD: No, Sir; I said nothing of the kind. I said what is the truth, that when guns have been removed they have been replaced by better ones.
      Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say which right hon. Friend of his has asked him to answer these questions? It was not quite clear.
      Major BAIRD: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Lloyd George).
      Sir. A. GELDER: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question, on the Adjournment of the House, not being satisfied with the answer given.

      DESTROYED RECORDS (SOLDIERS' ARREARS OF PAY).
      Sir E. CARSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the soldiers whose records were burnt in the fire at the Linen Hall Barracks, Dublin, in the Irish rebellion have yet received their arrears of pay; and, if not, what provision has been made for the maintenance of men who are discharged with arrears of pay or allowances owing to them at the date of their discharge?
      Mr. FORSTER: The arrears of pay can only be ascertained by the laborious process of reconstructing each man's account, and this is being done as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, serving soldiers are receiving their usual advances of pay, and discharged men are being provisionally settled with on the best information available, special cases of hardship being considered on their merits.

      MEETING IN COUNTY DONEGAL.
      Mr. KEATING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War a question of which I have given him private notice. Is he aware that the military authorities in Ireland have forbidden the holding of a meeting arranged for to-morrow in county Donegal, to be addressed by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin), the hon. Member for East Tyrone (Mr. W. A. Redmond), the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. E. Kelly), the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. J. Swift MacNeill), and the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Keating), and what steps will he take to get the prohibition withdrawn?
      Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I have not much information to give. I made such inquiries as I could as soon as I received the notice of the question, and I understand it is quite a mistake to suppose the military authorities have prohibited this
      1420
      meeting. I am informed that is not the case. I believe there has been some difficulty about the running of special trams in connection with the meeting, but I cannot answer anything further, because I have no more information.
      Sir W. BYLES: Have the civil authorities forbidden it?
      Mr. FORSTER: I do not know; I am not responsible for the civil authorities.

      MESOPOTAMIA CAMPAIGN.
      Sir H. CRAIKasked she Secretary of State for India whether he has now communicated with the authorities in India and obtained their consent to the publication of the Report of Sir W. Vincent, General Bingley, and Mr. Ridsdale with regard to the medical arrangements and transport in Mesopotamia; and whether the Report will be laid upon the Table before the Recess?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): Copies of the Report and of the Commander-in-Chief's memorandum upon it were dispatched from India last month. The Appendices, including the evidence were sent early this month. I am informed by the Viceroy that a general review of the Report and its Appendices will follow as 30on as they have been fully examined. Since the Vincent Commission reported, Parliament has appointed a Statutory Commission to inquire "into the origin, inception and conduct of the operations of war in Mesopotamia" including, inter alia, "the provision for the sick and wounded," and this Commission is specifically directed "to proceed with all possible expedition to inquire with regard to the provision for the sick and wounded" and to "report the result of their inquiries on this matter as soon as they are completed." All the documents emanating from the Vincent Commission will be laid before the Statutory Commission as soon as they are received, and will, I think greatly faciliate their task. But meanwhile the matters treated by the Vincent Commission must be considered as still sub judice, and their Report cannot be published. The House has the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that everything possible is being done to remedy the defects disclosed which were largely, though not entirely, due to difficulties of transport.

      1421
      I should add that I have seen an advance copy of the Report. In addition to criticisms of Indian military organisation—a matter which is now engaging the serious attention of His Majesty's Government— it mentions certain officers by name as having a grave responsibility in connection with the state of affairs disclosed by the investigation. For various reasons the Commission was, I believe, unable to examine any of these officers in person. They will no doubt be so examined by the Statutory Commission by whom their case and the measure of their responsibility will be considered. Meanwhile I may say that the officers so named have vacated their positions, and new appointments have been made to the posts formerly held by them.
      Sir E. CARSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are still very unsatisfactory reports coming from Mesopotamia, and can he assure the House that any suggestions made by the Vincent Committee will at once be carried out to ameliorate the conditions?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that everything is not yet satisfactory. That was stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War the other day. Although the difficulties of transport have not yet been wholly overcome and cannot be wholly overcome for some little time, I believe that matters are very much improved. The new Director of Medical Services in India himself went to Mesopotamia on his way to India and dealt with the defects which he found, and I think that everything possible is now being done to set things straight.
      Sir H. CRAIK: Are we to understand that the only effect of the appointment of the Statutory Commission so far has been to delay the issue of the Report of a Commission which was appointed in February last?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend's question tempts me to recall to him his observations when the announcement of the appointment of the Vincent Committee was made. He had not at that time the confidence in his Report or the anxiety to see his Report which he now expresses. It is quite obvious, since the Statutory Commission has been appointed by Parliament to investigate the very questions which were referred to the Vincent Committee, that they must be considered as sub judice, and I, am unwilling to, and cannot, produce the Report until the
      1422
      Statutory Commission have considered it. I said that the appointment of a Statutory Commission would not be used by His Majesty's Government as any reason or excuse for not taking immediate steps where such were shown to be necessary, and to that I adhere.
      Mr. R. MCNEILL: Will the Report of the Vincent Committee be published eventually whether it is in agreement or in conflict with the Report of the Statutory Commission?
      Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government, I believe, on my suggestion, made a promise, a voluntary promise, to the House some time ago that they would lay Papers with ' regard to the Mesopotamian operations. When those Papers were collected and submitted to our military advisers they reported that it was contrary to the public interest to publish them, because they would give information of military value to the enemy. I cannot promise to present any further Papers with regard to military affairs in Mesopotamia or the operations there until those Papers have been seen and examined by the General Staff.
      Mr. GRANTasked the Secretary of State for War if the scale of pensions for deaths due to such diseases as cholera, which are incidental to the conditions of campaigning in Mesopotamia, can be on the same scale as pensions appertaining to death on the battlefield or from wounds received; and, if not, could he explain the reasons for such difference?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The Regulations follow the recommendation of the recent Select Committee in maintaining the specially high pensions which have been granted for a century to the widows of officers killed in action.
      Mr. GRANTasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in many instances the kits of soldiers who have been killed or who have died in Mesopotamia have never been delivered to the relatives; and if he can give some assurance of better arrangements in this matter for the future?
      Mr. FORSTER: I regret the delay involved in the present procedure regarding deceased soldiers' effects, and am in communication with the Government of India in view to simplification and acceleration of the arrangements.
      Mr. GRANTasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the many instances where money has been sent by soldiers serving in Mesopotamia to this country through the Post Office, but without intimation being sent to the intended recipient, has never reached its destination; and if such sums can by some means be delivered to the proper quarters?
      Mr. J. PEASE: My attention has not been called to many such instances. Money may be remitted by the troops in Mesopotamia either by postal order or by money order. No particulars are available as regards postal orders, but I find that about 6,000 money orders were advised from the field in Mesopotamia during the last six months. All these have been delivered except about forty, where the addresses were incorrect or insufficient, and in those cases the senders have been notified. If particulars are furnished to me of any case in which a remittance sent home by a soldier from Mesopotamia has not been delivered, I shall be glad to make inquiry.

      HON. MEMBERS' SEATS.
      Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the defects in the military postal service in Mesopotamia which elicited complaint some months ago on the ground of the non-delivery and theft of letters and parcels addressed to the troops remain unremedied, inasmuch as letters and parcels in many cases still fail to reach the soldiers to whom they are addressed in Mesopotamia; and whether he can give any assurance that improvement in this respect will be made without further delay?
      Mr. FORSTER: I recently received a Report from the Government of India on this subject dated 30th June. They stated that shortage of river transport caused serious delays in carriage of mails, especially parcels, during the early months of the year but at the time of the Report the inward mails were being cleared from Basra within a week of arrival at the rate of ninety bags per diem, and it was hoped by the 1st August to send on the whole of the English mail on the day of arrival. They have not traced any cases of pilfering. Inadequate addresses and movements of addressees, and in the case of parcels, insecure packing, must account for a good many miscarriages. I propose to communicate further with the Government of India on the subject.
      Mr. McNEILL: Is my hon. Friend aware—
      Mr. COWAN: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh has taken possession of my seat.
      Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member's name is on the seat, he is entitled to it.
      Mr. COWAN: My name is on the seat.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to it.
      Mr. HOGGE: The hon. Member is not entitled to it.
      Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member's name is in the back of the seat, primâ facie he is entitled to it.
      Mr. HOGGE: The hon. Member is not entitled to the seat, supposing his card is in this hole, because he has not been within the precincts of the building since he put that card there. My card was originally in this corner at half-past ten this morning, since when I have not left the precincts of the building. I happened to come in about a minute late—
      Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps temporarily the hon. Member (Mr. Cowan) will take a seat somewhere else and we can settle this question afterwards.
      Mr. COWANremained standing—
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should sit down when I rise, as there are only five minutes more for questions. I would suggest that we dispose of questions before disposing of the other trumpery business.
      Mr. COWAN: I understand, Sir, that your ruling is that when a Member's name is on the back of the seat and when he has been present at Prayers, he cannot be ousted from that place by another Member who has not been present at Prayers?
      Mr. SPEAKER: What I said was that the fact of the hon. Member's name being in the back of the seat was primâ facie evidence that he was entitled to it. Of course, that can be set aside by some other evidence. Whether other evidence is forthcoming or not, I do not know. Perhaps the hon. Member for East Edinburgh will furnish it.
      Mr. HOGGE: I am perfectly prepared to give up the seat to the hon. Member today if I can get a ruling from you with regard to this matter which has caused some friction. I would ask you, Sir, for

      1425
      a ruling as to whether a Member is entitled to place a small card in the back of the seat early in the morning, leave the House, not appear again until Prayers, and then take the seat in preference to hon. Members who come here-and put their cards in, and stay on the premises. The Standing Order says: "A Member to retain his seat must put in a large card stating that he remains within the precincts of the House," and my point is this, that, while some of us in this corner quite early in the morning put in our cards, and remained within the precincts of the House that has not been done by, among others, my hon. Friend on the left (Mr. Cowan). I had this opportunity of establishing this point to-day, and thought it well to do so.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The rule which has obtained for a long time is this: that if an hon. Member comes down and places this card—the large card—on the seat, he is entitled to place the smaller card at the back of the seat at Prayer time, provided that he has been in attendance at the House during the interval. If he absents himself, then he loses his right.
      Mr. HOGGE: I am perfectly content to abide by that ruling, and I have always done so.
      Mr. COWAN: I venture to say that the general practice of the House is quite the contrary. During the ten years in which I have been in the House the general practice has been—and as time went on it became more and more the general practice, until now I think that it is almost invariable — that when a Member has placed a card on a seat, even if he has had occasion to leave the House, as I had in order to do my work at the Ministry of Munitions—I do not think it is suggested that I should remain in the House and neglect that work—and if the Member returns in time for Prayers he is entitled to that seat. I am absolutely prepared to abide by your ruling, but I would be very glad if the matter could be definitely settled. I am quite sure that if your view is taken, that the Member must remain within the precincts of the House after he places the card upon the seat until he attends at Prayers, it will cause very great inconvenience. Finally, I would ask whether, if my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh has not been in the House during Prayers, he has any claim whatever to the seat?
      Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for East Edinburgh was not in the House at Prayer time, of course he is not entitled to the seat. If an hon. Member comes down early for the purpose of obtaining a particular seat, he has got to fulfil two conditions—first of all, he must remain in the House until, Prayer time; and secondly, he must be in attendance at Prayers.
      Mr. HOGGE: Now that I have secured your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in my favour on the main point, I have pleasure in surrendering the seat to the hon. Member.
      Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members have only to look at the card.
      Mr. LEIF JONES: For the purpose of the ruling, what are the "precincts" of the House? It has been understood by Members that leaving the House in order to go to Government- offices did not cause them to forfeit the privilege of getting their seats at Prayer time.
      Mr. SPEAKER: The precincts of the House are the Palace of Westminster.

      ARRESTS OF IRISH LABOURERS.
      Mr. HUGH LAW: I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the continuance of the arrests of numbers of Irish migratory labourers in Scotland, contrary to the provisions of the Military Service Act and to the pledges given by members of His Majesty's Government, their ill-usage by the police, and the consequent dislocation of harvest work and the retarding of the construction of urgently needed munition factories."
      The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter-past eight this evening.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "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 Prime Minister.]
  Sir E. CARSON: Would the Prime Minister state how far he intends to go to-night after eleven o'clock?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The only Orders we shall propose to take after eleven o'clock are Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 14.
  Sir W. BYLES: Do the Government intend to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule for the remainder of the week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say whether the Eleven o'Clock Rule will be suspended every day.

  PARLIAMENT AND LOCAL ELECTIONS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Parliament and Registration Act, 1916, and to extend the Elections and Registration Act, 1915, with respect to elections of local authorities and other bodies, and the revision of jurors' lists in Ireland."
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): In asking leave to introduce the Bill which stands in my name, I may remind the House that the present position as respects election and registration is as follows: First, the life of the present Parliament has been prolonged until the end of next month—September. On that date, unless further provision be made, Parliament must come to an end and a General Election must take place. And in the next place, the Register of Electors, which came into force on the 1st of January, 1915, remains in force. Under the Elections and Registration Act of 1915 and the Parliament and Registration Act, 1916, that register remains in force until Parliament provides for a special registration being made, or otherwise
  1448
  directs. Two conclusions follow from those premises. In the first place, unless statutory provision is now made, on the expiration of next month the present Parliament will expire, and you will have to face the necessity of a General Election on a register which is now nearly two years old. The Bill which I am now asking leave to introduce proposes to prevent that possibility by further extending the life of the present Parliament for some additional months. We suggest, following the precedent of the last extension, another eight months—that is to say, the 31st of May, 1917. The second conclusion that follows from what I have stated is that it is clear that provision should also be made in the meantime for bringing into existence some kind of register of a fresher and more representative character than that which now exists, which can be resorted to for the purpose of an election when the extended life of this Parliament—to whatever date this House sees fit to extend it—comes to an end. Provision for the purpose of that register forms no part of the Bill which I am now asking leave to introduce, but would be the subject of another Bill which I hope will be presented at the commencement of business to-morrow.
  4.0 P.M.
  The two matters are so intertwined that I thought it right, in answer to questions and appeals addressed to me last week and the week before in introducing this Bill, though it is not strictly relevant to the purposes of this Bill, to state in short, general summarised form the nature of the proposals which we intend to make in regard to registration. I say at once, and I think that I shall carry with me universal assent on this point, at any rate, that it is not possible in existing conditions to do more than construct in the way of registration a rough and ready makeshift to meet an unprecedented emergency. I need not dwell at any length on the anomalies of the present situation. The register which is now in force, and which, if an election were to take place next month or the month after, would control the qualifications of the electors and describe those who were and those who were not entitled to vote, is a pre-war register. It came into force, as I have said, on the 1st January, 1915, but it embodied qualifications the latest of which must have matured before the beginning of the War—that is to say, in

  1449
  the month of July, 1914. I am therefore accurate in describing it as a pre-war register. What has happened since that register came into force, or at least since it was compiled? The War has caused the greatest displacement of population in our history. Some millions—I am not exaggerating when I say some millions—of our best men are out of the country, fighting abroad in the various theatres in which operations of war are carried on, and they are fighting on land and sea—some in France, some in Egypt, some in Mesopotamia, some in East Africa; there in hardly a quarter of the globe in which they are not to be found.
  But that by no means exhausts the extent of degree of displacement which the War has involved. The country has appealed not only to its sons to join the Army and Navy, but to undertake necessary war work here at home; and we have, in consequence, in our munition factories, and in other forms of war employment, an enormous shifting of population from the homes and districts in which they were domiciled at the commencement of the War, and which, though it may be temporary and transitory and not a regular removal, involves a very large displacement of old lines and old conditions. Everyone must be anxious, and no one is more anxious than I am that, as far as possible, men should not be disfranchised, should not be disqualified from voting because, in this supreme crisis of our history, they have responded to the call of the country, whatever form that call may have taken. I think we are all agreed about that. But when you come to face the problem at close quarters the difficulties and complexities of the practical solution, even of a temporary kind, are almost innumerable. As far as the Government are concerned, I can say for them that they have been devoting for months such time to the consideration of these difficulties as they could spare from more urgent matters connected with the actual daily conduct of the War. The Government resolved to invoke the assistance of the House of Commons, whom the matter more especially concerns than it concerns themselves, and we asked the House to appoint a Select Committee to go into the whole matter. I very much regret—I do not go back upon it—that the House did not see fit to comply with that request, but, for good or bad reasons—I do not want to discuss them—our in-
  1450
  vitation was not accepted, and we had therefore to reconsider the matter for ourselves, and to arrive at such conclusions as we could, and present them, as I do to-day, to the House. That is the starting point—in some ways not the most important point—of the whole matter. We do not propose in the Bill which will be presented to-morrow to ask Parliament to alter the qualifications of the franchise. There is a simple, drastic, and, I might call it, heroic proposal which at first sight appeals to everybody—to enfranchise at Once all our soldiers and sailors who are fighting for their country.
  Mr. W. THORNE: If they are fit to fight they are fit to vote.
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend puts it in a nutshell. The practical difficulties, especially in a measure of that kind, are enormous. There is the question of age. The franchise has never been given to people who are under twenty-one years of age. Are we to take a lower limit? Then there is the question: For what constituency is a man in France, or in Egypt, or in Mesopotamia to vote? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where he was born!" "Where he was registered!"] I am only pointing out the complexities. For what constituency is he to vote, and how is he to give it? Then you cannot differentiate between the soldiers at home and those who are in France, those who are in Egypt, and those who are in still more remote quarters. You cannot differentiate between them; they have all served the country with equal gallantry, and have all shown willingness to serve it. You cannot discriminate—it would not be fair to discriminate—between the men who are abroad and between the men who are for the time being at home as to their title to vote, and the means of giving effect to that title. I need not point out what is obvious from the point of view of the military authorities: There are the gravest difficulties and the most serious objections—
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Is that the opinion of the Secretary of State for War?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am speaking of the opinion of the military authorities. There are the gravest difficulties, the most serious objections, to holding anything in the nature of a General Election outside the United Kingdom among people who are engaged at the front in fighting our battles. I think the common sense of this

  1451
  House and the country will agree with that. That is a contingencey which a responsible Government ought not rashly to face. We, all of us, feel that we should like to do it; there is no difference amongst us in regard to that, and if I raise practical objections it is in no spirit of disparagement, but I want the House to face the situation as it actually is. We all agree that we would like to have it if we could. But that by no means exhausts the difficulties of the case. If you were to create a new, or what I may call a military and naval franchise—that is, that a special right to vote be granted to those gallant men who are serving their country on sea and land in all parts of the world,—you would have to give a voice to all the other men. Take the munition workers. They have left their homes at the invitation of the State in large numbers; they have severed their old family ties and their old residential ties, and have gone into places hitherto unknown to them, and crowded there in enormous numbers, and I do not hesitate to say that, after the appeals addressed to them on behalf of the Government and the State, they are rendering equally important and effective service in the conduct of the War as are our soldiers and sailors.
  And, further, the moment you begin a general enfranchisement on these lines of State service, you are brought face to face with another most formidable proposition: What are you to do with the women? I do not think I shall be suspected—my record in the matter is clear—that I have no special desire or predisposition to bring women within the pale of the franchise, but I have received a great many representations from those who are authorised to speak for them, and I am bound to say that they presented to me not only a reasonable, but, I think, from their point of view, an unanswerable case. They say they are perfectly content, if we do not change the qualification of the franchise, to abide by the existing state of things, but that if we are going to bring in a new class of electors, on whatever ground of State service, they point out—and we cannot possibly deny their claim—that during this War the women of this country have rendered as effective service in the prosecution of the War as any other class of the community. It is true they cannot fight, in the gross material sense of going out with rifles and so forth, but they fill our munition
  1452
  factories, they are doing the work which the men who are fighting had to perform before, they have taken their places, they are the servants of the State, and they have aided, in the most effective way, in the prosecution of the War. What is more, and this is a point which makes a special appeal to me, they say when the War comes to an end, and when these abnormal and, of course, to a large extent transient, conditions have to be revised, and when the process of industrial reconstruction has to be set on foot, have not the women a special claim to be heard on the many questions which will arise directly affecting their interests, and possibly meaning for them large displacements of labour? I cannot think that the House will deny that, and I say quite frankly that I cannot deny that claim. It seems to me, and it seems to all my colleagues—although I do not profess for a moment that we are in agreement on all these points as to whom ought or ought not to be enfranchised—that nothing could be more injurious to the best interests of the country, nothing more damaging to the prosecution of the War, nothing more fatal to the concentration of the national effort, than that the floodgates should be opened on all those vast complicated questions of the franchise, with an infinite multiplicity of claimants, each of whom can make a perfectly plausible if not irresistible case for themselves, and that at this stage of the War that that should be thrown on the floor of the House of Commons, and into the arena of public discussion outside, and that we should be diverted from that which ought to be our supreme and sole purpose to what is practically a review of the whole basis of our electoral constitution.
  It is on those grounds, without prejudging any of these questions, which of these various categories either men or women workers are entitled to the franchise, or ought to be considered as claimants—it is on these grounds that the Government have come to the conclusion that they ought to present to Parliament, for the purpose of framing a register, a Bill that does not in any way modify, either by way of enlargement or contraction, the qualification for the franchise. That is our starting point. At the same time, as I said at the commencement of my remarks, we fully realise that the peculiar conditions of the War have led,

  1453
  without any tampering of the qualifications, to large disqualifications which ought to be put right. What we propose, therefore, is this: First, that there should be no alteration in the franchise itself. Secondly, that provision should be made for the alteration of registration procedure so as to bring into force the new register on the existing basis of qualification by the 31st May next, and for that purpose we propose that the period of qualification should be postponed from the 15th July, as it is at present, to the 1st November, so as to make the register as fresh, actual, and vital as it can be.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the Bill be so drawn as to enable franchise Amendments to be moved?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is not relevant at this moment; and now I come to the point which I was discussing, namely, how we are to deal with the artificial disqualifications which the War has produced among those who have gone out to fight and those who have gone to work in munition factories. To meet that we propose that such provision as is possible should be made for preventing persons who have left their homes for purposes of war work—I will say what I mean by war work in a moment—from being disfranchised. Before I outline these provisions, let me say what we mean by war work—war work undertaken since the 1st October, 1915. We give as wide a definition as possible to that expression. War workers will include not only those who are in the Army and the Navy—it includes them—but persons who, though not in the Army or Navy, are engaged in work such as mine-sweeping, the laying of cables, and other work under the direction of the military or naval authorities. That is the first thing. Secondly, ambulance work. Thirdly, prisoners of war, and interned civilians and soldiers and sailors in hospital or on sick leave. Further, persons who have been compelled to change their homes—I am sorry to say this is not an incidental class—owing to the destruction of their homes by hostile bombardment, or works carried out in home defence; and finally—this is a very large category—persons who have left their homes in order to engage on munitions work elsewhere, munitions work being defined by reference to the interpretation Clause of the Munitions of War Act, 1916. All these classes of persons will be deemed for this purpose to be
  1454
  war workers, persons engaged in war work. What is the provision we propose to make for them? The House is familiar with the very limited provision in that direction made in the early days, I think the first week of the War, by the Electoral Disabilities Removal Act, 1914. We propose to extend the prevention provided by that Act of disqualification attributable to absence on military service of persons in the Army or Navy to war workers. The effect of that will be that where persons have kept their qualifying premises they will not be disqualified owing to want of residence.
  That, however, does not go far enough, as it does not include the great number of those who have given up their qualifying premises in order to be soldiers or sailors, or to take part in munitions or other war work. We therefore propose further that soldiers and sailors and war workers of all classes who are on the existing register shall be placed on the new register whether their qualifying premises are retained or not, and that persons who are in course of qualification, at whatever stage, and however early in the stage of qualification, and whose course of qualification was interrupted, necessarily interrupted, by their leaving home in order to engage in war work, are entitled to be registered as if their course of qualification has continued its normal progress.
  Sir E. CARSON: Will that apply to lodgers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, we take the law as it is—lodgers, occupiers, owners, whatever the particular qualification may be. We take it as it is. The provision, which I think is a wise and excellent one, is that a man who has begun his qualification, however early the stage in that period of qualification may be, and then in responding to the call of his country has left his home and qualifying premises, the course of qualification will be deemed to have attained its normal end, and he will be entitled to be registered.
  An HON. MEMBERmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, no! We take the present qualifications as they are, and make no alteration of any kind. I believe we are told—it is a very speculative and conjectural thing—we are told by

  1455
  the best authorities, by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, who really knows more about it than anybody else, that this will have the effect of preserving the qualifications of a very considerable proportion of our soldiers and sailors and munition workers. It is intended with that object, and, of course, when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill, the House will be able to see how far it is attained, and how far it is possible, consistently with the object and purpose of the Bill, to extend and enlarge it. But that is our purpose; and, given the governing principle with which I started—that you cannot at a time like this, with the Government and Parliament preoccupied as they are, undertake a course of constitutional revision and a general reconsideration of the question of the franchise—we believe that the plan we are now proposing not only proceeds on the lines of least resistance, but offers a very large safeguard against what we should all deprecate, and in the highest degree deplore, the disqualification of those who in any form of war work have responded to the country's call. I must apologise for taking up so much time on what is not really relevant to the Bill I am now discussing, but this Bill I have out lined will be presented to-morrow, and I am going to make a suggestion to the House which I hope—it is very desirable, if we can, that we should agree about these things—may command something like general assent, and that is that when the Bill is presented to-morrow it shall be put down for Second Reading the next day (Wednesday) for this reason: we shall then be able to see, the House having had time to read and consider it, whether or not—and it is practically a one-Clause Bill—one operative Clause—
  Mr. CHURCHILLmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I was coming to the point. We shall then know on the Second Reading of this Bill whether or not it is desirable to make it into what I call a franchise Bill—that is to say, to extend or make admissible other forms of qualification—or whether the House, having regard to the provisions and special necessities of the case, and the urgency of getting a register of some kind in operation at the earliest possible moment, and the supreme importance that the time
  1456
  of Parliament and the Government should not be occupied for months to come, instead of being concentrated on war, in discussion on franchise problems—whether the House will not be ready, however much some of us might have wished to go further in this direction or in that, and willing to take this Bill as it stands, not as a settlement, even a provisional settlement, of questions of franchise, or even of questions of registration, but as an emergency measure designed to supply, if and when the occasion arises, a register upon which a General Election can take place
  Sir F. LOWE: Will the Bill contain any provision for enabling soldiers and others who are still away on active service to record their votes in other ways than by returning home?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, that would open the whole question. My hon. Friend will see how complex and difficult that machinery must be. We tried our very hardest to deal with that problem, but we have found it so far insoluble. What I am going to ask the House now is, first of all, to allow me to introduce this Bill for the prolongation of the life of Parliament, which everybody agrees to be necessary; then to-morrow we will present in the ordinary way a Registration Bill on the lines I have laid down, and on Wednesday, when we come to the Second Reading, we shall see what is the attitude of the House with regard to its enlargement or extension. If the House, on consideration, thinks that this is the best way, without prejudice to other questions, of dealing with the immediate situation, I should not despair of our getting the Bill through all its stages before we adjourn. I shall not press that, but we are all anxious to get away.
  Sir J. SIMON: Is it the intention to get the Registration Bill printed and circulated in the course of to-morrow?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, to introduce it to-morrow in the usual way.
  Sir J. SIMON: Are we to debate the Second Reading before it is printed and circulated?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No; the Second Reading will be on Wednesday. The Bill will, I hope, be in the Vote Office to-morrow. It is a very simple Bill. There is no complexity of any kind about it. I do not think I have kept anything

  1457
  back. The House knows perfectly well now what the Bill will contain and what it will not contain. It will be in the Vote Office to-morrow, and I think we might take the Second Reading discussion on Wednesday. We shall then know what the state of opinion in the House of Commons is, and we shall know whether or not to proceed with it before the Recess, or to hold it over until after the Adjournment. The Bill for the prolongation of the life of Parliament must be passed before the Recess, otherwise this Parliament will come to an end at the end of next month.
  One final word. In my judgment, and I think in that of all my colleagues, although we take very different views—we always have done in the past, and I am sure we hold the same views now—about the suffrage and the conditions on which it ought to be given, we are all agreed upon this—and I hope that the agreement which exists between us will be shared practically by the House of Commons—that this is not a moment, these are not the conditions, in which we can prudently or reasonably undertake the revision of our franchise law. In regard to this registration Bill, if in the judgment of the House it were thought desirable or necessary to extend it so as to cover that larger domain, I can only say that I do not think that my colleagues and myself could possibly give the time to the conduct of such a measure through the House of Commons. We are occupied every day and all the day with the most urgent problems connected with the War. The War has reached a stage now—I think it is a happy, a promising stage—which more than ever requires the absolute concentration of those who are concerned with its daily conduct. If we are to sit in the Cabinet or in Committee discussing differences of opinion amongst ourselves, discussing this or that point in regard to the electoral franchise, and the thousand, or, I might say, ten thousand questions which arise and must arise when you are presenting for the consideration of Parliament anything in the nature of a revision of our franchise law—if we are to do that we must give up altogether our primary duty. I would say the same in regard to the House of Commons. This House has to keep a vigilant regard on the progress of the War. It would be equally bad for the House of Commons as for the Government that we should be plunged at a time like this into this inextricable and interminable tangle of contro-
  1458
  versial matters. Therefore, I venture, not in the name of the Government only, but also in the name of the country, to appeal to the House. I do not pretend that this is a logical or in itself a complete or satisfying measure. It is a measure deliberately adopted for the purpose of meeting a special emergency. I do appeal to the House most strongly, without asking them to-day to come to a definite decision, to look at the matter from that point of view, and to see if we cannot provide a register which, though not perfect, though omitting from its columns and pages many men who well deserve to record their votes in any election that may take place, is yet the best substitute that in the circumstances of the time can be provided. That will leave the Government and the House of Commons free to direct their undivided energies to the supreme purpose which we all have in view.
  Sir E. CARSON: Considering the strong statement of the Prime Minister that nothing but a simple Registration Bill, as he told us, is possible or feasible under existing circumstances, I am more than ever at a loss to know why, in the first place, this Bill has been postponed month after month, and week after week; and I am still more puzzled to know why, if it was impossible to solve the many questions that come up for consideration in relation to the franchise, it was ever proposed, at a time when we ought to be directing our every attention to the War, to appoint a Committee of this House to solve those questions which the Prime Minister has told us to-day ought not to be solved, or attempted to be solved at the present time. But I pass that by for the moment. I shall consider that question when I speak about the register. The Bill before the House at the present moment is simply one for the extension of the life of this Parliament. I am afraid there is no alternative open to us but to extend our own life at the present time. An election without a register would be a farce, and the postponement of the new register by the Government up to the present day has rendered it impossible for us to take any other course than to extend the life of the present Parliament. Not that I am saying that even if we had a register it would necessarily follow that there ought to be an election. My own view is the other way at the present moment. But I am perfectly certain that we ought always to be ready with a register if the occasion should arise on which an election might

  1459
  take place. This would be, in my opinion, an extremly unfortunate time to have an election. The War is advancing, I am glad to say, with great vigour, and I am sure that whatever was the condition of feeling when the last Bill of this character was introduced, we all now see a great deal more daylight over the European Contiment that we did at that time. It certainly is not a time to interrupt our war measures by any appeal to the country, or by any dissipation of our forces in the country in considering political questions. But I think the Government are asking too much in asking us to give them eight months. I see no necessity for it. The next eight months may be fraught with questions of vast importance to the whole body politic. All the questions may arise during those eight months which will affect the lives and interests of the entire community for ages to come. This is not the time to elaborate that, but I hope my right hon. Friend will not lay clown that period of eight months as a matter to which the Government absolutely adhere, but that it will be open to argument either on the Second Reading or the Committee stage of the Bill.
  I come to the question of the register. This particular form of register was promised us as far back as December, 1915, when my right hon. Friend the ex-Home Secretary was introducing the measure of that year for prolonging the life of the present Parliament. I really fail to understand what it is has compelled the Government to keep back this Bill until the last stages of the Session, or the last few days before the Adjournment. Upon the very face of the last Parliament Bill it was undertaken to prepare a special register. That was in January last, and all that we have had from that day to this have been vague promises to bring in some register. And now comes a register—I think an important register. I think everybody in the House and in the country will agree it would be a monstrous thing that men who had gone to serve in the War, or who had moved about in this country for the purposes of carrying on the War, were to lose their qualification for voting by reason of their performing their great public and patriotic duty. But I doubt very much whether the more general proposal to which I will refer, and which has been strenuously argued against by the Prime Minister, would have created anything
  1460
  much more difficult in making a register than what the Prime Minister himself is proposing. The difficulties in carrying out the present Bill will be enormous. As I understand the Prime Minister, you are going to put upon the register every soldier or sailor serving abroad who has left his residence from which he took his qualifications, and every lodger who was on the way to have a lodger qualification by having taken a lodging even for a limited time. How are you going to trace these people? There is no more difficulty in enfranchising soldiers and sailors than there is in doing the very thing that you say you are going to do in this Bill—none whatever! I understood the Prime Minister to say that he was going to guard the rights of prisoners. I think he is quite right to do that. But is there anything more difficult in enfranchising soldiers and sailors than in guarding the rights of prisoners? The right hon. Gentleman says that the soldiers and sailors, if they were enfranchised, cannot vote. The same objection applies to those people whose qualifications you are now retaining, if you leave the Bill in its present form and do not make an effort to enable them to vote. But he is also going to guard the rights of interned subjects. I do not know what he means by that. Does he mean that men in internment here because they are a danger to the State are to have their votes preserved?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, no; interned in Germany!
  Sir E. CARSON: Oh, interned in Germany! I quite agree. But that adds again to my argument. How is it any more difficult to get your soldiers and sailors to vote than to get the interned men in Germany to vote? There is no greater difficulty at all. I am bound to say that I think we are doing a grave injustice to the soldiers and sailors serving in this War in refusing, even in the middle of a war, to consider whether or not they ought to have the franchise.
  Sir C. HENRY: Does the right hon. Gentleman refer to all ages?
  Sir E. CARSON: Certainly. I refer to all ages. If a man is good enough to fight for you, he is good enough to vote for you. Let me say this—you may or may not agree—I say that as regards these various classes of voters who are held up, as against this proposition, as a bogey to try and prevent us putting forward this claim

  1461
  on behalf of the soldiers and sailors, that you can draw no comparison between any person claiming the franchise and the man who is risking his life and health in the trenches, and who is daily rendering himself liable to be shot on behalf of this country. I do not believe there is any comparison between that and, say, the women's franchise question. The question of whether females should or should not be enfranchised is a question apart; it has nothing to do with this question, nothing whatever.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): Why not?
  Sir E. CARSON: Because men have been enfranchised according to law and women have not.
  Sir S. COLLINS: What about the—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can put his point afterwards. Hon. Members are not entitled to put their points in the middle of a case which is being made against them. They must wait until they have heard the case.
  Sir E. CARSON: The Noble Lord opposite gets very excited about the women's question, because he has bound himself by a pledge; but I am entitled to assert my proposition. I say that the men who, either voluntarily or through the laws of this country, are ordered out to present themselves to be shot, and suffer what they do suffer in war, have a claim paramount above everybody. What I should like to show further is that we are not, in relation to these men, basing it at all upon anything like a property or residential qualification, but simply and solely upon the fact that they are the men who are preserving the lives and property of the people of this country.
  Mr. W. THORNE: One gun, one vote!
  Sir E. CARSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister says that if you raise the question of the soldiers and sailors you will have necessarily to raise the other question. I do not agree with him. It only shows either that the Cabinet do not approve of this system of enfranchising soldiers and sailors or that they are disagreed. I suspect they are disagreed, and, therefore, they do not bring it forward. But if anybody tells me that you are forwarding the cause of the women
  1462
  —to whom we would all wish to pay a tribute for the work they have done and the splendid patriotism they have shown in the course of this War—if anybody will tell me that you are forwarding their cause by suggesting that they are coming forward and saying, "We will not allow the sailors and soldiers who are fighting for us to be enfranchised because we cannot be considered at the same time," I say that they are putting a bar to their own cause which they will find will have a considerable influence upon the question. The Prime Minister, as I understand, put forward tentatively this kind of offer. He says, "We will bring in this Registration Bill to-morrow, and we will put it down for Second Reading the next day." That I quite assent to as a reasonable thing to do. But then the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand him, says, "If you wish to take the Bill as it is, well, then, you can have it before the Recess; if you do not, it must go over." That is a matter upon which I should be sorry at the moment to express any particular view. My own inclination—though I do not like to put forward my own view as of any real value in the matter—would be to push the claim of the soldiers and sailors. At the same time I can see that we are arriving at a very critical stage in the War, a stage in which we may, and I hope can, anticipate happy developments—in some respects, at all events, even in the near future. And I am certainly very anxious to get the register. I am very anxious, should these circumstances arise, that the whole weight of the country, so far as it can be represented, should be represented upon the register; that the whole weight of the country should be behind us, and should have the power of expressing itself when we come to deal with future and difficult matters which are to be the result of the War. I do not know why my right hon. Friend says that the register has only to come into force in May. Surely he does not anticipate that if we get the Bill through before the Recess that it will take till May to carry out the framing of the register in the form in which he puts it. I should have thought that was unreasonable.
  The PRIME MINISTER: If we get the Bill now it is another matter.
  Sir E. CARSON: I should have thought that the moment the register was prepared it ought to come into force, whether

  1463
  for by-elections or any other. It is impossible, I think, to say more until one sees the Bill and until one has considered the offer that is put forward by the Prime Minister. But I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this—because it enables one to come to a conclusion in the understanding of the matter—if the Registration Bill is left over till after the Recess will it be taken immediately after the Recess?
  The PRIME MINISTERnodded assent.
  Sir E. CARSON: If we get the Second Reading on Wednesday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Subject, of course, to war exigencies.
  Sir E. CARSON: Then we will wait and see—at all events, so far as I am concerned. [Laughter.] I shall wait and see the Bill. I am quoting a very great man, and I do not see why it should cause amusement in the House. Above all things, I believe that the country desires to have the register as full as possible and as soon as possible. I believe, at the same time, it will cause great disappointment that now, at what I may call the eleventh hour, we are informed by the Government that the position of soldiers and sailors cannot be taken into consideration. We in this House ought to express an opinion upon that matter, but it is one which must wait for further consideration. For my own part, I doubt very much whether it would be any use trying to obtain a vote in this House upon that point before the Recess. The House is a very thin House. There are very few Members at present in attendance. Above all, I think it will be necessary in a matter of the kind to have back in the House the Members of Parliament who are serving in the Army and Navy. When we see the Bill, and when we have considered the matter further, the House, I have no doubt, will show whether they will have the register before the Recess or will later raise the bigger question.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. WARDLE: I desire to say only a very few words on the present occasion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has raised the larger question of the franchise in connection with this Bill. I am afraid if he proceeds with the point he has raised
  1464
  in regard to the soldiers and sailors he is bound to raise the whole question of the franchise in every shape and form. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will, no doubt, remember that on the last occasion when this matter was before the House I, to some extent, supported his point of view. I was sanguine enough to think that this old question of the franchise might have been settled by agreement amongst all classes and all parties. This is a time of national crisis. But there seems to be no disposition and no possibility of such agreement. Therefore, we are driven, in my view, to the question of taking the register largely and almost entirely upon the question of the old qualifications. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a little too sanguine about the speed with which even the present proposed register can be got together, printed, and brought into operation. On the last occasion I pointed out that there were very many questions in regard to this register of very great difficulty. There was the question of labour. There was the question of paper. There is the question of getting the facts and knowledge together. The present proposed register, in my opinion, will in itself be an extremely complicated proceeding, and very, very difficult to bring into operation. For that reason, I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not asking too much if he wants to cut down the time during which it might be prepared. I am quite sure that immediately it can be prepared and put into operation it ought to come into operation, however soon or however late that may be. I only desire to say, as one who has supported, and still supports, every extension of the franchise in the direction both of adult males and females, that I am very sorry, indeed, we cannot get a settlement of this whole question at the moment, but I think it would be folly on the part of this House to plunge the country into a controversy of which no one could see the end unless there was some disposition on the part of all parties to come to an agreement at the outset.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Prime Minister, Mr. Long, Sir George Cave, and Mr. Hayes Fisher. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed [Bill 90.]

  SPECIAL COMMISSIONS.
    DARDANELLES AND MESOPOTAMIA BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, agreed to.

    SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL [Lords]— [Progress, 26th July.]
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 4.—(Powers of Management of Land Acquired.)
    The Board shall, in relation to any land acquired by them under this Act or under Part I. of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, whether acquired before or after the passing of this Act, have power—

    (a) to let or manage the land or improve the same by the erection of buildings or otherwise;

    (b) to enfranchise the land, and to purchase or redeem any land tax, quit rent, chief rent, tithe rent-charge, or other rent-charge or any perpetual sum issuing out of the land;

    (c) subject to compliance with any conditions prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury, or with the consent of the Treasury, to sell or exchange the land.

    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (c), to add the words "and so that the purchase money on the sale of a small holding to a person willing himself to cultivate the holding may be made payable in periodical instalments or otherwise as the Treasury may direct.
    (2) Where a small holding is sold by the Board under this Act the provisions of Section twelve of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, relating to a small holding sold by a county council under that Act shall apply as if herein re-enacted with the necessary adaptations."
    The Amendment is in two parts. The first is put down in order, if possible, to meet a point that was made on Second Reading by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. J. Collings), so as to make it clear that there are the two options in the method of sale to the small holder. I made that clear in the Clause, but this makes it clearer.
    1466
    The second part of the Amndment is to make the conditions of sale under this Bill the same as the provisions of sale under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act. That also was raised on Second Reading, and it is made clearer by inserting it here.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Postponement of Exercise of Powers.)
    The powers conferred on the Board by this Act shall not be exercised unless and until provision is made by Parliament for defraying the expenses incurred by the Board in the exercise of such powers.
    Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    I shall have to move as a new Clause the methods by which the financial provisions shall be made by Parliament, and it is, therefore, necessary to leave out this Clause, which is of a formal character coming from another place, in order that I may move the new Clause dealing with the financial provisions when we come to it.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Application to Scotland.)
    This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:

    (a) The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Board of Agriculture and fisheries, "arbiter" shall be substituted for "arbitrator," "the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908," shall be substituted for "the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908," "easements" mean servitudes, and "small holding" means a small holding as defined in Section thirty-three of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911:

    (b) Paragraph (b) of Section four and Sections six and eight of this Act shall not apply:

    (c) Section one shall be read and construed as if two thousand acres were substituted for six thousand acre's.

    Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, in paragraph (a) after "1908" ["the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908"], to insert the words "the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund

    1467
    shall be substituted for the Small Holdings Account."
    This is formal. The Clause applies the Act to Scotland subject to certain modifications. The Amendment I move works in with the financial Clause which I hope to have the pleasure of moving in a few-moments. It simply provides, in its right place on what fund the expenses of the Bill shall fall in connection with Scotland.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MORTON: I beg to move, in paragraph (c) to omit the word "two" ["as if two thousand acres"], and insert instead the word "twenty."
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member's Amendment really goes too far beyond what the House understood on Second Reading. Perhaps he would be willing to propose some smaller figure than twenty for the purpose of his argument, and bring it within the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. MORTON: My difficulty is this. I tried to deal with this question on an Amendment to Clause 2,I think, and I was told then I should be out of order, but that I should be in order in discussing it on Clause 10.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am not ruling the hon. Member out of order if he moves a smaller number, but it seems to me that it goes too far beyond the intention of the House on Second Reading to substitute "twenty" for "two." I think the hon. Member had better take another figure—either five, seven or eight.
    Mr. MORTON: I will move to insert the word "seven." It appears a very small thing to offer the whole of Scotland—only 2,000 acres to be dealt with in this way. The other evening the Committee decided that Wales should have 2,000 acres, and, so far as I know, that stands good. I do not object to giving 2,000 acres or more to Wales, but if Wales is entitled to 2,000 acres, surely Scotland is entitled to more. In the minds of most of us the proposal in the Bill is so small that it will do little good, but we are trying to make it better by increasing the number of acres to be dealt with. It would not necessarily follow that the Government should deal with as many acres as are put in the Bill, but it would have power to go to that number if necessary. I am afraid that in any case the Bill will not do much good. It does not propose enough to deal with the ques-
    1468
    tions that have to be met when the soldiers return from the battlefield. I hope, therefore, the Committee will agree to allow Scotland to have a little more than 2,000 acres. The Scottish people are most anxious to see this question settled in the interest of the people, and to give an opportunity to some of those who have fought for us, and fortunately been able to return, an opportunity of getting a living.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am afraid that the only possible reply I can make is that after again referring this matter to the Government, and having it discussed in the Cabinet after the views expressed by hon. Members and others on the Second Reading, they came to the conclusion that it was not possible to extend the scope of the Bill or the area of land to be taken beyond what was then included in the Bill. The Committee decided to leave the number of acres in England and Wales at a total of 6,000, and I am afraid the same position would apply to the acreage obtained in Scotland. I am not authorised to accept any Amendments increasing the acreage to be acquired, and therefore the expense of acquisition. This money is to be provided during the War, and we are hoping very soon to acquire land and to set people upon it in England. I have no doubt Scotland is as anxious to do its best as England, but it has been decided that the limitation of the money provided for this purpose must be as it was settled when the Bill was introduced. In my opinion the more the number of nourishing colonies of this kind that could be established the better I should be pleased, but we must have some regard to the use of the national purse for this purpose during the continuation of the War.
    Mr. MORTON: What about Wales?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not certain whether in Committee any alteration has been made with regard to the total number of acres. I do not think there has been any such alteration, and, if that is so, may I call attention to Clause 1, Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), which provides that:
    "The total area of the land for the time being acquired by the Board for the purposes of this Section shall not at any time exceed six thousand acres."
    Now if the Committee have already agreed that, the total shall not exceed 6,000 acres, how can we now, in dealing

    1469
    only with Scotland, move an Amendment providing 7,000 acres for Scotland when the Committee has already agreed that not more than 6,000 acres shall be provided
    Captain C. BATHURST: May I explain to the right hon. Baronet that the 6,000 acres only applies to England and Wales, and it has no reference to the aggregate number?
    The CHAIRMAN: This is a point which has caused a little difficulty. Clause 1 says, "The total area shall not exceed six thousand acres."
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: At any one time?
    The CHAIRMAN: Clause 10, which applies the Bill to Scotland, provides in paragraph (c) that
    "Section one shall be read and construed as if two thousand acres were substituted for six thousand acres."
    I would like to know if those 2,000 acres are in addition to the 6,000?
    Mr. ACLAND: This question was fully discussed when the Bill was being drafted. The idea was that if Clause 10 were to be left out, the Bill would only apply to England and Wales. Then comes Clause 10, which applies the Bill to Scotland, and when you come to the question of the area which is to apply to Scotland, instead of taking 6,000 acres, as you do in the case of England and Wales, you take the 2,000 acres, which was considered the right area in proportion. Therefore, the 2,000 acres for Scotland is additional to the 6,000 for England and Wales.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I think we ought to have more than 2,000 acres for Scotland, because the conditions are so very much different to what they are in England. In Scotland very much more land is necessary for economic cultivation, because you must have associated with every holding a certain amount of pasture, and you must have also a certain amount of rough grazing land. If you are going to include this rough ground in the 2,000 acres, the proportion suggested for Scotland would only provide for about ten people, and certainly not more than twenty people. The average acreage in Scotland is 188 per holding, and, consequently, 2,000 acres will be a very inadequate amount to make any experiment at all. The Departmental Committee, whose Report is the basis of this Bill, pointed out that when they suggested the acreage for a colony for mixed
    1470
    farming they did not intend to include any rough grazing pasture. If we now put in a limit of 2,000 acres as a limit for Scotland that will have to include pasture and rough grazing, and if that is so it would not provide one experiment of any value whatever in Scotland. I shall be very glad to support my hon. Friend's Amendment, leaving out "two" and inserting "seven," because that would give us a chance of having two colonies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will explain this point to those who are fixing this hard and fast line against any extension of this measure If he can say that this 2,000 acres will mean arable hind and not pasture, plus common grazing land, then it might be more acceptable.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It seems to me rather extraordinary that while Wales is going to get 2,000 acres, Scotland is only going to get a similar amount, because Scotland has done far more than any other country in the United Kingdom in support of the War. The number of small-holding communities of late years has been enormously increased, and when we are asked in a Bill of this sort, which obviously is intended to give some means of subsistence upon the land for trained men after the War, to accept this miserable 2,000 acres it seems quite impossible. I can quite realise that my right hon. Friend is compelled to limit the amount to 2,000 acres, but I would ask him to promise to reconsider this Amendment. I think a very good point has been made by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno), when he said that in Scotland the land is quite different from the fertile land of England, and if this 2,000 acres is to include, as I understand it must, all sorts of pasture, barren land, and moorland, the amount becomes quite insignificant. I would press my right hon. Friend to reconsider this proposal and see whether we cannot get our fair proportion of this State land in view of the fact that we have made far more sacrifices than Wales in the present time of crisis.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I do not wish to take up a strong line as to whether Scotland should have more than 2,000 acres or not, but I wish to ask a question about the drafting of this measure. This Amendment raises the question as to whether the 2,000 acres for Scotland is or is not in addition to the beggarly 4,000 acres suggested for England and Wales. Clearly

    1471
    Clause 1 must apply to Scotland. If you look at the end of the Bill, you see the last Clause provides:
    "This Act shall not extend to Ireland."
    When you come to Clause 10, instead of proceeding in the usual way by saying that in the application of this Act to Scotland there shall be 2,000 acres appropriated for Scotland, the Clause says:
    "This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications,"
    and one of those modifications is
    "Section one shall be read and construed as if 2,000 acres were substituted for 6,000 acres."
    I should like to know if the 2,000 acres are really additional to the 6,000 acres. If it is not, then the deduction only leaves 4,000 acres.
    Mr. ACLAND: The right hon. Gentleman could not have been present just now when I made that point perfectly clear. If there is any doubt about this point it must be put right. I have already stated that it was intended that 6,000 acres should be set apart for England and Wales and 2,000 acres for Scotland, making 8,000 acres altogether.
    Captain BATHURST: I think this matter can be made perfectly clear by putting emphasis on the word "Board" in Clause 1. The Board referred to is clearly the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and the total amount of land which may be acquired for the time being by that Board is 6,000 acres. Clause 10 relates to a different authority altogether, namely, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Clause states as regards that authority the area of 2,000 acres shall be substituted for 6,000 acres. I think that explains the whole matter.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: It seems to me that hon. Members are always ready to support every sectional attempt from Ireland or Wales or Scotland, and no one ever represents the English taxpayer, except perhaps myself and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). Everybody who has spoken about this Bill remarks what a little Bill it is. It is only 6,000 acres for England, Scotland, and Wales, and now there are 2,000 extra for Scotland. It is not the acreage that is of the slightest importance to us. What is of importance
    1472
    to us is how much it is going xo cost, and how much is coming out of our pockets for Wales and Scotland. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) says that he wants more than 2,000 acres, and that it is not fair that you should decide between England, Scotland, and Wales, on an acreage basis. The question is, what proportion of the money to be voted by Parliament should be allotted to the three countries? From that point of view, I sympathise to a certain extent with Scottish Members, but at the same time unless we English Members take up a firm attitude and say that the English taxpayers are not going to be robbed indefinitely—
    Mr. MOLTENO: You are not being robbed!
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Yes we are, because this is for the benefit of the landowners!
    Mr. MOLTENO: You will probably get it for nothing!
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps hon. Members will be good eonugh to address me.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: If this land in Scotland is being given for nothing, then these 2,000 acres are additional, and that is all the more reason why this Amendment should not be pressed; or, if it is pressed, why it should be resisted. There were 12,000 acres given the other day by the Duke of Sutherland. That is probably in addition to these 7,000 acres. Yet the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. Morton), not content with these 12,000 acres, is asking for 7,000 acres more at the expense of the English taxpayer. I resent this grasping spirit on the part of Scottish Members. I am perfectly acquainted with the case that they make, but it is always possible to put up an extra case why one's own particular district should have more than another district. In this case, I hope the Board of Agriculture will stand firm, and resist this pressure for the wasteful expenditure of public money.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: I would like to remind the Committee that in these international matters Scottish and Irish questions, as a rule, are better understood by Scotsmen and Irishmen, and if hon. Members can master that fact perhaps they will wait before suggesting that a small Bill of this kind is to be used as a means of getting money out of the English taxpayer. We do not want to do that in any way whatever. We only want to give my right

    1473
    hon. Friend who represents the Board of Agriculture every facility for dealing with these demands in a fair and reasonable way. I would like to impress upon my hon. Friend (Commander Wedgwood) that the Scotsmen who are fighting for us are doing extraordinarily well, and to ask him if he is really going to deny them the opportunity of settling on the land when the War is over. Knowing the hon. Member as I do, I am quite certain that we shall not hear that argument from him again. Knowing the value of the Scottish soldier, and especially of the Highland soldier, does he mean to say that it would not be a good thing if we could have more of them The only way to have more of them is to have a larger population on the land than we have to-day. The hon. Member sympathises with me as much as anybody else. This is a very small thing, and for goodness sake let us be allowed to try the experiment of making it easier for men to settle on the land and so increase the production of the land and the population on the land, and maintain the British Empire.
    The amount of land which it is proposed to take for Scotland is 2,000 acres, the size of an ordinary farm. Practically, every Scottish farm includes a large proportion of hill land which is used for grazing. You must deal with the grazing land at the same time as you deal with the arable land, and, if my right hon. Friend does not know how to deal with the grazing land, I will tell him. We are told that we are short of timber to-day, and shall be shorter next week, and it is a great question whether we shall be able in the future to rely upon the same supplies from other countries as we are getting to-day. Afforestation is one of the great questions which he has got to consider. If he is going to take over an ordinary farm in Scotland it very frequently includes a quantity of hill land, and he will have to decide whit to do with it. The smallholders will be able to use a portion of it for mountain grazing, but the rest of it will have to be planted, and I warn my right hon. Friend that he is on the threshold of a great question. Of course, I quite understand it is alleged that this may be made use of by landowners to get rid of unsaleable property, but that is not the case at all. We have had this gift from one of the largest landowners in Scotland. Everybody hopes it will result in a successful experiment on a much larger scale than the Government are now proposing, and I would suggest
    1474
    that it would be a good thing if the Board of Agriculture in Scotland were empowered to send out a circular to every landowner in Scotland, ascertaining what land they can offer to the Government for the purposes of this experiment, and, if the experiment is successful, for the purpose of dealing with the subject on a wholesale scale. I would like to say why the present Small Holdings Act has proved a failure. Unfortunately, this principle has been accepted by all concerned. Assuming the creation of small holdings is a damage to the rest of the property, that is a claim on behalf of the present proprietors against the Government.
    The CHAIRMAN: That really does not arise on this Amendment, and we cannot have a general discussion on the land question.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is it not in order to discuss the operation of the present Small Holdings Act in Scotland in order to show that this proposal would be valueless in Scotland?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is certainly not in order to enter upon a general discussion of the previous Act of Parliament. The question here is whether 2,000 or 7,000 acres are to be allotted to Scotland.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: I shall certainly bow to your ruling, but I venture most respectfully to point out that the difficulty in the way of the present Act is one which will stand in the way of all legislation of the same kind. I can only say that I think all landowners at the present moment would be quite willing to act on the same lines as the duke and to make the experiment which the Government proposes as easy as possible. I sincerely hope that the Government will see their way not only to increase the amount of land, but to increase the powers of the Board of Agriculture to turn whatever land they may secure to the best possible advantage.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid that I do not quite understand the argument of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I understood him to say that the present Small Holdings Act in Scotland was not going to work, and that unless something was done which was not proposed to be done by the Government the same objection would apply to the present Bill. Under those circumstances, it is evident it is no use extending the 2,000 acres, and what ought to be done is to omit the

    1475
    Clause altogether. Apparently, according to the hon. Gentleman, who is a great authority on Scottish matters, this sort of thing is not successful in Scotland. I hope that the Government are going to stand firm by their original proposal. The whole thing is an experiment, and I think it will be disastrous. I do not think we ought to increase the amount of land until we have found out whether the experiment is going to be successful or not. It would be perfectly easy, after the Bill had been tried, to bring in an amending Bill increasing the amount of land to be given to Scotland. It has been stated that land in Scotland is different from land in England. It is in parts of Scotland, but not in all parts of Scotland. The lowlands are pretty much the same. In some places it is rather better land; the soil is better, and it yields better crops. According to the present proposal, Wales is to get 2,000 acres, England 4,000, and Scotland 7,000. Why on earth is Scotland to get more than England?
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Because their landowners are more grasping.
    Mr. MOLTENO: It is necessary for the success of the experiment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Personally, I do not think you are going to have any successful experiment in the deer forests near Athol. These things can only be possible in, shall I say, a more habitable climate. But in any case this is an experiment, and I really cannot see why the whole size of the experiment should be altered, by giving to Scotland a larger amount than, nearly double, that given to England. An hon. and gallant Member opposite ventured to say something about economy. I really think that sometimes we ought to think about economy. The Chancellor told us a short time ago that the National Debt would amount to £3,440,000,000 at the end of next March. I really think that in those circumstances we ought to go on a little more quietly, and not be so anxious to spend money. I can understand the attitude of Scottish Members, because the bulk of this comes to England, but at the present time a very large sum of money has to be found in England, and I hope the Government will go a little easy for the moment, and will not accede to the Amendment.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I should like to ask the Lord Advocate to explain to the Com-
    1476
    mittee what the plans of the Government are with regard to Scotland under this Bill. I think everything depends upon that. A number of my Friends view all experiments of this kind with a good deal of misgiving, not because we do not desire, like the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Ainsworth), to find occupation on the land for returned soldiers who desire it, but because we do not think this is the best method of approaching that question. We have, to some extent, been reconciled to allowing this experiment in England to go on without opposition because we have been informed that no land is to be purchased, that the land is to be hired, and that landowners in England have come forward and have offered land on extremely favourable terms. I believe that in some cases they have given it, but in any case it has been offered on extremely favourable terms. But the Government have in mind the places and counties in England where these colonies are to be set up, and it is because the experiment is a restricted and definite experiment that we are not opposing it strongly. I should like to be informed whether the Government have similar plans with regard to Scotland, and, if so, where are they? Unless that question is answered it is utterly impossible for the Committee to divide on this question. The remarks of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno) are extremely pertinent to this matter. If it is intended to set up only one colony in Scotland, and I presume it is to be only one, I should like information as to that.
    I know my hon. Friend desires to have as many acres as the Government will give him, but no one knows better than he does that it depends entirely upon the part of Scotland in which this colony is to be set up as to whether 2,000 or 7,000 acres is the appropriate acreage available. If you are to have the fertile lands in the Lowlands you want a scheme comparable to the experiment in England, and if that experiment is to be restricted no doubt it would be fair to say that 2,000 acres in the Lowlands would be comparable to 2,000 acres in the area which the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Bathurst) is going to endeavour to supervise in England. If you are going to have your colony, and it is to be an experiment that will be at all useful, in the proximity of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, or Aberdeen, with intensive culture with the object of ascertaining what can be done in the

    1477
    direction of market gardening, then I imagine it would not be said that 2,000 acres are not insufficient in comparison with England. If you are to go to Sutherland, to experiment in the Highlands, and if you are going to try there to take in land now used for deer, and to endeavour to make it useful for sheep, of course that is impossible. I do, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentlemen who represent the Government to be frank with the House. Let them tell us whether they have considered this question at all. Have they made plans with regard to Scotland; if so, what are those plans? Are there to be one, two, or three colonies, and have they to be set up in the Lowlands or in the Highlands? If we receive answers to these questions, we shall be able to vote with intelligence, but, if not, it will be utterly impossible for the Committee to realise when they go into the Division Lobby what is really the question upon which the Division takes place.
    Colonel GREIG: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has touched the spot, while an hon. Gentleman who spoke a few minutes ago protested against the number of acres allotted to Scotland being more than 2,000. I presume the amount of 6,000 allotted to England and Wales is really based on some estimate of cost. That estimate of cost naturally in England or in Wales would probably amount to a considerable sum. If we are to come to questions of cost, surely in Scotland we are entitled not to be judged by the number of acres, but by the estimate of the cost. As the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down indicated, if you acquire land in the Highlands, where very largely these colonies may be of use, the amount of money necessary to buy, or to acquire by lease or otherwise, the 6,000 acres in England and Wales would acquire at least 7,000 acres in Scotland—[An HON. MF.MHER: "Twenty thousand!"]—and probably 20,000 acres. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) says that this is a small Bill, but that it contains a germ of much future legislation, if it is allowed to go on. With his usual attitude against all legislation, or any new ideas whatever, he wants to limit it. Let me tell him that we do not regard this as a very fertile experiment, but that we do regard it as a germ, and if it is going to have any considerable consequences in Scotland—whether it wall have the same in England we do not know—but in Scotland I am perfectly certain
    1478
    I am speaking for the bulk, if not for the whole, of Scottish Members when I say that we are determined that the returning soldiers and sailors from the front shall have their share of the land in Scotland in the future; and, that secondly, we will not confine it to them alone. There are many working at home to-day who have been doing their share in the War, and we want to see an agricultural population planted on the land in Scotland again. That is what we are out for. We do not support this Bill because we think it will ameliorate conditions as we would wish it to do, but because we see a gleam of hope for the future, some avenue by which we may add to the Act, which I do not think has been a failure, because it has established security of tenure at a fair rent—I refer to the Small Landholders Act, the only defect regarding which seems to some of us to be the amount of compensation, which is paid unfairly and inadequately. I ask the Government to reconsider this from the point of view of cost, and to see that in Scotland we shall have the 7,000 acres asked for in this Amendment, as against the 6,000 in England and Wales.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): I hope I shall never be found lacking in support of my Scottish colleagues whenever they put forward any reasonable demand that can be conceded, but I am afraid that the answer to be made to this Amendment is to be found in what my hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) said when he told the Committee that his hands are tied. So are mine. It is quite impossible, therefore, I am afraid, to accept the Amendment which has been moved. We have certain consolation, however, even if that Amendment is not accepted. In the first place, I think it is relevant to remember that this Bill, as has been pointed out, is in the nature of an experiment. If it succeeds, then the demand for widening the area which is to be the subject of experiment can be much more effectively, urgently, and cogently made after it has been demonstrated that the experiment is successful. Apart from that, honestly I do not think we fare so very badly compared with our English friends on this side of the Border. The share of England is 4,000 acres, as I understand the present situation. We get 2,000 acres in Scotland. I do not at all forget the question of cost, but so far as the extent or area is concerned, we get half the area they

    1479
    get on this side of the Border, and that for a population which, if I remember aright, is something like one-seventh. That is, primâ facie, not a very bad bargain so far as this experimental Bill is concerned, and when we further remember that we have the very great advantage of having recently secured the most munificent gift in Scotland made by the Duke of Sutherland for purposes germane to the purposes of this Bill, I think we shall agree that the situation after this Bill has become law will not be at all a bad situation as compared with that in England.
    With regard to the locality of the land, and the persons who are to be placed on it, I apprehend that these matters will be decided by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, and I rather think that that Board would be very much better able to select the proper area and the proper persons to place on the land than anyone else, because their familiarity with the surroundings and the conditions will no doubt be useful when dealing with what, after all, is a purely administrative matter. While I should be very happy, therefore, if the area allotted were larger, nevertheless in the circumstances in which the Committee find themselves I am afraid the Government will have no option but to refuse to accept the Amendment which has been moved.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. WILKIE: I simply desire in a word to support my hon. Friend's Amendment. I have more than once pointed out to the House that by Nature's Law designed Scotland is the northern part of this island. We have suffered in the past, and we suffer now, and if we adopt the policy of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) we are killing the experiment before it starts, by its insufficiency. It becomes a complete farce at the start, to make, especially in Scotland, such a proposal on such a small number of acres. The Committee ought to remember that Scotland has suffered bitterly in the past through its land laws, and the sooner they are altered, either by this or any other means, the better it will be for the Island as a whole. As other speakers have said, we have sent from Scotland, in proportion to our population, more men to defend the Empire than any other part of it. I think, as has been said to-day, that if they are fit to fight they are fit to vote. If they are fit to fight for their land they are en-
    1480
    titled to have their share of it. It ought to be seen to that they get a fairer chance in the future than ever they have had in the past. I am neither a landlord nor an expert on these questions like the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Raffan). I hope that some of his questions will be answered. Notwithstanding the poor consolation we received from the Lord Advocate, we know he is really with us, but that he is tied up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That being so, I would urge the: Government even yet to reconsider the matter in the best interests of the whole country.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I am much impressed by the speech made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan). I think he struck the right note. We have got land in Scotland of varying productivity. The question of acreage is not nearly so important as the question of the quality of the land. I agree with what has been said about this Bill being a farce. It seems to me to be a sorry farce and worse, because it is mocking at the interests of gallant men. We are told that this is an experiment. If that is so, we ought to have a definite principle of action and should not in an important matter like this-go forward by a process of fumbling experimentation from one blunder to another. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greig) said that he saw a gleam of hope for Scotland in this Bill. If there is a gleam, I cannot sec more than a distant shadow of it. As regards previous Scottish legislation, about which he said the one defect had been that we were burdened by excessive compensation for matters where no compensation should have been given, I agree that that is a defect, but not the only defect of past Scottish legislation. The defects have been much wider. If you go back over the various Land Acts you find the same defects that you find in this Bill. What we have been doing in Scotland is this: We have been wondering where we could find land for the people who have been unjustly kept from the land. What did we do? Instead of trying, to get the best land, which is now being improperly used, and forcing it into use, we go and buy the very worst land. We go to the remote deer forests and purchase land in unfertile little places and settle men where they are just able to live. That has been the principle of the settlement of the people on the land in Scotland. We have been trying to plant

    1481
    them on land so unfertile and in such remote places that they could not possibly yield a decent return under modern conditions. Not only that, but in order to do it we first let it at a rent. I know you may say that the rent is small, but you must consider the quality of the land. If you consider the rent that is taken as compared with the rental at which it was rated before it was taken, you find that the price is far too high. In order to start the man on the land you need to embark capital here and there, to build houses, to put up fences, and to bring various things into order. All that means great expenditure of public money. If you look at it from the point of view of a business transaction—mind you, that is the true basis of action—you cannot say that these settlements of the people on the land have failed. I do not believe that there is a single private capitalist in this House or elsewhere who would put his money out on that basis. I want the Committee to see the result in Scotland of the development of this sort of thing. The Lord Advocate has said that if this is a success it will be extended. I should like to know what is the test of success.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: The price paid for the land.
    Mr. WHITE: Is the test to be that the men settled on the land can develop it, or is it to be that the thing is really a commercial success? If it is not a commercial success, the more you extend on that system the more you will have taken from the taxpayers, the more you will have given to the landlord, and the more you will have given to maintain agriculture which ought to maintain the people. What you ought to do in Scotland is to pursue a very different path. You ought to see what is the best land which is not being used and which ought to be used. You should have your eye on that land, and to see that it is not being held up against you, and you ought to bring economic pressure to bear on those who are holding up good land in Scotland without using it in order to make that land available for our soldiers and sailors. If you do that on fair terms, the experiment will prove a success. I can speak with regard to some of the larger towns in Scotland, and particularly with regard to Glasgow, a Division of which I have the honour to represent. Round about Glasgow you have hundreds
    1482
    of acres of land. They call it agricultural land, but it is far from producing anything. If that were land used for small holdings it would be producing three or four times as much as it is producing now. That land is simply being held up in order that the owners may secure a greater price for building purposes. That is the sort of land you ought to bring in. You ought to set your minds not upon the-poorer land but upon the better land. I support any proposal which will make more land available for our soldiers and sailors; and not only for them, but for our people as a whole, for they are bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh. This whole experiment is in real danger of being wrecked on the same rock that has wrecked our previous experiments—namely, that we go to the worst land to which we can go and which we can offer people, instead of maintaining the fundamental rights of the people to the land and trying to settle them upon it and obtaining the best land that can be bought.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I very largely agree with what has fallen from the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. Dundas White), but at the same time I am not quite sure from his speech whether he is in favour of the Amendment or of the Government proposal in the Bill.
    Mr. WHITE: You will see in a minute.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I hope, however, to have the mystery solved when a Division is taken. I am very glad that we have two distinguished Scottish Members on the Front Bench besides the Lord Advocate. We have the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Gulland) and the Prime Minister, whose attention has been temporarily diverted to Ireland. I hope, with such a representation of Scotland, that the Government will be able to give some better reply to the arguments that have been adduced in the course of the Debate than the Lord Advocate up to the present has been able to vouchsafe to the Committee. I rather think the Lord Advocate has misinterpreted the effect of this paragraph. His argument was based throughout on the assumption that, if this proposal is passed, for every 6,000 acres which are acquired in England and Wales there must be 7,000 acres acquired in Scotland.
    Mr. MUNRO: I said nothing of the sort, and did not intend it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Then the great bulk of the right hon. Gentleman's argument falls to the ground, because all the argument based on the relative proportions which should go to the two countries is quite irrelevant. If there is no question of the relative proportions to be acquired at any one time in the two countries, then the greater part of the Lord Advocate's argument goes. However, the main point made by hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate is that when we are dealing with the question of land as between the two countries it is not the question of the extent, but the question of the value which must be taken into consideration. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Tradeston Division that if we are to have these small-holdings experiments in Scotland they will be made with far greater chances of success on good land and near the great markets which are offered by the larger cities. Up to the present Scotland has very largely suffered from the failure of the authorities to make any real experiments under such favourable conditions. We have not heard from the Lord Advocate any statement of the policy by the Board of Agriculture. The only guidance we have had up to the present in regard to agricultural policy in Scotland was contained in the speech of the Secretary for Scotland on the Vote for the Board of Agriculture last Wednesday. On that occasion he referred to various experiments which were in contemplation. There was one experiment in Sutherlandshire, another in Ross-shire, and a third in Aberdeen shire. In every one of those cases a larger area was involved than the limit which is contained in this Bill, to which the Government now adhere. There was no reference whatever to any attempt to settle colonies of small holders in the better land in the South. Unless the Lord Advocate is prepared to give us an assurance that in carrying out the proposals of this Bill the Board of Agriculture contemplate colonies being settled in the South, where this limit can be only fairly applicable—the Lord Advocate has stated he is not in a position to give any such undertaking—
    Mr. MUNRO: No one knows better than my hon. Friend that I do not represent the Board of Agriculture in this House, and that I cannot bind it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: In these circumstances we are not conducting this Debate under such conditions as to enable the Committee to come to a rational decision. The Lord Advocate tells us that he does not represent the Board of Agriculture in this House, and consequently cannot speak for it.
    Mr. MUNRO: I cannot bind it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: My terminology may be somewhat inexact. I leave it to the Lord Advocate's greater accuracy. If the Lord Advocate comes to represent the Board of Agriculture in this Debate, he ought to be able to speak on behalf of it and to bind it. If he cannot; do that he is useless from the point of view of the decision of the Committee. We must insist upon having this question thrashed out and decided by the Committee in the presence of the Secretary for Scotland, who alone can bind the Board of Agriculture. In his absence and having regard to the speech made by the Lord Advocate, I must beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that this is, after all, a very small matter, and, so far as I can see, the undertakings we have had on the subject from the Board of Agriculture and from those representing Scotland are ample for the purpose. I do not know what the Secretary for Scotland would say if he were here any more than that they have arranged that the 3,000 acres shall be given, and it is impossible now to ask that there should be any alteration in the extent of the experiment. It is very unnecessary to ask the House to report Progress, and I hope the Motion will not be pressed.
    Mr. ACLAND: The Board of Agriculture for England has naturally been in communication from time to time with the Board of Agriculture for Scotland on this matter, and, as far as I know, this is the position: The Board of Agriculture for Scotland has held—and it will be for Scottish Members to say whether they were right or wrong—that until they get the authorisation of Parliament by this Bill it was not for them to lay down schemes or plans, or to make up their minds as to exactly what kind of land they should get and so on. They thought it better to get the Parliamentary sanction first and to take action afterwards. But, of course,

    1485
    their desire to have Scotland included in the Bill indicates that they were in agreement with the policy on which the Bill was based, which was that the land to be obtained should under every and all circumstances be good land. That is the thing which is brought out over and over again in the Report of the Committee. Nothing but land of the very best quality gives the small holder a real chance.
    The CHAIRMAN: We must not go back to the discussion of the Amendment till we have disposed of the Motion to report Progress.
    Mr. ACLAND: I thought the Motion to report Progress was rather because it was not possible for any Minister to say what was the policy of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, which has to administer this Bill. I was doing my best to say what I knew of the policy of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland as one of the Ministers in charge of the Bill.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: I am exceedingly pleased to hear from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he proposes that in Scotland only good land shall be acquired.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is the point that is out of order. We are not now on the Amendment, but on the Question to report Progress.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: Will my right hon. Friend say, supposing the Bill is passed as an experimental Bill, that the Government and the Board of Agriculture, and so forth, will immediately proceed to put it into practice?
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 159.

    Division No. 52.]

    AYES.

    [6.19 p.m.

    Anderson, W. C.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Keating, Matthew

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Bryce, John Annan

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Snowden, Philip

    Dalziel. Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Field, William

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Goldstone, Frank

    Nolan, Joseph

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Malley, William

    Mr. Pringle and Mr. Raffan

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    NOES

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Cowan, William Henry

    Hendry, Denis S.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crew)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hewart, Gordon

    Baldwin, Stanley

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

    Hill, James (Bradford, C.)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hodge, John

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

    Dickinson, Rt. Hen. Willoughby H.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Fell, Arthur

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Finlay. Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Flannery, Sir J, Fortescue

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Jones, Lief (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Bird, Alfred

    Fester, Philip Staveley

    Jones, William: S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Bliss, Joseph

    Galbraith, Samuel

    King, Joseph

    Bowerman, Rt. Non. C. W.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Boyton, James

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molten)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Butcher, John George

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Lewis, Rt. Hen. John Herbert

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Gretton, John

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Campion, W. ft.

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M (Falk. B'ghs)

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Chambers, James

    Hardy, Rt. Hen. Lawrence

    Manfiefd, Harry

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Ceates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Callings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Morgan, George Hay

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Robinson, Sidney

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Rowlands, James

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    O'Grady, James

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Wardle, G. J.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Weston, John W.

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

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

    Stanier, Captain Beville

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Swift, Rigby

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Yate, Colonel C. B.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Younger, Sir George

    Radford, Sir George Heynes

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Tickler, T. G.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Touche, George Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir George H.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Mr. Gulland and Lord Edmund Talbot

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Valentia. Viscount

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Question again proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Clause."
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I am quite in the dark as to what is the intent of this Clause as regards Scotland. We have been told that the Bill is entirely experimental and that we are going to conduct through its machinery an experiment. What is this particular experiment that they are going to conduct in Scotland? Do they intend to show that Scotsmen can earn a living from their native soil? Surely it requires no Bill to determine that. We know they can do it if they have an opportunity of getting the soil. We know these men can go to Canada and Australia, and to the uttermost ends of the earth and make a living from the land under the most difficult conditions. Then for what particular purpose are these thousands of acres to be provided in Scotland. We have not really had one word on that subject. I think that the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Chief Secretary for Scotland, who is not here to reply for the Board of Agriculture, have taken the right line, and regard this Bill with absolute contempt, so far as Scotland is concerned. I am sure it will be regarded in that way in Scotland and by Scotsmen. Surely it is about time we should come to an end of these humbugging methods of dealing with Scotland and the Scottish land question. We have heard to-day the hon. Baronet the Member for Argyllshire speaking in support of this measure, and saying that when the Scottish soldier returned he was going to have a share in his native heath, and so on. But we have heard that for many a day. Only yesterday I was talking to a friend of mine who has been travelling through Argyllshire. He said what particularly struck him was that though he could see it
    1488
    was a splendid grazing country, that there was plenty of grass, and fine farmsteads, the land had been turned over into a deer forest, and was held by a South African millionaire. The homesteads were empty, and that was the condition over tens of thousands of acres in that part of Argyllshire. What an absurd and grotesque thing it is to suggest dealing with the land question and settling the Scottish soldier on the soil of Scotland by this, ridiculous measure of some two or seven thousand acres. As the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow said, the true solution of the Scottish land question is such a setting up of economic forces as would drive out from the country-side the men who are holding vast territories for the raising of deer, and unlocking the land round about the cities which, to my mind, is the land on which colonies should be placed. I think this Clause, with the application of this ridiculous measure to Scotland, may well be regarded with contempt. I think the smaller the area dealt with the better. Scotland is to be congratulated on only having 2,000 acres, because, as has been said in various quarters of the House, the thing is a farce, and the more you limit it the better for the country to which you apply it. Consequently I shall not support the Amendment for increasing the area, because I do not desire to be any party to the humbugging of the people of Scotland that this is any solution of the problem, and least of all to trying to delude the Scotsmen who are fighting for their country at the present time into believing that this is a measure by which, when they return, they will have some share in the country for which they have fought. I think this is a reform which should be held over until the Scotsmen do return from the front, because then they will

    1489
    settle it. The soldiers will solve the problem in Scotland, in England, and in Wales, and in a very different way than is adumbrated in this measure.
    Captain BATHURST: Some of our Scottish friends have altogether failed to realise the real scope and intention of this Bill. It only deals with a very small and, as I hope, an almost infinitesimal portion of the scheme for land settlement of ex-Service men framed by the Departmental Committee who sat to consider this subject last year. The hon. Member who has just spoken asked what was the meaning of the term "experiment" as applied to this Bill. The experiment that is being tried in connection with this Bill is that of associating these small holders in colonies which will enable them to settle much more closely than they otherwise would do, both for economic and for social purposes, and to put to the best possible advantage the system of co-operation in all departments of agricultural industry. For my part, I am rather jealous of Scotland, because she stands to-day in an infinitely better position than any part of the United Kingdom in this respect. A generous landowner—and I should have thought perhaps it was rather unfortunate that Scottish Members should have indulged in diatribes against landlordism just at this particular moment—a generous Scottish landowner has provided in one gift no less than 14,000 acres.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: What is it worth?
    Captain BATHURST: This Bill is going to give Scotland 2,000 acres, as compared with the English 4,000 all told. Scotland thus starts with 16,000 acres, which is not a bad beginning; and I hope and believe that the excellent example of the Duke of Sutherland will be followed by many other landlords, not only in Scotland but in England. Now I come to what is really the scheme itself, and not merely this small portion of it. The scheme is not going to be carried out by this Bill, which is merely intended as an experiment in colonies, but, as the Duke of Sutherland has very properly interpreted it, by means of gifts on the part of landowners; and also by means of small holdings set up by the county councils in England and Wales, and by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, which corresponds in this respect to the county councils in this country. But I look to these public authorities to provide the greater part of the land which
    1490
    will be required, as I hope, for the settlement upon British soil of those men who have fought so gallantly for us. This is a very small and almost insignificant experiment. Do give this little experiment a chance. I should have thought if hon. Gentlemen wanted to report Progress, owing to the absence of any particular Minister, it ought to have been in regard to the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we have any complaint to make it is in regard to his absence—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The hon. and gallant Member is going away from the Amendment. The Amendment is not on the merits of the. Bill.
    Captain BATHURST: I will explain how relevant my remark was. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer been present, it might have been pointed out, and with some force, that 2,000 acres in Scotland is not necessarily equivalent to 2,000 acres in England, and the proper way to arrive at that equivalent would have been to have added a proviso, as has been added in the case of a certain Small Holdings Bill, to the effect that the equivalent in value of these 2,000 acres should be taken by Scotland either in area or in money. But what is contemplated by this Bill is a close settlement, a close community which will enjoy all those economic and social conditions which close settlement involves. Therefore, it is desirable that good land should be found. That good land is more likely to be found in the Lowlands of Scotland than in that somewhat poverty-stricken area in which some of my hon. Friends seem to hope to see the ex-Service men put, and I hope, to the extent of 2,000 acres, it will be found in the Lowlands of Scotland, where really good land is to be obtained, and where there is a chance of making a real living. I hope hon. Gentlemen from Scotland will not press their Amendment and so stand the chance of wrecking what would be a really very good experiment.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: I was very glad to hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down, and I cannot think why it was not delivered from the Front Bench here. The Secretary for Scotland was here, and it would have been more to the point if a declaration of importance as to the land question in Scotland had been made by a responsible person from the Front Bench. But I do resent one of the basic arguments

    1491
    which the hon. and gallant Member brings forward. In the first place, while every one of us is deeply grateful for the patriotism and generosity of the Duke of Sutherland in presenting this land to the country, there is another side to the matter. If you were developing a seaside resort you would give a public park. If you were developing an estate in Scotland you would give a piece of land in order that the Government might carry out experiments which are beneficial to the whole area. It is not altogether true that there is only altruism in these gifts. I am not in any way deprecating the patriotism of the Duke of Sutherland in making this gift, but there is also the other side. The second thing we have to resent is this, that those who are opposed to this Bill as a futile waste of public money are said to be wronging and betraying and depriving the men in the trenches. I have seen a good deal of the men in the trenches—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks would be relevant to the Second or Third Reading of this Bill. This is a matter of the area of land.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: With all respect, Sir, I would point out that this argument has been used again and again, namely, that we have been trying to prevent the men in the trenches getting back to the land in Scotland. If I cannot reply to that argument here, I shall consider that it has gone by the board. I shall do my best to show that so far from being unpatriotic, we are desirous of helping them. Reference has been made to the Verney Report—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is now referring to the Verney Report. It is not relevant to this Amendment.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: I am in rather a difficulty if I am not to be allowed to reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Wiltshire. He claimed this Committee as a basis for this Bill. He said that in the Verney Committee's Report colonies with small holdings were suggested.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have called the hon. and gallant Member to order.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Not on that question.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I called him generally to order.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: I will not, deal with this question any further except to state that the Verney Committee contained a great deal that the hon. and gallant Member did not mention, and it is because of those parts which he did not mention, which are embodied in this Bill— I will deal with them later on—that I object to the Bill. It is all very well for people supporting the Bill to say it is to save the soldiers. As a matter of fact, what they want is not to save the soldier, but to train him up as an agricultural labourer, at 18s. a week. I apologise for my discursion; it was solely called forth by the hon. and gallant Member's speech. The question is whether we are to have 2,000 or 7,000 acres in Scotland. We have already had offered 2,000 acres, and we are told they want 7,000 more. We are told that the Duke of Sutherland is ready to give more. To say that Scotland is to have 20,000 acres and England only 4,000 acres is, to my mind, an injustice to England. The Scottish Members say that the Scottish soldiers are the finest. Everyone who knows the English troops knows that they are the best in the Army, and if it is a question of rewarding fighting men, we do deserve to have the same treatment as Scotland. Therefore, all the arguments brought forward in this Debate for the increase from 2,000 to 7,000 acres fall to the ground. If 2,000 acres is bad, 7,000 is worse, and, if not, there is no reason why Scotland should be treated more generously than England.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am greatly surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend should think that Scotland is treated generously. We have had no evidence of the generous treatment to which he refers. We Scotsmen are, after all, whatever the hon. Member for Wiltshire may think, most interested in what is going to be done in Scotland with Scottish land for Scottish soldiers. It is perfectly true, as has been stated, that the Duke of Sutherland has given from 12,000 to 14,000 acres. Whichever figure it is it is a generous gift, and we have been told by the Secretary for Scotland what is going to be done with it. The land is to be divided into small holdings, and the soldiers on those holdings are to engage in working the small holdings plus the work of afforestation which is to be carried on also on that estate. That would be a very valuable experience, not only

    1493
    for the people of Scotland but far others in Britain who are interested in experiments of that kind. What we desire to know, before coming to a decision on this point, is what the Government propose to do with these 2,000 acres of land. Obviously 2,000 acres of land can only be divided into a matter of from seventy-five to 100 small holdings. If it is devoted to small holdings alone, that is the extent of the experiment. The question has been asked—and it is a legitimate question which we Scotsmen are entitled to have answered—are these seventy-five or 100 holdings to be adjacent to our large towns or away from them, because obviously that will determine the question what is to be done upon those holdings? If they are near a central market, adjacent to large towns, like Glasgow, Edinburgh, Paisley, and Dundec, the acreage required will be very much smaller for each individual soldier employed. Therefore the number of men who can be settled in this way will be largely determined by the situation of the land. Members of the House who have opposed us have really done so under a misapprehension. What we want is some assurance on the point from some responsible member of the Government. The Scottish Secretary has been standing within the last quarter of an hour behind the Speaker's Chair.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question has been disposed of.
    Mr. HOGGE: The question whether we are entitled to the information has not been disposed of. We must have the actual scheme. I am not going back on the question which has been already before you, but we are determined, whether it is 2,000 or 7,000 acres, to get to know what the Government are going to do. I understand that the Government do not propose to accede to the proposal to have 7,000 acres, but if not we want to know why the Government are resisting the proposal? Scotland, after all, offers facilities for wider varieties of experiments than any of the other countries in the United Kingdom. Even the hon. Member for Wiltshire will agree that Scotland will give more varied experiences than any other part of the Kingdom, because of the nature of the land, and unless we get some definite information upon this, we are entitled to say that we are being treated shabbily. The Lord Advocate cannot say what the Government are going to do in this matter
    1494
    because it is not within his Department, but I do say that we are entitled to know from the Secretary for Scotland what is going to be done with this land. Unless the information is given there will be great dissatisfaction in Scotland. We are sent here to find out what the Government are doing for our own country. We put a perfectly modest simple question which they refuse to answer. I think that that is discourteous to the general body of the Scottish Members who so faithfully support their representatives in the Cabinet on every occasion on questions of policy regarding the whole of the country; and on this occasion, when a perfectly domestic matter arises, which does not concern anybody else, and on which we are entitled to an answer, there is nobody on the Front Bench more intimately connected with Scotland than the Lord Advocate, whose habitat is in the High Street of Edinburgh, in offices from which I am perfectly certain he can see no land which would be fit for small holdings in any circumstances.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The hon. Member opposite shows a very strange lack of confidence in the ability of the Scottish Board of Agriculture to suggest, when the proper time comes, what special experiments they propose to make with 2,000 acres of land.
    Mr. HOGGE: The point is that the English Board of Agriculture have disclosed their plans. Why do not the Scottish Board of Agriculture disclose their plans? My hon. Friend is usually very inquisitive. Does he not want to know what they are going to do?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I am not aware that I am very inquisitive. I have never been very inquisitive about the Board of Agriculture, or very critical of them. I am certainly prepared to trust them in this matter, more particularly as under this Bill they have a power which was denied them, by hon. Members opposite—the power to buy the land—and they can plant settlers on the land as owners of that land. That is opposed by hon. Members opposite, and I think that the great merit of the Bill is that it abolishes entirely the opposition to that proposal. When we come to consider, as I hope we may do later on, some reasonable way of settling the Scottish land question, we-shall not have objection to purchasing owners on the land. For that reason I welcome this Bill very much as a new departure.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is a general discussion of this sort in order?
    Mr. MORTON: We did not introduce this Bill, but we found on seeing it that it was proposed to treat Scotland in the same shabby manner in which it is generally treated. The promotion of this Bill has been managed in the most mysterious manner. The hon. Gentleman in charge of it—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the merits of the Bill, but a particular Amendment.
    Mr. MORTON: I am confining my arguments to the Bill.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine his remarks to this Amendment. This is the second time that I have called the hon. Member to order.
    Mr. MORTON: All the other Members have been talking about these points. In reference to the increase of the acreage, I have a right to complain, and I do complain, that there is no Minister of the Cabinet to tell us anything about it. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has told us that he is against it, and that he could not do anything. The Lord Advocate to-day has practically told us the same thing, and I know that he is in favour of dealing with the land question in a liberal manner generally. But he told us dis-
    tinctly that he cannot speak for the Scottish Board of Agriculture. Therefore this is a most extraordinary system, with somebody behind pulling the strings and managing the things, while we cannot get any reply. Two thousand acres is no good to us. It is merely playing with the question. Therefore we want to give the Board of Agriculture power, by giving them 7,000 acres, to do some more good than could possibly have been done with 2,000 acres. Wales was treated fairly the other night on a Division. We have been told by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that England would have to pay the money for managing this. If he knew anything about the accounts of the two countries he would know better than this, because Scotland pays, if anything, more than her fair share to the finances of the country. This is because Scottish affairs, in Scotland, are managed so much more economically than those in England. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and others will take an opportunity of going into the accounts, and they will find that they have made a mistake in accusing Scotland of desiring an unfair division of the money. I hope that this Committee will treat us as fairly in the matter of accounts as the other evening they treated gallant little Wales.
    Question put, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 44.

    Division No. 53.]

    AYES.

    [7.0 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hewart, Gordon

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives)

    Hill, James

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Hodge, John

    Ainsworth. John Stirling

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Baird, John Lawrence

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

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.J

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Faner, George Denison (Clapham)

    Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Fell, Arthur

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jones, Lif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Beckett, Hon, Gervase

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jones, William S. Glyn (Stepney)

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    King, Joseph

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G (Devon, S. Molton)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Bird, Alfred

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

    Bliss, Joseph

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Brace, William

    Clanville, Harold James

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Butcher, John George

    Gretton, John

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Macnamara, Rt. Non. Dr. T. J.

    Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester. S.)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Manfield, Harry

    Chambers, James

    Haslam, Lewis

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hendry, Denis S.

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wardle, George J.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Rowlands, James

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Wedgwood, Joslah C.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Weston, John W.

    Nield, Herbert

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

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

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Swift, Rigby

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Younger, Sir George

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Radford, Sir George Heynes

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel

    Tickler, T. G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Gulland

    Reid, Rt. Hon. Sir G. H.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Roberts, Charles H, (Lincoln)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    NOES.

    Anderson, W. C.

    Hunt, Major Rowland

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Bentinck, Lord H, Cavendish.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Keating, Matthew

    Snowden, Philip

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Stanier, Capt. Beville

    Cowan, W. H.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Touche, George Alexander

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester).

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Field, William

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Wilkle, Alexander

    Goldstone, Frank

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hogge, James Myles

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Mr. Morton and Mr. Macpherson

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (c), to insert the words "Provided that two thousand acres so acquired shall to the extent of three-fourths thereof consist of arable land."
    This Amendment is entirely due to a suggestion which was thrown out in the course of the preceding Debate by the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Captain Bathurst), who suggested that we might have a proviso inserted, and that which I am now seeking to insert is not exactly in the terms which the hon. Member suggested, so that it cannot altogether be put down to his inspiration. It will be remembered that in the course of the last Debate the argument was, I think, accepted by the Government that if you have 2,000 acres as the limit, then the experiment must be confined to cultivated lands rather than to the Highland areas. That condition would secure that if you do make 2,000 acres the maximum, then you will require land of that character to enable a colony of fair dimensions to be settled upon it. If a smaller proportion of the 2,000 acres was arable land, then your experiment would be practically valueless, and you could only settle very few men upon it, and it would be an abuse of the word to describe it as a -colony at all. By the insertion of this proviso a definite instruction will be
    1498
    given to those who undertake the experiment to look to those areas where you cart get a fair quantity of arable land, and consequently you will secure that there will be some chance of the experiment being attended with success.
    Mr. ACLAND: I do not know Scotland, and I do not pretend to know it, but I think there is a good deal of land in England which is not at present used as arable land but is land under grass, and which, may be capable of being used profitably and with advantage as arable land. It may be, possibly, that land may be found in Scotland which would be quite suitable to be cultivated as arable land. I do not want to do anything that would tie the hands of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, but if the hon. Member would leave out the words "arable land," and accept the words' "land suitable to be cultivated as arable land," it might meet his point. I might first see whether this was not in accordance with the opinion of the Board of Agriculture of Scotland, though I do not anticipate any difficulty. The hon. Member might move the Amendment to the proposed Amendment now.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend, and I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed

    1499
    Amendment, to leave out the words "arable land," and to insert instead thereof the words 'suitable to be cultivated as arable land.'"
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Provided that two thousand acres so acquired shall to the extent of three-fourths thereof consist of land suitable to be cultivated as arable land,' be there inserted."
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should be very careful about giving any definite pledge with regard to the acceptance of this Amendment. The policy has been accepted of 2,000 acres in the Highlands, and the right hon. Gentleman himself says that he does not know the conditions in the Highlands of Scotland. I would impress upon him that he should not come to any definite conclusion here and now, but that the view of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland should be ascertained.
    Mr. WATSON: I think it is clearly obvious that the most satisfactory place for settling, or taking, 2,000 acres would be somewhere in the Lowlands, and to do that the only remunerative way, in order to get a settlement, will be on land which may be arable. I do not mind very much whether that is secured by an absolutely hard and fast Amendment of this Bill or whether it is to be treated and accepted as a general indication of the views of the House to the Scottish Board of Agriculture. I should have thought it was pretty clear from the evidence, and from the practical point of view, that that is the only way in which this experiment can be really usefully made. It seems obvious, apart from the question of price with which we are not concerned, that arable land ought to be a reasonable distance from some town, preferably a big town, otherwise you will not get a real test of what we are anxious to get, namely, how to secure profitable colonies in groups on large areas of land. Therefore, while I heartily support the intent and purpose of this Amendment, I am not sure that it is really necessary to secure the end desired.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I cordially support the Amendment. It appears to me to be most desirable that these small holders should have part arable and part grass. If the crops fail on the arable land they
    1500
    I have something to fall back upon in the dairy, which is maintained by grass. Hence it is of great importance that these small holdings should be of a mixed character, so that there may be a reasonable prospect of having a mixed system of husbandry in small holdings with some degree of success. The Amendment, I think, is exceedingly wise, and I suggest that each small holding should have part grass and part arable, thus giving the mixed system and providing the only chance of success for the small holder, which would be available in each case.
    Mr. D. WHITE: I am glad my hon. Friend has proposed this Amendment, which seems to me to be very desirable. If there were not some words such as my hon. Friend proposes you might have the whole 2,000 acres in a more or less hilly country where it would only yield very poor grazing, and under those circumstances 2,000 acres in Scotland would be absolutely futile and useless. I desire to express my complete concurrence with this Amendment.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am very glad my right hon. Friend has accepted the Amendment. He has also pointed out that he will consider it on Report, or at least reserves the right to himself to reopen it on Report. I am strongly in favour of the Amendment with regard 1o these 2,000 acres, but I am disappointed that, owing to the previous discussion, the acceptance of this, which I think is perfectly proper in the circumstances, rules out a very large part of Scotland, the Highlands part of Scotland, which ought to be dealt with. I am surprised, after the protest that we Scottish Members have been making, that the Scottish Secretary does not turn up.
    The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The discussion on the question of the absence of the Secretary for Scotland plainly settled that question, and I cannot have it reopened now.
    Mr. HOGGE: I take it that the Motion to report Progress was to determine whether the discussion should close or not. Seeing that the Secretary for Scotland has now come in, I will not dispute with the Chair, though I will not use the word "dispute," but say I will not enter into the merits of the decision. I was pointing out when the Secretary came in that the Parliamentary Secretary for

    1501
    Agriculture had accepted an Amendment that of the 2,000 acres three-fourths should be capable of cultivation as arable land. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, with his intimate and detailed knowledge of his own country, will know that that means that that experiment must be largely limited either to the Midlands or the Lowlands of Scotland, and that the Highlands, therefore, will be cut out. Incidentally, it is fair to remember that in the Highlands certain experiments are at present in operation, and another has been made possible by the Ducal gift. The Highlands form the larger area of Scotland, and they are the place where it is essential that men should be kept and reared on the land. I am perfectly certain the Secretary for Scotland has a very good reason why be has not been able to come before this. What we have been discussing as Scotsmen, in the absence of information, is what we could do best for our own countrymen, and we wanted to know what will be done with these 2,000 acres, and if we could have some information on the subject in the same way as our English and Welsh colleagues have had. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for having accepted the Amendment, and now that the Secretary for Scotland is here I can assure him that his colleagues who have been waiting anxiously and longing for his arrival will be very glad to hear his views on this subject and the views of the Scottish Board of Agriculture. After all, we are an agricultural country, and the Board of Agriculture is the most important to a great number of people in Scotland. I am perfectly certain that the Secretary for Scotland will be glad that we have given him the occasion to make an official pronouncement on a subject which is so close to the whole welfare of Scotland, which he represents.
    The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Any remarks which the right hon. Gentleman may desire to make will have to be confined to the Amendment before the Committee.
    Mr. HOGGE: I hope so.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: And that Amendment provides that three-fourths of this land to be acquired shall consist of land suitable for cultivation as arable land.
    Mr. HARRY HOPE: I think it is a great mistake to lay down from this Committee
    1502
    what proportion of arable and of grass land should be taken for these small holdings. I have considerable confidence in the wisdom and discretion of the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and now when we have got a Scotsman as Secretary for Scotland I think we may be perfectly sure that our Board of Agriculture will be maintained in accordance with Scottish ideas and Scottish requirements.
    Mr. HOGGE: It never has been.
    Mr. HOPE: I think we are going to have an improvement in that respect. I think that this Amendment may tie the hands of the Board. As to the counties in Scotland in which this experiment should be practised, we must be guided to a large extent as to where we see a demand for small holdings arise. If you look over the number of applicants for small holdings in Scotland, you find that it is from the Highland counties that the vast majority of applicants come We had an experiment in small holdings in East Lothian two years ago, when the large farm of Balancrieff was taken. It consisted of 600 acres. There were thirteen farm workers, ploughmen, who were displaced, and thirteen small holdings created in their place. What was the result? Instead of thirteen small holders of a genuine kind, although they were advertised for, nobody of the kind came forward, and the result was that those small holdings were given to butchers and other tradesmen.
    Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is not the object of this Bill to place on the land disabled soldiers who have never been on the land before?
    Mr. HOPE: My point is, that there must be discretion left to the Board of Agriculture as to where this Bill ought to be put into effect. The experience of the past two years has shown us that it is in the Highlands we have small holders in the largest numbers. I think that if the Secretary for Scotland gets the land in the Highlands, that if Scotland gets the percentage of two to six, he may be able to get not the 2,000 acres, but perhaps the 7,000 acres which many Scottish Members want. I think we ought not to tie the hands of the Board. The Bill is experimental, and I think we might leave it in the hands of the Board of Agriculture to deal with those gallant soldiers and sailors from Scotland.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken in thinking that we ought to leave the Scottish Board of Agriculture a free hand in this matter. I wish to dissociate myself entirely from the criticism of my right lion. Friend the Secretary for Scotland. After all, nobody expected this Bill to come on so soon, and the moving of the Motion to report Progress was rather to give the right hon. Gentleman time to come, than with any desire to criticise. If you do not expect a Bill to come on you do not expect people to be here all the time. I repeat that you should not tie the hands of the Scottish Board of Agriculture. We have had mention of a scheme for the Lowlands as opposed to a scheme for the Highlands, but I think it would be advisable that there should be experiments in the Highlands as well as in the Lowlands. We, who are not specialists in Scottish agriculture, will I think agree that the matter had much better be left to the Scottish Board of Agriculture to decide the line the experiment shall take, rather than to lay down any hard and fast rule. Particularly is that desirable when you consider that land is being given and will be offered to the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, and before we decide what sort of land they should acquire it is much better that they should know the amount of land that will be voluntarily offered to them. The Parliamentary Secretary has partially accepted this Amendment, but I hope that it will be put right on the Report stage, and that the Scottish Board of Agriculture may be given the freest possible hand, so that they may not be able to attribute any failure to any action which this Committee might have taken.
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant): I welcome the intervention of my hon. and gallant Friend in this Debate on agriculture in the country which is my special charge. He, like myself, has beaten his sword into a ploughshare. This is a very interesting experimental Bill, and I am very glad to hear that Scotland is to have a considerable proportion of the land, 2,000 acres, which I think is a very reasonable and proper quantity for an experiment of this kind. Undoubtedly the Amendment is a limiting one, and hon. Members are right in thinking that it will restrict our hands. I would like to bring the Committee back a stage to the Debate we had only a week ago, when I made some observations about the small-holding experiment, announced the
    1504
    Duke of Sutherland's very munificent gift, and intimated certain other proposals that we were going to make in connection with experimental holdings for soldiers and sailors. The criticism then was that "all these holdings announced by the Secretary for Scotland are in the Highlands; may we not have something in the Lowlands?" That being so, here is an opportunity. We are going to have 2,000 acres, I do not say necessarily in Berwickshire—much as I think it would have been an advantage, considering the fine, rich, agricultural soil there—or in the Lothians, or in the Kingdom of Fife, or in any part of the centre of Scotland, and I think it will be very valuable indeed. I am prepared to leave it entirely in the hands of the House to say whether it is desirable that as great a proportion as three-fourths of the land should consist of land suitable for arable. If they so decide I shall certainly accept it, as far as I am concerned. But if the House would prefer, what would probably be the wiser plan, to leave the proportion of land suitable for agricultural development to the Board of Agriculture, then I am entirely in the hands of the House. But I am not at all afraid of accepting 2,000 acres, three-quarters of which is suitable for arable.
    Mr. MORTON: I have no objection to leaving this matter to the Board of Agriculture, but I would say that, if you are going to make it a condition that three-quarters of the land is to be suitable for arable, that shuts out the crofting Highland counties altogether, and I do not think it will be any use for us in any shape or form in that part of Scotland. I have no objection, however, to putting this in the Bill as it stands, with the understanding that we want something better for the Highlands by and by. But as the whole affair is such a small business I do not think we shall lose much.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: The question whether we should limit the powers of the Board of Agriculture raises a rather interesting point, because, after all, this is an experiment, and it is going to be conducted, I understand, by the Board of Agriculture. These superior people are going to show Scotsmen how they can cultivate their land under certain conditions more successfully. I believe that is the whole object of the Bill. And yet we are going to show such little respect for the ability of the Board which is to conduct the experiment that we are going to limit

    1505
    them as regards the land they are to acquire. We are going to say to them, "You are so foolish and so inexperienced, we cannot trust you to conduct this experiment properly, and therefore we are going to limit you." It seems to me a condemnation of the whole Bill if you take up that position. My view is that if we put this limitation on the Board of Agriculture it will have the effect of restricting the application of this experiment to the Lowlands. That, of course, would be largely determined, but what really is the benefit that is likely to accrue from this gift made by the Duke of Sutherland? If the nature of the gift is such that it will enable the experiment to be carried out in the Highlands, there would not be so much objection to limiting the Board of Agriculture in respect of land in this Bill. I should have liked to have heard more about the nature of the land from the Secretary of Scotland. I understand that some 14,000 acres are to be gifted, and of that area about 7,000 acres are to be afforested—that 7,000 acres you can wipe out as worthless land unfit for any experiment of this kind—and I should like to know whether there is any value at all in the remaining 6,000 or 7,000 acres, as shown by the rating roll. I have been over a considerable part of that country, and I remember writing articles in the "Daily News" as regards land in the Highlands, and at that time the Duke of Sutherland and other landowners came forward and said, "It is ridiculous to put men on this land at all." But now the Duke of Sutherland comes forward with a gift of a portion of this land and he is regarded as patriotic. I should like to know with regard to this gift of land which the right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest is so generous, whether it carries with it any particular obligation as regards, for instance, the construction of a railway.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: General reference to the subject would be in order, but the details the hon. Member is going into are not in order.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I thought perhaps that this land would be so burdened by obligations that it would be impossible to conduct experiments there, and that therefore we should have to acquire other land. I do not know whether I should be in order in asking for information as to any obligations there may be in connection with the gift?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, that would be out of order.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I venture to think that this land may not be suitable for experiment if a railway has to be constructed.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have intimated to the hon. Member that he is out of order, and I must ask him not to pursue that.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: If this gift is not such as to satisfy the demand for land in the Highlands and to enable this experiment to be conducted, then I think we have no right to limit the power of the Board of Agriculture, but that they should be allowed to conduct experiments where they like.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member who has just sat down is not a Scottish Member, and I think I am speaking on behalf of my colleagues when I say that I do not think he represents the view of my Scottish colleagues with regard to the gift which the Duke of Sutherland has been good enough to make to the nation. I was rather disappointed at the remark which my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland has made. I was hoping that he would take the view that a matter of this sort should be left to the discretion of the Board of Agriculture. What has happened is this: The hon. Member for Lanarkshire at a quarter past seven gave in a written Amendment, and I should have thought, as the Amendment was accepted almost willingly by my right hon. Friend who represents the Board of Agriculture, that, if it had been a good Amendment, it would have been in the Bill beforehand. It might very well have been in the Bill. Now we find that the Front Bench are prepared to accept this. I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) on this point. The Board of Agriculture was established by statute in 1911 to look after the best interests of agriculture in Scotland and here is a Bill which gives us a miserable quantity of land, 2,000 acres, for the purpose of experiment. Now, the Board of Agriculture has as one of its chief objects the encouragement of agriculture by means of organisation, loans of money, and everything else. This matter before the Committee is a business which ought to be the Board's, and we have the Secretary for Scotland saying that he is prepared to accept this Amendment and to include it in the Bill which is not a

    1507
    Scottish Bill. I made representations to the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Agriculture earlier in the evening not to accept anything definitely just now but to wait until the Report stage, and, having meanwhile considered this not only with his own colleagues in England but with the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, deal with it on Report. I am still of that view and I know my colleagues in the Highlands are also of that view, and consequently I would press upon my right hon. Friend not to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to offer a few observations in view of the rather unaccustomed position which has arisen. It is a very simple Amendment I have proposed. It has commended itself as reasonable to Members in all parts of the House. I can understand the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) is distressed at any aspersions on the Duke of Sutherland in view of the fact that he himself is such a great authority on Highland clearances. He says that if this had been a good Amendment it would have been in the Bill originally. If that reasoning is to apply, why should we move any Amendments in this House at all? Why did the hon. Member himself move an Amendment at an earlier stage in connection with which some of us gave him some assistance? Why did he deviate into independence? As regards this Amendment, after the discussion, I hope the Government will adhere to it. All the experiments which my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland announced last week are experiments in the North of Scotland, in areas where it will be difficult for this cultivation to be run on economic lines. Obviously, if the limitation of 2,000 acres is to stand in this Bill, we should take the utmost care that the 2,000 acres should be selected in an area where they could be run successfully both in respect of the nature of the land acquired and its proximity to the markets where the produce can be sold. I know the crofters have got 14,000 acres in the county which my hon. Friend represents, for which gift he is no doubt grateful, like his colleague the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. I have visited the county which my hon. Friend represents with such distinction and success in this House. I have some knowledge of the nature of the land in that constituency,
    1508
    and if I were looking for a small holding, about the last place I should look for it would be in Sutherlandshire. That observation also applies to the greater part of the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, although in Eastern Ross there is a good deal of land which would come within the purview of this Amendment. That land in Eastern Ross is almost the only area which would be available for colonisation purposes. I think that in the circumstances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty does represent an area containing some arable land, he might have shown some more consideration for the very reasonable proposal which I have made.
    Mr. S. WALSH: I think a Member for an English constituency is occasionally entitled to speak even upon Scottish questions. The reason why I now do so is because I think that the Scottish Board of Agriculture have done very well indeed in varying the terms of the Amendment submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire. It seems to me to be peculiarly adapted to the conditions which we shall have to meet at the conclusion of the War. After all, the Lowlands of Scotland, and particularly the industrial areas, have sent an immense proportion of people to the War. I take it that the object of the Bill is to settle as many men as can reasonably be done upon holdings which will offer them a prospect. The Government may very well have been right in limiting the experiment to 2,000 acres. I voted against that. I think it would be a very good thing to have 7,000 acres. If you are really going into experiments of this kind you ought to take a fair modicum of land, so as to enable all kinds of experiments to be made within reasonable compass. But surely, if you do limit the amount of land to 2,000 acres, you must pay some regard to the large body of people who are returning from the War, and give them reasonable proximity to their homes. There should also be reasonable chances of success on the land with which these men will deal. If you are going to place disabled men upon the land, and you are going to give them any hope at all, surely this House has a right to say, "We will make the conditions at the beginning as hopeful as possible; we shall, at least, see that the land upon which you are placed shall be such as to give you

    1509
    hope from the very first." That, I take it, was the object of the hon. Member for North-West Lanark. If we say that the land shall be, as to three-quarters of it, suitable as arable land, we really are not carrying the thing too far. I honestly hope that this experiment will be watched with very great interest. There is not the slightest doubt about it that, if it is successful, it will be the harbinger of a great many more efforts of a similar character.
    Sir F. CAWLEY: I do not represent a Scottish constituency, but I have followed this Debate very carefully. Why on earth you should say, when the demand for small holdings is greater in the Highlands than in the Lowlands, that 75 per cent. of the land should be in the Lowlands seems to me an absurd proposition. Why we should tie the hands of the Scottish Board of Agriculture I cannot see. I am very sorry my lion. Friend has accepted the Amendment.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I just want to say a word or two in reply to the remark which fell from the hon. Member for Boss and Cromarty in his attack upon myself. He suggested, in the first place, that I had no right to speak in a matter dealing with Scotland, and, furthermore, that I had no right to speak, more particularly as I misrepresented the feelings of the people in Scotland in daring to criticise the Duke of Sutherland.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. I never said a word about the Duke of Sutherland. What I pointed out was that the hon. Member was not expressing the views of the people in Scotland.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Exactly. The hon. Member suggested that I was not expressing the views of the Highlands when I criticised the gift of the Duke of Sutherland. I think probably I represented the Highland views and sentiment in this matter more than the hon. Member himself, because I have not yet met a Highlander who was a toady. The hon. Member suggested that I should refrain from any criticism of that gift. I only rose to enter my protest, and to suggest that the question is a national one.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. D. WHITEhad given notice of the following Amendment: At the end of the Clause to add "Sub-section (6) of Section thirty-one of the Small Landholders
    1510
    (Scotland) Act, 1911 (which relates to the valuation of for rating purposes of small holdings within the meaning of that Act), shall apply to any small holding constituted under this Act as if the holder of such small holding were a landholder within the meaning of that Act."
    The Sub-section of the Act to which I refer in my Amendment has worked out to the very great advantage of the small landholders in Scotland. I should like to see it applied to all classes of agriculturists in Scotland. In putting down my Amendment I wanted to make sure that all the small holders under this present Bill would have the same advantages that the others have. However, a Friend has brought it to my notice that if a small holder under this Bill had the small landholder's tenure, or if he had the land on a lease for not more than twenty-one years, the result would be that he would have these advantages automatically. On the other hand, if he held land under what is called the more general terms of tenure, he would be in the same position as those who hold land under the same general terms of tenure. Under these circumstances, as a very considerable portion of the result will be secured automatically, and as those who are not small landholders may perhaps, before long, be in the same position, I do not propose to press this Amendment.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not move?
    Mr. WHITE: No.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Then the hon. Member should not have made a speech.
    Mr. WHITE: I thought it was only courteous to the Committee to explain the reasons which had led me to put down the Amendment, which, had it not been for the considerations I have mentioned, I should have moved.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The rule is against an hon. Member making a speech and then not moving his Amendment.
    Mr. WHITE: Then I shall have great pleasure in moving my Amendment. I beg to move.
    Mr. TENNANT: For the reasons already given by my hon. Friend he will not, of course, expect me to accept his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Commander WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    I do so because Scotland has already got in operation a Small Landholders Act which, with all its imperfections, is working far better than the English Small Holdings Act. The former has the enormous advantage, in the first place, that it is not in the hands of the county councils. It has the second advantage that it is in the hands of the Scottish Board of Agriculture. They have, in spite of Radical criticism of the Act, done far more than has been done in England. They have even now in operation schemes in Aberdeen and elsewhere, and doing exactly what this Bill proposes to do. The Board of Agriculture of Scotland is now doing what is proposed under this Bill. The addition of Clause 10 to this Bill merely means that a certain sum of money raised and passed by Parliament for this purpose shall go to Scotland. With that I am heartily in agreement, but it can be done perfectly simply without this Act at all by giving an increased supply of cash to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland. If that were all, one would not criticise the inclusion of Scotland in the Bill. Obviously, when the Bill was first drawn Scotland was not thought of. But for the very reasons I have said that the thing can be done at present by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, it has this disadvantage: directly you take the new holdings that would be made under this Bill in Scotland you find the people occupying those holdings no longer have the advantages which the present landholders of Scotland enjoy.
    At present in Scotland the rates are fixed by the Board, which treats the landholder with far greater generosity than we have learned to expect in England. As I think, the terms are extremely generous altogether. In addition to that, you have in Scotland at the present time the exemption of improvements from rates. Buildings put up in possession of small holders are not affected by the rates. The rating assessment is not increased by reason of the expenditure of public money. If you turn to this Bill you find that all the improvements put upon the small holdings come under the general law of the land, and thereby afford ground for increase in the rating assessment—a thing which certainly ought to be avoided. Under this
    1512
    Bill small holdings which are arranged in England have to pay rates on improvements, and under the same Act, if you include Scotland, small holdings which come under this Act will have to pay rates in Scotland in exactly the same way. You cannot have under the same Act a different system in England and in Scotland. You will require to make your legislation independent. If this Bill goes through, in spite of what my right hon. Friends to the right and left of me have said, the new Scottish holdings will be rated upon their improvements, and be penalised not only for excess of rent, but they also may have an increase in the rates. Therefore, seeing that the whole purpose of the Bill can be obtained quite advantageously by increasing the Grant to the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and incidentally saving the appointment of a fresh Commissioner at a salary of something like £800 a year, while you can better benefit the returned soldier by working under the old Scottish Landholders Act than by putting him under this Bill, I beg to move.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. BARNES: There is no hon. Member in this House whom I would follow more readily than my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down, but I think in this particular instance he is rather off the mark. I do not think this Bill is worth much, but if we are to have a Bill of this sort I do not see why Scotland should not have it, and I am perfectly sure my hon. and gallant Friend has given no reasons why Scotland should be cut out. He says the same object could be achieved by the Board of Agriculture getting additional money whereby to acquire, as I take it, additional land for small holdings. I do not think there is any scarcity of money for this purpose at this moment. There is a large sum of money in hand that has not been spent. That my hon. and gallant Friend should be in love with the Small Landholders Act, in view of the experience of the last two or three years, passes my comprehension. As a simple matter of fact, that Act has been killed by the lawyers and the land laws. As a result of a decision well known in Scotland—I am surprised my hon. and gallant Friend has not heard of it—the Lindean case, under which a landlord has sustained a claim not only for the value of his land, but the depreciated value of a portion of his land by the fact of small holdings being created, the old Small Holders Act has practically become a dead letter.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to discuss the Act in general terms.
    Mr. BARNES: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Maclean, but I quite understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument was that there was no need for this Bill, because there is already an Act.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was listening to the hon. and gallant Member very closely, and he was directing his argument—perfectly relevantly—to the distinction between small holdings, particularly with regard to rating.
    Mr. BARNES: I will content myself by saying I shall certainly vote for the retention of Clause 10 in the Bill, because if there is any benefit to be got out of this Scotland should share in it. Moreover, so far as I can understand the position, all the advantages that my hon. Friend desires for the small holder are also acquired under this measure.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I support for general reasons the Amendment of my hon. and gallant friend. I take rather as the line of argument the particular point that, as regards rating, this measure is a retrograde step. If, as he has argued, as we set up these small holdings, the assessor comes round and values the amount of improvements and levies rates upon them, whereas in the present Small Holdings Act of Scotland you can improve your small holdings without anything like an increase of rates, then I say this is undoubtedly a retrograde measure. It is worse than what we have had before, and that was bad enough. Therefore I suggest that we are in order in protesting against the future expenditure of public money on a measure which is less beneficent and less likely to be operative than one already in existence. More particularly I base my support of my hon. Friend on the fact that I do think it is a cruel thing to suggest to the soldiers that you are doing something which will enable their desires to come to fruition. The right hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) said he did not think this Bill was worth anything, but that if it was going to be, then Scotland might as well have its share of what was going. That is all very well, but if you go to the Scottish soldier and say-to him, "This is a measure to enable you to get a foothold on your native soil," and all the time you know it will never effect that, I think
    1514
    you are perpetuating a fraud on these men. Therefore, if this thing is useless, as is alleged all round, and is a fraud and a delusion, and a worse method than that which has already been adopted in Scotland, and has effected so little, then I think in common honesty it ought to be cut out of the Bill, especially as we know this sort of thing is all right for the South of England, the monopoly-ridden South of England, and it might not go much further than these trumpery bureaucratic measures. But we know perfectly well the sentiment of Scotland as regards land legislation is far in advance of this measure, which, I think, has been faked up by men whose views do not extend much beyond the southern counties of England. I think it is a peculiar injustice to Scotland, and a peculiarly unfair thing for the Scottish soldier, to come along with these trumpery, useless measures, and to suggest you are doing something to establish him on his native soil, if happily he has the opportunity of returning. Therefore, I can well support the hon. and gallant Member in his Motion for the rejection of this Clause.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I simply desire to put again the point I put earlier to-day, and I am very glad the Secretary for Scotland is here.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is going to put the same argument now, but I must remind him that is out of order.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I hope a request to the Secretary for Scotland, which I could not put to him because he was not here, may now be put?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If it is relevant to this Amendment.
    Mr. RAFFAN: My point of view, and I think that of some of my hon. Friends, with regard to this Bill, has been modified, because we have been told by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it that he is promised land on extremely favourable terms. I think we are entitled to ask whether there is any such promise in Scotland. In England we have been assured that any fear that monopolist prices will be exacted is groundless, because the Board of Agriculture has already got the promise, and they will be able to secure the land on favourable terms. If it is true that these colonies are to be set up outside Glasgow and Edinburgh, and you have to pay monopoly prices for your

    1515
    land, then I am entirely with my hon. Friend. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman is able to give us the same assurance as his colleague that landowners in these districts are ready to contribute to this experiment by meeting the Government on fair terms, so far as I am concerned I should not support this Amendment. But I do say we are entitled to be told whether the Board of Agriculture for Scotland has thought this thing out at all, whether they have entered into any negotiations with any men, or whether, if we pass this Clause, we must take the land on the landlord's terms.
    Mr. TENNANT: I think my hon. Friend who has just sat down has rather misconstrued something that has fallen from my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, because I understand he cannot say he has received promises as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. This has been sprung upon me, and naturally I cannot give an assurance that I am going to get land at extraordinarily cheap rates. I have had no such promise, and therefore I cannot give the assurance. All I can say is that if my hon. Friend and the Committee will trust the Board of Agriculture and the Scottish Office with the administration of this Act, if it becomes an Act, I think they can rely on us to find land fairly cheaply. There is a good deal of land going. I have seen estates sold in the last two or three months at extraordinarily cheap rates compared with twenty years ago, and, that being so, I think it would be a great pity not to give us a chance of putting this experiment into force. I am sure my hon. Friend who moved the elimination of this Clause would not wish to hamper us, or rather deny us an opportunity of carrying out an experiment which may be of great value, and may be really of lasting advantage to the country. Therefore I would ask him not to press his Amendment. As regards the question of rates, I am not a lawyer, but, so far as I have been able to look into this question, I believe the system of exemption of improvements for rates will apply to the land taken under this. If I am wrong, I must apologise, but I think that is the case.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiry at the Scottish Office into that particular point, so that we may know by the Report stage?
    Mr. TENNANT: Certainly.
    Mr. MORTON: I do not propose to ask the Committee to divide on this matter. All I should like to say is, I keep a perfectly free hand, especially with regard to getting information on the questions asked on the Report stage.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    It being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    IRISH MIGEATORY LABOURERS.
    Mr. HUGH LAW: I beg to move, "That this House do now Adjourn."
    I do not propose, so far as I am concerned, to delay the House at any great length, nor do I intend to make any attack upon any individual nor upon any Department, still less do I desire either to excuse or to justify any man liable to military service who seeks to evade his obligation. My case is that a number of people whom Parliament has decided, whether rightly or wrongly I am not concerned, should be exempt from compulsory military service have, during the past few weeks, been subjected to improper pressure culminating in summary arrests and treatment which, I am quite certain, no one in this House will attempt to justify. I ask the House, in the first place, to observe the broad distinction drawn in the Military Service Act between those who are and those who are not within its purview. If hon. Gentlemen will recollect the first Clause of the Military Service Act, it is briefly as follows:
    "Every male British subject whoֵ"
    and so forth—
    "shall unless he either is within the exceptions set out in the First Schedule to this Act or has attuned the age of forty-one years before the appointed date, be deemed as from the appointed date to have been duly enlisted in His Majesty's Regular Forces for general service with the Colours."

    1517
    Sub-section (4) of Clause I of the Military Service Act provides:
    "This Section shall apply to any male British subject who since the the 15th day of August, 1915, has become or hereafter becomes ordinarily resident in Great Britain in the same manner as it applies to a male British subject who was ordinarily resident in Great Britain on the 15th day of August, 1915, with the substitution in the case of a man becoming so resident after the appointed date of the thirtieth day after he has become so resident for the appointed date."
    The First Schedule of the Act lays down the exceptions, and the first exception is:
    "Men ordinarily resident in His Majesty's Dominions abroad or resident in Great Britain for the purpose only of their education or for some other special purpose."
    I contend that the men for whom I speak, or the majority of them, at any rate, clearly come within the words I have quoted from the First Schedule, and I claim that no one whatsoever has any legal power to interfere with them, and still less to cause them to be arrested and taken before any Court. The homes of these men for whom I speak are in Ireland, but they are accustomed to visit Great Britain year by year for a special purpose, namely, in order to earn money, sometimes in the harvest, sometimes in other works in towns, arriving here usually in June or July of each year, and returning home in the late autumn. This annual migration has gone on year after year, quite regularly and without interruption or disturbance, for many generations. Their labour is admittedly of value, and I suppose there never was a time when it was of so great value as it is at the present moment. I want the House to realise that I am not suddenly springing upon it something which hon. Members have never heard of before. This is by no means the first occasion when this matter has been before the House. Let me refer to what took place when the Military Service Bill was in Committee upon the 18th of January, 1916. On that occasion the President of the Local Government Board moved to insert the following new Sub-section:
    "(4) This Section shall apply to any male British subject who since the 15th day of August, 1915, has become or hereafter becomes resident and employed in Great Britain in the same manner as it applies to a male British subject who
    1518
    was ordinarily resident in Great Britain on the 15th day of August, 1915, with the substitution of the thirtieth day after he has become so resident and employed for the appointed date."
    On that occasion the President of the Local Government Board proposed this new Sub-section in order to cover the case raised on the Second Beading Debate by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), who had pointed out, quite justly, that it would be most improper if Irishmen who were regularly employed in Great Britain should be able to take the place of the men who were called up for military service. On that occasion I myself ventured to raise the point as to the effect of the words "becomes resident and employed," and I contended that those words might be held to cover the case of our migratory labourers. The words I used were as follows:
    "If the effect of the Amendment was only that which has been described by the right hon. Gentleman I do not think I, for my part, would object to it. I would like, however, that it should be made perfectly clear what is the effect of the words 'becomes resident and employed.' So far as I am concerned, if it were really only a question of a man who is an Irishman, and who is ordinarily resident in this country and constantly and continually employed here, then I should see no objection to the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1916, col. 289, Vol. LXXVIII.]
    Then I went on to point out the case of the migratory labourers. I had taken the opinion of an eminent King's Counsel, and I was informed that there was no definition of "resident" in the Bill; in fact, that there was no definition known to English law, and I was anxious to be assured that the words of this Sub-section should not be held to apply to migratory labourers. The hon. Member for East Mayo also took up the matter, and he pointed out that the labour of those migratory labourers was essential for the Scottish harvest. He stated that he had himself been approached by the Board of Agriculture, and requested to persuade men to come over as usual, and he asked the President of the Local Government Board to consider whether the effect of the words in the Sub-section could be held to bring these men within the ambit of the Act as soon as they had been in fact resident in Great Britain for thirty days. I think it is important that I should remind the House of what occurred on that occasion because, as a matter of fact, the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo have, I am sorry to say, been only too well justified by events. I should

    1519
    like the House to note what the President of the Local Government Beard said in reply on that occasion:
    "A question was asked just now whether we meant to include harvest labourers. No, Sir, there is no intention of including men who are only here as birds of passage, who come here for the special purpose, and who return the moment that their work is completed. On the other hand, as both the hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. Member behind him know, there are a large number of Irishmen regularly living in the country, ordinarily resident here, and, I believe, in the strict interpretation of these words, having their employment here, who to all intents and purposes are living amongst us, and it would be an obvious injustice that they should be excluded from the operations of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1916, cols. 293–4, Vol. LXXVIII.]
    That was a statement with which we were in entire agreement—so much so that I find that at a later stage when the Bill was considered on Report and an Amendment was moved to cut out the Subsection altogether, I myself said:
    "It is not the desire of any of us that it should be possible for a man to come over here from Ireland or elsewhere and take the work of a man who under this Bill is taken for military service. Therefore, I am unable to support this Amendment. At the same time the Sub-section when introduced in Committee was criticised by my hon. Friend for East Mayo and myself on the ground that it might be held to bring in Irish migratory labourers who come over for harvest work—"
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to note these word, because they are particularly pertinent to the present discussion—
    "and also temporary work such as that at Rosyth. The President of the Local Government Board met our objection in the most courteous manner and promised that he would have the matter reconsidered before Report and see if some words could not be introduced to meet us. He has an Amendment on the Paper."
    That Amendment was to insert the word "ordinarily" later in the Clause, and I ended by thanking the Government for putting it down. Therefore, on the faith of the assurances given to us by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, we refrained from supporting an Amendment which, if it had been carried, would have had the effect of cutting out altogether the Clause under which the men for whom I am at present speaking have been arrested. That fact is pertinent as showing, if I may say so, our good faith in the matter. I desire to be quite frank with the House. It is quite true that the President of the Local Government Board on that occasion spoke specifically of harvest labourers, because—it is perfectly obvious, if anybody will look up the discussion—that was the question which was at that moment in debate, but after all we have got to look at the words of the Statute itself, and
    1520
    these make it as plain as possible that any man not ordinarily resident in Great Britain who comes over here for a special purpose has been in fact placed by Parliament—it is not for me to discuss whether rightly or wrongly—outside the Act altogether. I suggest that the test to be applied in any ease is this: Does the individual in question intend to return to his home in Ireland within a reasonable period? It is not a question of the work that he is doing; it is a question of his intention as reasonably construed. The nature of his employment, I submit, is quite irrelevant. The Act is quite silent on the point of the specific employment, and so long as the animus revertendi is present, I submit he is outside the Act, and no one has any right whatsoever to call his case into question.
    During the past few weeks apparently there has been a general outburst of activity on the part of recruiting officers, notably in Scotland, with regard to migratory labourers. It is more than a fortnight ago that I first brought to the notice of the War Office eases of arrests of migratory labourers in Scotland under the Military Service Acts. Inquiry was promised. I am sure it is through no fault of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office in this House, but up to the present no information has been forthcoming. During the last ten days, and particularly during the last week, a great number of men belonging to the Irish migratory class, and very largely coming from my own Constituency, have been arrested in the neighbourhood of Glasgow and have been driven in hordes first to the Sheriff's Court and subsequently to the military barracks. I do not propose to trouble the House with many details, because it is perfectly obvious that we cannot here retry the cases, but, broadly, I am informed that the police, acting presumably under the instructions of the military authorities, have visited huts, lodging houses, and works, have arrested men without any definite charge being made against them, and have marched them handcuffed through the streets, refusing them even when engaged upon night shifts in munition works any opportunity of obtaining breakfast and keeping them in detention and giving them no food until late in the evening. I am further informed that they have been crowded together in cells, five and six in some cases being put into cells intended only for two persons, and—of course I act

    1521
    on such information as I have got, and I am sorry to think that this can be true—that they have been vilely abused by policemen while in detention. I am further informed that when they were brought up to the Sheriff's Court they were first of all asked what they had to say for themselves. Then, when they attempted an explanation and sought to tell the Court how they had come over to Scotland and had the intention when their work was done of returning to Ireland, they were told that the Court could not hear anything of that sort and that it was a matter which they had better explain at Hamilton Barracks. I can hardly believe that is true, but, if it is true, it is a flagrant violation of the intentions of Parliament and of the plain provisions of the Act. If I understand the matter correctly, it was the intention of Parliament in any doubtful ease that a man should at least have the opportunity of having his case judicially tried in a Civil Court. It was not a matter for the decision of the military authorities. I give the information which reaches me, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland will be able to deny the truth of the allegations I have received. I will not trouble the House, as I stated, with many details, but I will give, if I may, one or two cases. I am told, for example, of the case of a man in my Division. Here is the case of a man, Henry Gallagher, who came to Scotland, to a farm near Edinburgh. He apparently was arrested there, but released. Then later on he came to Glasgow, and a few days later he was again arrested. He was kept three days in a police office, and then taken to the Court, fined £2—why I do not really know—and handed over to the military authorities. He, apparently, was being drafted to an English regiment, when he expressed the wish to join an Irish regiment, and was sent to one. This man, I am told, was three days in a police office at Glasgow; had to lie on the flags at night; no one allowed to speak to him; and when his landlady came with some food it was passed through a hole in the wall after being taken off the plate. My informant says, "As if he were a dangerous lunatic or the worst form of murderer." There are other cases. I have a mass of them here. There have been over fifty arrests at Mossend alone, I am informed, within the past three or four days. Let me mention only one or two more. Peter McCarry, of Clog-
    1522
    haneely, twenty-one, single, a regular harvester, arrived in April, employed in Messrs. Shanks' Works, Mossend; sole support of father and invalid sister; intended to return at end of harvest; arrested without warning or formulated charge; five in cell; heard policeman calling him and his companions "lousy pigs." He was not asked guilty or not guilty; was asked if he had anything to say; said nothing, because of treatment of others, who were told they could explain to military authorities at Hamilton. Sent to Scottish Rifles. I have a number of other cases, but I will not weary the House with these details.
    I take my stand, for my part, upon the broad principle that so long as a man, no matter what work he may take up, belongs to a class which is known to everybody to be in the habit of coming over to this country for work during three, four, or five months every summer, and of returning home, he comes perfectly clearly within the exceptions of the First Schedule of the Military Service Act, and that it is not really within the power of any man, or of any Court, legally to bring him before any tribunal whatever. I take my stand broadly upon that principle, and I say further: I quite frankly admit, of course, that in all these cases there must be some on the border line. There must be difficult cases, and I hope I am the last person to overstate my case, to state my case unfairly, or to impute improper motives to any person; but I do say this in regard to those cases, that even these men, where there is a doubt, are clearly entitled—it is not a question whether you are simply with them or not—to the benefit of the law as it stands, and the law clearly lays down that the decision as to whether or not a man who does not primâ facie come within the exceptions of the Act, a man whose case, primâ facie, is a case which comes within the Act though it may come within the exemptions, is a matter which Parliament has desired should be tried by a Civil Court. I say, again, that if my information is correct, that has not been carried out in these instances, because I am informed that these men are told in the Sheriff's Court that they need not make any explanation, because that is a matter they can explain to the military authorities in the barracks.
    I have been longer than I intended, and, so far as I am concerned, I will not go further in the matter than to

    1523
    say this: This is a matter, and this is partly why I have raised it, which affects my own personal honour. It happens that a very large proportion of the agricultural labourers who visit Scotland every year come from my own Division, and many of these men—I have reason to think some of the men who have actually been arrested—wrote to me within the past two or three months, when the date of the annual migration approached, and asked me, "Do you advise us to go to Scotland as usual this year?" I said "Yes." I said, "I cannot promise you that you will not be subjected to a certain indirect pressure; I cannot promise, in the existing state of things, that you will have a pleasant time, but plainly on the law as it stands, and on the declaration of right hon. Gentlemen, Members of the Cabinet, you are outside the Act, and therefore, if you ask me as to your legal position, I say, 'Yes; no one can touch you; you can go, and you ought to go.'" Why did I say that? In the first place, because in my Division, and the same thing is true of other Divisions in the West of Ireland, the families depend almost entirely on the proceeds of this annual migration. I have another reason, if I may say so, a patriotic reason. It is plain, and I think it will be obvious to everyone whatever view they may take of the exemption of Ireland from the Military Service Act, that once Parliament has decided that Ireland is to be exempted from this Act it is desirable that the labour of these men should be utilized in some other way. If they are not to be in the Army, then surely it is of real national importance that their labour should be utilised, either for the harvest, where it is necessary if ever it was, or else in munitions.
    What is the result of what has happened in the past few weeks? Some of the men, a minority no doubt, have been arrested; some, no doubt, have been released; others have been pressed into military service; and I am bound to say that of all forms of compulsory military service the worst is that which results when men are not only pressed, but pressed, as they will undoubtedly think, in direct contravention and defiance of the promises and pledges given by right hon. Gentlemen. That is the least part of it. That affects probably only a minority. A number of
    1524
    others, I am informed, are returning to Ireland, and a number more, who would ordinarily have come over to work either at the harvest or in the construction of munition factories, will certainly not come unless we can get a perfectly clear and definite assurance from the Government that they will not be interfered with. I submit that this condition of affairs cannot possibly be in the public interest. It cannot be in the public interest that a large body of good, steady, hard-working men should be prevented from coming—that is really what it comes to—through the action of some hot-headed individual—in this matter I entirely acquit the Scottish Office, and I have no reason to blame the War Office either—and that through the hot-headed action of certain subordinates valuable labour should be lost to the country, not only in agriculture, but also directly in the production of munitions of War. I do not know that I have anything to add to what I have stated. I hope I have stated my case temperately, and that I have shown to the House that I am not actuated by any other motive than that of a desire that what I understand to be the plain purpose and intention of Parliament shall be carried out in fact.
    Mr. SCANLAN: I beg to second the Motion.
    The question we are asking the House to consider is whether, in regard to the Military Service Acts and the National Registration Act, those Acts are being carried out in Scotland in accordance with the true spirit and intent of those Acts, and especially in accordance with the declarations made by Ministers of His Majesty's Government when those Acts were being carried through the various stages of the House of Commons. So far as I am concerned, I take up the position with reference to this matter which was stated at an early stage in the discussion by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). It is no purpose of Members of the Nationalist party to plead in any sense on behalf of any men from Ireland who might come over here to snatch the work which has hitherto been performed by men who have patriotically joined the Colours and who are now fighting for their country. When these various measures were in progress through Parliament, the object of Members of the Nationalist party was to protect a class

    1525
    of people who have habitually left Ireland for certain seasons of the year, who have come to this country and engaged in work with the intention, in the first place, of eking out their subsistence and supplementing the scanty income which they made on their own small holdings in the West of Ireland, in the Constituency of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hugh Law), in my own Constituency, in county Mayo, and in various other parts of the West of Ireland included in what are commonly called the congested districts of Ireland—that is, the class of migratory labourers or harvesters. There is another class of people who were especially invited by the Government and by heads of Departments to come over to this country to take part in industrial work of a temporary kind which is in the nature of war work and work which has been absolutely necessary for the prosecution of the War. I want to make it quite clear to the House that in regard to both of these classes of cases, the migratory labourers or harvesters and a certain number of skilled men through their trade unions, were men asked by the Labour Exchanges in Ireland to come over here for this special class of work, and that the Government have given distinct assurances in regard to those men that their presence here while engaged in such work would not be treated as entitling the military authorities to seek to bring them under the provisions of the Military Service Acts. The hon. Member for West Donegal has quoted what was said by the President of the Local Government Board. May I, in the first place, put in a few sentences the position which the hon. Member for East Mayo took up on behalf of the Nationalist party. He said:
    "Last year, as the representative of nearly three-fourths of the Irish migratory labourers in England, I was approached on behalf of the Board of Agriculture and asked whether I could induce my Constituents to come over earlier and help the English farmers to get in their harvest. This is not a case such as was put by the right hon. Member for Trinity College—of Irishmen coming over to take the place of Englishmen who had gone to serve their country. I thoroughly sympathise with the view then put forward. I think you are bound to guard against Irishmen coming over and grabbing the places of Englishmen who are taken under this Bill. But this is the case of Irish labour which long before the War was exceedingly valuable to English farmers and which in the coming season will probably be of absolutely vital importance. Take care that by this Amendment you are not cutting off a supply of labour which may be of vital necessity to you."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1916, col. 291, Vol. LXXVIII.]
    That was early in the Committee stage of the first Military Service Bill. The whole of the terms of the Bill had not been com-
    1526
    pletely adjusted by the draftsman or settled by the President of the Local Government Board, but even then the President of the Local Government Board gave the assurance to the hon. Member for East Mayo as quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Donegal. Later on, as the Bill developed, the assurance was made much clearer. For instance, on 20th January, 1916, with reference to the exemptions Clause of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. Byrne) asked the following question:
    "Whether workmen who were sent from their various trade unions in Dublin to this country at the outbreak of the War for the purpose of carrying out war work, if they should be dismissed or complete their contract, will be allowed to return to Ireland; and whether men who have been transferred from Government Departments in Ireland to this country since the outbreak of War will be excluded from the Military Service (No. 2) Bill?"
    The President of the Local Government Board replied as follows:
    "The persons referred to in the question are excepted from the provisions of the Military Service (No. 2) Bill if they were not ordinarily resident in Great Britain on the 15th August last, or if, although resident in Great Britain, they are resident there for some special purpose. If not within the above exceptions, a claim may be made for their exemption on the ground of their being employed on work of national importance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1916, col. 633, Vol. LXXVIII.]
    There is no reference there to an arbitrary time-limit of thirty days. It is put clearly there. Although resident in Great Britain, if they are resident there for some special purpose, then they do not come within the ambit of the Act. I find that, with reference to agricultural labourers, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Bathurst) asked the President of the Local Government Board:
    "If Irish agricultural labourers undertaking seasonal or other employment in English farms during the current year, when farmers are likely to be seriously short of labour, will be in any way interfered with in their employment while in England, owing to coming within these limits of age, which, had they been Englishmen, would have rendered them liable to military service?"
    The President of the Local Government Board said:
    "These persons would not, in my opinion, be ordinarily resident in Great Britain and would not, therefore, be within Clause 1 (4) of the Military Service Bill in its present form."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1916, col. 1274, Vol. LXXVIII.]
    This matter was raised in the House so recently as 6th April last by the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) in regard not to agricultural labourers but to industrial workers, and he asked this question:
    "If Irishmen sent into Great Britain by the Irish Labour Exchanges for temporary industrial

    1527
    work are exempt from the Military Service Act, 1916, so long as they remain in the employment to which they have been transferred?"
    The President of the Local Government Board replied:
    "The Military Service Act only applies to persons who are ordinarily resident in Great Britain on 15th August, 1915, or who become ordinarily resident in Great Britain subsequently to that date. It does not apply to persons residing in Great Britain temporarily or for some special purpose."
    This supplementary question was asked by the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden):
    "Are we to understand from that reply that the answer to my question is in the negative? The point I raised in the question has not been touched at all in the answer."
    The President of the Local Government Board said:
    "I do not accept the lion. Gentleman's description of my answer. I have given an answer which is accurate, based upon the interpretation of an Act of Parliament. If the hon. Member is referring to the specific case of Irish labourers who come over here to work in one form of industry or another, they do not come within the provisions of the Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1916. col. 1330, Vol. LXXXI.]
    This is the most definite and explicit statement I can find in any of the discussions which have taken place, either when the Bill was in its stages through the House or at any other time. This refers quite distinctly, specifically, and expressly to work in one form of industry or another.
    9.0 P.M.
    I want to draw the attention of the House to some of the grievances of which we complain, and which are the immediate occasion of the present Debate. The hon. Member (Mr. Snowden) on Wednesday last asked this question of the President of the Local Government Board:
    "If the Irish Labour Exchanges are inviting Irishmen to volunteer for munition work in Great Britain, if copies of the questions put by the hon. Member for Blackburn to him are being distributed, which assure volunteers that they will not come under the Military Service Act by coming to Great Britain for that purpose, and in view of these facts what action he proposes to take about the case of two Irishmen who, induced by these replies, volunteered for munition work at Clydebank, and being ignorant of the National Registration Act did not register within the required time, and on 3rd August were fined £1 or ten days' imprisonment, and the following day were sent a notice by the military authorities to join the Army?"
    The President of the Local Government Board replied:
    "I have no knowledge of the facts stated in the question and I can only refer to the replies given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th August, 1916, col. 1220.]
    In order to follow this matter up, I refer to what the Financial Secretary to the War
    1528
    Office said the previous day, and with all respect to him it has no bearing whatever on the case very pertinently raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden).
    "I have taken the opportunity this afternoon to ask the hon. Member for Blackburn if he could supply definite particulars of these men, their names and addresses, and he informs me that he is perfectly willing to supply them to the Secretary for Scotland or the Financial Secretary to the War Office with names and full information to enable him to verify the statements set out in the question."
    I do not think, in view of the assurance given by the President of the Local Government Board, that there can be any justification for this treatment of men in the position of these two persons engaged in munition work in Clydebank.
    I have also here a number of cases, two or three of which I propose to quote, and I think in order that the House may be possessed of the facts sufficiently to form a judgment as to whether the Act is being administered in accordance With the pledges given by members of His Majesty's Government, hon. Members will forgive me for going into this matter in some detail.
    "Three men, all Irish migratory labourers, named Anthony O'Donnell, Hugh Gallagher, and John Gallagher, residing at Derry Beg, county Donegal, came to Scotland towards the end of June and worked as labourers at Moss End. They were arrested by the police at Moss End on the 8th of this month and, on the complaint of the Procurator Fiscal, charged with desertion."
    Of course, if they were liable to the Military Service Act they would be, within the meaning of the Act, deserters, but how can it be said, if they are migratory labourers who come in June to work for a period of three or four months and then return to their country to the agricultural pursuits from which they came, that they are in any sense men to whom the Act applies?
    "These men on being charged with desertion were convicted and handed over to a military escort, and are all at present in Hamilton Barracks."
    I have given the names of three individuals, and I have given particulars which will enable the Secretary for Scotland to verify what I have said. It may quite well be said in answer to what I have now stated that if these men are brought before the sheriffs they are given a fair trial, but that is not the way to administer this Act. That is not the spirit in which the President of the Local Gov eminent Board met my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) when the Bill was on its stages in Committee. These men, and the class to which they

    1529
    belong, are known to be men of the migratory labour class, and they should not be harassed by being arrested and subject to prosecution in a Police Court. Another instance is Patrick McCafferty, Hugh Brady and another, who were on the 10th instant all charged in the Glasgow Police Court with failing to register. McCafferty pleaded guilty and the hearing was adjourned till the 12th instant. Another pleaded not guilty. In the meantime, on the 11th instant, the Procurator Fiscal dropped the complaint of failing to register. All the accused, according to my information, were handed over to the military authorities, in whose custody they are at present. They are not even charged with desertion or brought before the magistrate on any charge except that of failing to register, and that charge is dropped. That is not a fair way in which to administer the Act.
    May I be permitted to call the attention of the members of the Government who are present to another and perhaps a more serious case, and that is with reference to the labourers employed at the Rosyth and at the Methil Docks? While the Military Service Bill was being discussed in the House the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and myself went to the heads of the Admiralty and interviewed them with reference to these men. There was a feeling amongst them that if they remained at their work they would be held subject to the Military Service Act, and that feeling has been prompted among these men—the men employed at Rosyth Works and also at the Methil Docks—largely through what I consider a very incautious letter written by the Prime Minister's Secretary recently. At the Buckhaven Borough Tribunal a question was raised about these men from Ireland as to whether or not they were subject to the Military Service Acts, and the representative of the War Office said that he could not say. Then the clerk of the tribunal addressed a letter on the subject to the Prime Minister, and the following reply was received from Mr. Bonham Carter:
    "He is instructed to say that the Military Service Act applies to all male British subjects between the ages of eighteen and forty-one years ordinarily resident in Great Britain, if a British subject becomes resident in Great Britain, or any portion of the Empire, he would come within the provisions of the Act within thirty days of his being so resident."
    The only comment I am forced to make on that is that it does not represent the Act. In point of fact, it is a very non-
    1530
    sensical statement; it does not represent truly what the Act says; it is a perversion of the terms of the Act.
    The President of the Local Government Board did not fix upon an arbitrary point of time like thirty days as determining whether or not a person was ordinarily resident in this country, and I think the test which my hon. Friend the Member for West Donegal (Mr. Hugh Law) proposed to apply is the only test which can answer the question satisfactorily in this case, and that is the test of whether the man in question intends to remain in this country—has he settled in this country, and has he the intention of remaining, or is he here for a temporary purpose, working for a specified purpose or at a certain class of work, the duration of employment in which is necessarily temporary, and has he the intention of remaining here or returning to his domicile in Ireland? If so, then the Act does not apply to him, because he is not a person ordinarily resident in Great Britain. In face of a letter of this kind, supposed to be written on the authority of the Prime Minister, and sent to magistrates and inferior judges in Scotland—I speak with all respect of all classes of judges in Scotland, but if they receive on the presumed authority of the Prime Minister a letter from his Secretary saying that if a man remains in this country for thirty days he is presumed to be under the Military Service Act—I say in face of such a letter it is no wonder that the Act operates with a certain amount of injustice and is badly administered by those civil tribunals which are responsible for its administration. What I expect and what my colleagues expect of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Tennant), and also from the hon. Gentleman who is here to represent and speak for the War Office (Mr. Forster), is that so far as men of the class of agricultural labourers are concerned and the other class of men who have been enticed over by the Local Government Board—
    Mr. SNOWDEN: And the Board of Trade.
    Mr. SCANLAN: And the Board of Trade—the men who have been asked by the Labour Exchanges to come over to this country and engage in temporary work of this character—expect that so far as these men are concerned they should not come under the Military Service Act. I am not exaggerating when I say that they

    1531
    have been sought for and invited to come over. The question of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) which I read, and the answer to it by the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Long), have been printed and circulated in Ireland by the Labour Exchanges. This constitutes a definite invitation to skilled Irishmen and to Irish labourers to come over and engage in munition and other industrial work, as well as in farm work, and they have come over on the faith of that promise, made in that reply by the President of the Local Government Board. It seems to me the case is so plain that it only requires to be stated in order to secure from the Secretary for Scotland and from the War Office an assurance that so far as they are concerned the Act will be interpreted in accordance with the pledges given by the President of the Local Government Board when the Act was on its passage through the House of Commons. With regard to the cases which have already arisen, I respectfully ask the Secretary for Scotland to give us to-night an undertaking that he will personally investigate every one which has been brought forward, and if he finds that injustice has been done to these men by handing them over to the military, that he will give instructions that the injustice shall be redressed by the men being discharged from military custody. For these reasons I have much pleasure in supporting nay hon. Friend the Member for West Donegal.
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend the Member for West Donegal said he hoped that he had put the case temperately. May I give him an assurance that certainly, in my judgment, he has put his case both temperately and cogently. I make no distinction in that respect between him and his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo, who also did the same. I am glad to think neither of my hon. Friends brings any charge, as I understand them, against the Department which I have the honour to represent, or, I think I may say, against the War Office, and that the feeling is that these regrettable incidents have occurred through what I may call the over-activity of some official. There are two classes of labourers concerned; I think I may distinguish between them. There are those who are associated with agricultural operations and have been so for a considerable period, and there is the other class whom,
    1532
    I notice, both hon. Gentlemen desire to be considered pari passu with the agricultural labourers—that is, put in the same category—namely, the workers in industrial occupations.
    Mr. HUGH LAW: Some of them are the same men.
    Mr. TENNANT: Of course you cannot cut them in half, but I should have thought that they were not the same men. I do not, however, speak with special knowledge, except that one remembers the old Irish labourers who used to come over when one was a boy to help with the haymaking, and that kind of thing. I do not associate them with steel mills, and forges and industrial places of that kind. They are not what I should call "Irishmen ordinarily resident in this country." The men employed in the forges and factories are resident in the town in which those factories are situate, but I only say that from my own knowledge, and I do not want to be dogmatic. But I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for West Donegal talked about them coming over sometimes for harvest work and sometimes for other work, and proceeded to argue that the promise of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of the Local Government Board did include workers at Rosyth as being in the category of persons who were not ordinarily resident in this country, and that therefore they were in the same category as harvesters, and my hon. Friend also quoted the statement that the President of the Local Government Board as to persons who come over only for a short time from Ireland to this country for a special purpose and return as soon as their work is finished. I imagine that there is no difference at all between us as to that class of case, the man who really is ordinarily resident in Ireland and not in Great Britain. There really it is a question of fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Sligo said he would not go into questions of time. He did not think that questions of time entered into the essence of the arrangement. I confess that I entered a caveat to that statement in my own mind, because if time is not of the essence of it, what is?
    Mr. SCANLAN: Intention.
    Mr. TENNANT: I may think that I will go some time to live in Australia; am I going to be considered as ordinarily resident in Australia because I have not been there yet? I think that that would be

    1533
    absurd. If you live for six months of the year in one country and six months in another that is a border-line case, and a very difficult one to decide upon. In that case we would all say, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and I, I am sure, on dozens of occasion in this House have informed hon. Members in various parts of the House that the proper tribunal to decide whether a man is or is not ordinarily resident in this country is a Civil Court. I want to know how it comes about that none of these cases have been tried in a Civil Court? I will make my Friends an offer. If they will produce a case I will have it tried as a test case. I do not know whether they think that worth while accepting. I do not know how it comes about that no test case, or no case at all as far as I can find, has been tried as to whether the man is or is not ordinarily resident in this country. I think that it is incredible, if I may say so, that a person in a quasi-judicial position, or a completely judicial position, such as a sheriff, should have said to any man, "We will not enter into this question here. You had better go and argue that in Hamilton Barracks." It is really incredible that a sheriff or any Court official should say that. I should want stronger evidence of that than mere hearsay. I should want something a little more in the nature of documentary evidence to establish so absurd and almost fatuous an observation as that which was said to have been made.
    Mr. LAW: It comes to me from two sources. I find great difficulty in believing it myself.
    Mr. TENNANT: I would like to know who the people were who gave this information, because even in Glasgow sometimes two persons may be found who are not wholly accurate. My hon. Friend used a very interesting expression. He said that anyone who has the animus revertendi is considered by the Legislature to be a person who is not ordinarily resident in this country. Though he might be here four, five or eight years, the animus revertendi would be still surging in his bosom, and he would not be considered to be a person ordinarily resident in this country.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: That is not our case.
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not want my hon. Friend to go away with the idea that the animus revertendi merely is sufficient to give
    1534
    him his case. I agree with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division that that is not the case which has been put forward, though it was mentioned.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman pardon me if I ask him to deal with what what said by the President of the Local Government Board, in answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn.
    "The hon. Member,"
    he said,
    "is referring to the specific case of Irish labourers who come over here to work in one form of industry or another. They do not come within the provisions of the Act."
    That is the point that I wish dealt with.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman again rises might I ask him to consult his legal Friend (Mr. Munro) as to the law of India with regard to the animus revertendi and the animus manendi. There he will find many examples of the case which has been put.
    Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend informs me that the animus revertendi is certainly considered, but the question of time is no less a consideration in the case which the hon. and learned Member has in mind. I do not think that we need flog that. It seems to me to have been flogged sufficiently. What I think that my hon. Friend really wishes is for me to give him some assurance as to what we can do. I do not think that there is any dispute between us as to what the law is. We all agree that if a man can be proved to be ordinarily resident in this country he is then subject to this Act of Parliament. He comes within its four corners. If, on the other hand, he is not ordinarily resident in this country, then he comes within the exceptions, not the exemptions. That is quite common ground between us. But I think that there are difficult border line cases. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that that is so. I do not suggest that the cases that he has in mind necessarily have been all difficult border line cases. I understand that his case is that that is not so, and that they are regular migratory labourers, such as those whom I knew and used to look forward to meeting again and again. In those cases the migratory labourer ought not to be treated in the manner which my hon. Friend has described, and if I can do anything to contribute to that desired result I certainly will take all the steps which I can. For

    1535
    instance, I imagine that men who are ordinarily migratory labourers are generally fairly well known. They go back to the same place year after year. Presumably the police would know them. In cases where they are known I should certainly feel it not improper for me, and I would certainly feel it my duty, to inform the police that they should inform the military authorities as to who was and who was not a usual migratory labourer whom they knew, whom they could answer for as coming periodically year after year, and in such cases I think that we might avoid a certain amount of this action of which my hon. Friend complains.
    I think my hon. Friend must not ask me to make use of this in respect of those who are known to evade their obligations. I do not think he will wish me to do so. I do not know that I can add anything else. Each case will have to be considered on its merits. My hon. Friend the Member for Sligo asked me whether I can give an assurance that all these cases shall be inquired into, and that the men will be discharged from the Army. I can not give him an assurance as to that, but I will give him an assurance that the cases he brings to my notice shall be inquired into. Naturally, I cannot give him the assurance that men in the military forces can be discharged. I know of some cases where that could not be done. For instance, a man has come over to work, but said, "I do not care what you say; I am going to join the Army." The man joined the Army voluntarily; there were no Police Court proceedings or anything of the kind; there were no proceedings before the Court. The man went straight to the military authorities and said he would join the Army, and he did join it. That may be rather an exceptional case, and I do not want to say much about it; nor do I want it to be supposed by any hon. Gentleman in any quarter of the House that we are using this power which is undoubtedly in the hands of the civil authorities to hand these men over to the military authorities as a means of coercing them to join the Army voluntarily. My hon. Friend talked of these men getting food through a hole in the wall! If there were a hole in the wall of this House I should be very glad to get food through it now. All I can say is that, having given my hon. Friend this assurance, I hope it will satisfy him.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland has shown his usual courtesy, but I am bound to say he has left me very uneasy, and I cannot honestly state that he has answered satisfactorily. We are dealing not with an Irish grievance only, but with a great English grievance and a great Scottish grievance as well. The harvesters of England would, I think, strongly condemn anything which deprived their fields of the benefit of the Irish labourer, who is in a position to come over and help. As a matter of fact—and here is where my right hon. Friend's explanation is so unsatisfactory—it is not merely in the fields of Scotland and England that Irish labour is wanted; it is largely requested by a good many of the munition works. My hon. Friend the Member for West Donegal (Mr. Hugh Law) said his personal honour was engaged in this matter, because, when he was consulted by the migratory labourers of his Constituency as to whether they should come over here or not, he gave them his personal pledge on the strength of the statement by the President of the Local Government Board, and on the wrords of the Act, that they could come over here in perfect surety that no attempt would be made to drive them into military service. I also have personal knowledge of this. The other day a great employer at one of the biggest munition works in this country, where labour is devoted to the production of shells and munitions for the front, came to me and said that he wanted badly a number of Irish labourers to come to his works and help to produce shells and munitions of war. He told me what the wages were, and they were very good wages. I knew my friend sufficiently well—he is a considerable employer of laboor—to be aware that the men would be treated well, and I was so impressed, first, by the opportunity of giving remunerative employment to many of my fellow countrymen in Ireland, and, secondly, desiring to help the Government in every way to win this War, that I gave letters of introduction to the Lord Mayor of Dublin and to all my friends in Ireland that I could reach, in order to set them to help in getting Irish labour to assist here in producing munitions of war.
    What position am I in with my fellow countrymen? [NATIONALIST MEMBERS: "We have all done it; we have all done the same thing!"] What position are we in if, by pledges of that kind on our part, who

    1537
    are supposed to understand the meaning of Ministers, we induced our fellow-countrymen, with the best of intentions, namely, to help in winning the War, to come over on our persuasion, and on our recommendation, when the first thing that happens to them is that they are insulted, that they are put into these gaols, that they are deprived of their right to test their case before a civil tribunal, and that they are put into the Army, I must say—although I quite understand my right hon. Friend is dealing tenderly and considerately with public officials—that I do think we are entitled to have from him some words of disapprobation of the conduct of these officials who are responsible for these very—I hope I am not bringing any passion into this discussion—disgraceful proceedings Just think of one of these poor agricultural labourers, who has probably come over here for years who has perhaps dangled my right hon. Friend on his knee with the kindly feeling that every Irishman has for a baby—just think of one of these poor men coming over here, as did his father and his grandfather before him, only to find that the first thing which happens to him, though he has come on the strength of the pledges of the Government, is that he finds himself in prison, where he is compelled to lie upon the floor, and where he is denied food! It is a most disgraceful proceeding, and the men responsible for it ought not only to be condemned, but should be dismissed. All those who are acquainted with the Irish migratory labourer will know—so will some of my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches—that in the whole labour world there is no more pathetic figure than that of the Irish migratory labourer.
    If you want to know what the Irish migratory labourer suffered in the past—I hope conditions have changed now—read the book of Mr. MacGill, "The Rat-Pit," "which gives the most accurate and true picture of the Irish labourer living in Scotland that has ever been written. He there describes the conditions of life of the Irish labourer at the hands of exploiting middlemen, conditions that would not be given by any Englishman to his dog if he had the ordinary love of a decent man. These men come over here and are put in gaol and are compelled to lie on the floor of a cell, and are starved and deprived of food for two or three days, and insulted as well. My right hon. Friend denies that, but I rely on the statements of my hon. Friend the Member for Donegal which were given
    1538
    to him by persons in whom I think he had a right to have confidence. I know that Irish labourers have been subjected to insult in days that are past. I ask again, what position are we in? Here is this poor labourer, I call him the most pathetic figure amongst the labourers, men and women—for women as well as men leave Donegal to attend to potato and potato digging. Here are these poor men, they live in miserable cabins in the West of Ireland, they have ten or twelve acres of miserable and infertile land. I hope we shall see the day when not one of them will have to leave the shores of Ireland, but that they will be able to make a livelihood in their own country, but they are not able to do so now. They come over here and they work two or three months. They live in barns, huddled together, very often to their own detriment. I will not say more as to that, though my hon. Friends know what I mean. They save their money, they live on the meanest food that can be bought in order to be able to save enough money to keep their houses over their heads and to keep a grip on the bit of land, which is one of the strongest and, I think, also one of the noblest and most beneficent passions of the Irish heart, and to keep their wives and children there. What is the reward they get for coming over here to give their help?
    Colonel YATE: If they go into the Army their wives and children will get the separation allowance. That is the thing for them.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: My hon. and gallant Friend thinks the Army is a panacea for all evils.
    Colonel YATE: It is for the wives and children.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: They do not think so, but my hon. and gallant Friend will excuse me for saying that that is not the question now. Apparently my hon. Friend would prefer that they would remain in Ireland instead of coming here to help his countrymen to get the food which will help us through the War, and to make munitions. My hon. Friend has taken me a little away from the subject. As a matter of fact the farmers of England and of Scotland are crying out for this labour, and munition manufacturers in England and in Scotland are also crying out for it. The labour is in Ireland and will gladly come here, but it would not come here if we have not the

    1539
    assurance that swaggering and over-zealous local militarists will not abuse, and not only abuse but actually violate, the law of the land by pressing these men into the Army against their will and contrary to the pledges of Ministers. I think this is a question on which an Irishman is entitled to feel strongly. I do not want to bring passion into it, but I do feel that a great wrong is being done both to England and to Scotland and to Ireland by these proceedings. That brings me to a point on which my right hon. Friend is quite wrong. He talks about the animus revertendi, and he gave an explanation of the words of my hon. Friend which were not in his mind. No Member of these benches has ever suggested that an Irishman living in England and settled in England should escape his obligation under, the Military Service Act. As a matter of fact our countrymen in England and Scotland would not allow us to make any such plea, and such a plea would be entirely contrary to their wish and, what is much more important, to their act, because I will lay down this proposition, broadly speaking, of the Irish in Great Britain, of whom I am one and in whose name I have some title to speak: I say that there is no race in the whole Empire which has sent a more generous or larger contribution to the righting forces in the field than have the Irish in Great Britain. Thirty thousand of them went from Glasgow alone.
    How could we, in face of such a splendid tribute of our countrymen of Great Britain to the fighting forces in the field, be supposed to come before this House and make a demand in their name that they should be exempt from the same law as their English fellow citizens by their side? No, Sir, that is not our position at all. Now here is where my right hon. Friend seems, if I may say so with great respect, not to be quite up-to-date. Does he or does he not know that at least, according to the pledges of Ministers, an Irishman who comes over here temporarily, even though he may stop for some months to work in a munitions factory and to help in making munitions, is promised exemption from military service. Does anybody suppose that I would advise them to come here if that pledge was not made and if I thought it would not be kept? Would I not be acting a treacherous part and a dishonest part if I helped my friend, a manufacturer of shells in Sheffield, to get Irishmen over here to go into his munitions factory if I
    1540
    knew at the same time that when they came they would be brought before a military tribunal and driven into the Army whether they liked it or not. My right hon. Friend says that he cannot release the men sent into the Army. I say it is his business to release them, and to see that they are released. Surely my right hon. Friend does not think that we want him to force out of the ranks an Irishman who wants to remain there. Our case is that if a labourer comes over here on the strength of the law of the land, and of the pledges of Ministers, that migratory labourers are exempt from this Act, that that pledge should be kept and the law should be observed, and that if the pledge has been broken, and the law broken, and that if the men have been Press-ganged, for that is what it is, into the Army, that they shall be given the option of remaining in the Army or leaving the Army. That would be justice and fair play. I do hope that before this Debate closes we shall have some more satisfactory assurance. I see the Financial Secretary present—
    Mr. TENNANT: I have nothing to do with the War Office now, and therefore I am not able to give pledges on behalf of the War Office.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: My right hon. Friend is too previous. I was referring to the Financial Secretary to the War Office.
    Mr. TENNANT: You were referring to me.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: That is the way all these Government things are managed, and that is the reason we were compelled to initiate this Debate. Heaven knows we did not want to do it, or to do anything that interferes in any way with the business of our colleagues in this House, and the very serious business it has to do. But the reason we had to do it was this: You go to one Department and you are told, "Your case is very good, but it is not my Department; better go to the War Office." You go to the War Office, and you are told, "It is a very strong case for interference, but you had better go to the Secretary for Scotland," and if you go to him you are told to go to the Board of Trade, and if you go to the Board of Trade you are told to go to the Local Government Board, and between all those Departments—
    An HON. MEMBER: It is funny!
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Well, it is true and it is not funny. It is not funny! The story of Mesopotamia will show what this conflict between different Departments has created. I am surprised that my right hon. Friend should think I was trying to make fun of a matter like this. I am stating what everybody in the House knows to be true, namely, that when you bring forward a grievance of this kind you are driven from one Department to another, and that as the result you get no redress unless you bring it before the House of Commons. I hope the Financial Secretary to the War Office will give us a satisfactory assurance on this question. I am sure he will if he can. There is no more courteous Minister in this House. First, is the law going to be obeyed and the pledge of the Government kept? In connection with that, will the men who have been guilty of lawlessness be brought to account? Soldiers are naturally lawless. Inter arma silent leges—which means that you have only to put khaki on some men's backs, especially "dug-outs" or "found-outs," to find them riding, or trying to ride, rough-shod over the law. It ought not to be permitted, especially by the War Office, because for soldiers to break the law is to destroy that spirit of discipline which is the very soul of the Army. Secondly, we want to know whether this exemption applies not merely to men in agricultural pursuits, but to men who come over here temporarily on munitions work. I assure the House that I want to help the Government in this matter. We all want to help the Government. We want to get them as much labour as we can for the food supply and for the shell supply of the country. Certainly we will not be able to take any such steps with our countrymen unless we know that the rights which were supposed to be secured to them by the pledges of the Government and by the letter of the law are maintained to their full extent.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. W. Forster): I think my hon. Friend was a little severe in his observations with regard to an interjection made a few moments ago. I dare say unwittingly he addressed an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland to see that these men who had been taken improperly into military service should be released. My right hon. Friend pointed out that he was no
    1542
    longer connected with the War Office, and that he could not give that pledge. Of course, he cannot give the pledge. My hon. Friend now appeals to me to give such a pledge. Let us see what is the pledge for which my hon. Friend asks. The case which has been made to-night is that of the migratory labourers—a class of men who are well known—a class of men who can be identified—a class of men who can practically be certified by the police. These are the men we had in mind when the Military Service Act was passed. These are the men of whom the agricultural population stand in urgent need. I have not heard anything to-night to show that any one of these men has been pressed into the Army. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have heard allegations that other men working in munition factories have been brought under the operation of the Military Service Act—improperly, it is alleged.
    Mr. H. LAW: I will send the hon. Gentleman details.
    Mr. FORSTER: In regard to agricultural labourers?
    Mr. LAW: Yes.
    Mr. FORSTER: That is the first I have heard of any agricultural labourer having been brought under the operation of the Military Service Act.
    Mr. HAZLETON: May I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Debate on the 1st August, when the hon. Member for West Mayo (Mr. Doris) and myself brought forward three or four cases of which, if necessary, I can remind him later on to-night. We have had no satisfaction whatever, although they were cases of agricultural labourers from the West of Ireland.
    Mr. FORSTER: What I said was that that was the first I had heard of it—the hon. Gentleman's offer to send me cases. Let the House remember the position of affairs in which the military officers have to act. It has been laid down that it is their duty to see that everyone of military age upon the National Register is, so to speak, brought to book. A certain number of these migratory Irish labourers are included in the National Register. The military authorities do not know—they have no means of knowing—who are migratory labourers and who are not. In pursuance of their duty they have to call

    1543
    up all the men of military age on the National Register who have not already joined the Colours.
    Mr. LAW: Under what Statute is that duty laid upon them?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is their duty under the Military Service Act.
    Mr. LAW: Where in the Military Service Act is the reference to the Registration Act?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think everybody knows what the present practise is. The point that arises for decision when these men are called up is whether or not they are exempt under the terms of the Military Service Act. Are they or are they not ordinarily resident in Great Britain? If they are, they are subject to the Military Service Act. If they are not, they are not subject to the Military Service Act. That question of fact has to be, determined, and it has to be determined by the Civil Court. The Civil Court is the only authority that can decide it. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) wanted to know whether I could give him a pledge that the men who have been wrongly taken into the Army under this system would be released. Obviously I cannot give the pledge offhand; but what I can promise is that the cases of these men who are well known and can be certified by the police—I will not put it as high as that—who can be proved to belong to the class on behalf of whom the hon. Member spoke, the recognised Irish migratory labourers, shall be looked into, and if it can be shown that the men were improperly taken under the Military Service Act, I have little or no doubt that they will be given an opportunity of obtaining their discharge. I do not think I can promise on broader or fairer lines than in the way I have met these cases.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I want to deal with one or two points. I think that in some respects the speech of the hon. Gentleman is hardly satisfactory. He has given a promise that the Irish migratory agricultural, labourers who may have been illegally arrested and put into the Army-shall be considered. My attention was, in the first place, called to this matter, and my interest enlisted, on account of a different class of men. My attention was
    1544
    directed to this matter by persons in Belfast who were being invited by the Labour Exchanges there to volunteer for skilled work of an industrial character in this country. Many were invited to volunteer for work in the new munitions establishment at Gretna. They had considerable doubts as to whether they would be exempt from the provisions of the Military Service Act if they volunteered. I have since learnt that in some cases the pledge which has been given to them has been violated, and they have had notices served upon them to enlist in the Army. It seems to me, after the speech of the hon. Member, that the position of the migratory agricultural labourer is in future secured—we hope so, at any rate. But I want equal consideration to this other case. I think the case is quite entitled to that consideration; not only on its own account, but in the interests, as the hon. Member who has just spoken has said, of England and of Scotland. I do not think that anybody for a single moment would contend that these men are ordinarily resident in Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland said the element of time entered into the matter. I do not think the element of time does enter into this case. If the element of time entered at all it is for the period of the War.
    10.0 P.M.
    The point seems to me to be this: These men have been induced to come to this country for a specific purpose, and when that specific purpose no longer exists then their period of residence in this country naturally comes to an end. They have never severed their home ties in Ireland. I take it the reason why this Debate has been raised this afternoon is because men of this class have been quite unjustly brought within the operation of the Military Service Act. I rose at the same time as the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool mainly to put a point which ho put very effectively. I have had a good deal of experience of the War Office. I know quite well what I, at any rate, believe to be illegal acts on the part of recruiting officers. In hardly a single case have I got satisfaction. I have very often put a phrase something like this into the peroration of the question I have addressed to the War Office: "If the facts are found to be as stated, will strong action be taken against the officer responsible?" There is no other way of putting an end to this. The military officers responsible for illegal acts must be punished. An example must be made of

    1545
    them. It is only by doing that that others will be prevented from doing similar things. I had one ease, however, where the War Office did take action. The officer who was guilty of a grossly illegal act was superseded in his command. Notwithstanding that, that Front Bench did everything it possibly could to shield the man, and when I endeavoured to make the fact public that he had been superseded on account of his illegal conduct, the representative of the War Office practically denied that that had been the case. I support most strongly the plea that has been made by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, that, if these recruiting officers are found to have been guilty of illegal acts, that proper disciplinary measures should be taken against them. I rise to put these two points not merely because of those who are migratory agricultural labourers, but because of those who have been brought over to this country for temporary purposes and are being employed in some kind of munitions work. I hope the hon. Member will consider the matter worthy of his attention.
    Mr. HAZLETON: We on these benches, I think, have made it perfectly clear to the House that we make no charges whatever against either the Scottish Department or the War Office for direct responsibility for what has taken place in these cases to which we have drawn attention. We do say, however, that there is an indirect responsibility upon both of these Departments where it can be shown that subordinates, either in the police, or in the recruiting Departments, have acted harshly or unjustly, when it is the duty of their superiors to protect these unfortunate people, and see that such abuses do not occur. We are quite ready to admit, I think, that both the Financial Secretary to the War Office and the Secretary for Scotland have shown a sympathetic disposition in regard to what we have put forward this evening. I do not think, however, either of the hon. Gentlemen have gone quite far enough to meet our case. I think that the Secretary for Scotland must recognise that while, in the main, the case is the case of the migratory agricultural labourer, there is also a strong case in connection with the munition workers who have been enticed over from Ireland to specific undertakings, in response to special appeals by Government organisations and Government Departments in this country, and who have
    1546
    been assured by Irish Members of Parliament, in response to those appeals, they were perfectly safe under the law, and that there need be no fear of their being pressed into the Army against their wishes. All these difficulties were foreseen at the time the Military Service Act was passing through. My hon. Friend who made this Motion to-night quoted chapter and verse to show that we tried our best on that occasion to safeguard against such incidents such as these. We were given assurances by Ministers. I cannot help thinking that it would have been far better for us, and for our people, not to have relied so much upon these assurances, but rather to have made the Act more stringent and specific. It seems undoubtedly the case that there does exist a very extraordinary difference of opinion in dealing with these cases that have arisen in Glasgow as to what is the meaning of the words in the Act, "ordinarily resident in Great Britain." I mentioned it at Question Time to-day. I will read to the House a portion of a letter from a prominent gentleman in Glasgow with regard to that question. He writes:
    "The new position assumed by the authorities at Motherwell is that after twenty-eight days residence the Irish immigrants are officially regarded as ordinarily resident in Great Britain. Such an interpretation and application of the law is, we contend, a breach of the assurances given to Irish Members when the Military Service Act was passed."
    There are just two points to which I want to draw the attention of the House. The first is, we want the position cleared up with regard to the future, and we want to ensure that any injustice that has been done will be set right. The Secretary for Scotland has given us an assurance that he will approach the police in Scotland upon this matter. What we really would like to see him do is to give instructions that, until the position is clearly defined as to what ordinary residence means, he should instruct the police in Glasgow to stop the campaign against these Irish migrants, which undoubtedly has been organised by the police—on whose authority I do not know—within the last couple of weeks. Some hon. Members on these benches and myself as long ago as the first of this month drew attention to this matter in this House. We gave the Secretary of State for War specific cases. Let me read one or two cases presented to him by the hon. Member for West Mayo (Mr. Doris):
    "The first is that of Michael Nolan, from my Constituency. He came to England in April last

    1547
    as an agricultural labourer, and was shortly afterwards seized by the Military at Molesworth, prosecuted, convicted, and forced into the Army. … In this case the registration paper was left at his lodging, and as the man was illiterate it was filled up by an English lady there, and no mention was made of his home address. So that when the paper was returned to the authorities they went and searched for the man, and took him for a defaulter."
    There was a perfectly genuine case in which a mistake had been made. Has that man been released from the Army, if he desires to be released? I will only quote one other case:
    "Another case is that of Thomas McHale, in the same district. … He was arrested on a farm in Cheshire. He was never ordinarily resident in England. He spent only a few months here every year."
    And then my hon. Friend went on to quote other cases. I hope the future attitude of the War Office on these matters is to be different from what it has been, because not only the hon. Member for West Mayo but I myself wrote to the Under-Secretary for War on this question, and the only answer we got was that:
    "Whether or no a man is ordinarily resident in Great Britain within the meaning of the Military Service Act is a question which can only be decided by a Civil Court."
    In connection with the case that. I brought forward from my Constituency, that of a man of the name of Miles Cosgrave, that was the reply I got from the Under-Secretary for War. I have asked for a sworn statement to be taken from this man, and, although he was pressed into the Army by a civil tribunal, I will ask the War Office to reconsider that case, if it can be shown there is clear evidence that there was a wrong decision, and that this man ought not to have been pressed into the Army. I hope the assurance we have received from the Financial Secretary to the War Office this evening means that cases such as those, if pressed upon their attention, will receive fair consideration, and I have only to say that this is a matter which, it seems to me, concerns not only the War Office or the Scottish Office, but the Irish Office as well. I see one representative of the Irish Government on the Treasury Bench, and I hope he will represent to the Irish Government that, until these questions are cleared up, and the position of these men is secured, the police in Ireland will be requested at every police barracks to notify these men that they are not safe in coming over unless they are prepared to be pressed into the Army. I do not wish to pursue that further than to say that I think it is a matter on which the Irish Office and
    1548
    the Irish Government ought to show some concern for these people, because, whatever views we may have with regard to whether or no the Military Service Act should apply to Ireland, I say it is not a chivalrous thing, nor is it a very creditable thing, for a great Empire through its subordinates, or upholding its subordinates, to use unfair means of this nature to press Irishmen into the Army.
    Sir W. BYLES: I know I am only an Englishman, but I hope I may be allowed, as one who has been deeply interested in Irish life, Irish social conditions, and Irish political aspirations for many years, to add a few sentences in this Debate. I do not know whether many Members of this House realise what a wide question this is, and how very far the population of the West of Ireland takes part in our harvesting operations here. It was my business many years ago—I suppose thirty years ago—to go frequently to Ireland. At that time there was a great appetite in this country for facts concerning Irish life, and, having access to a great Northern paper, I made it my business to acquire in Ireland and to portray, as far as I could, the conditions of Irish life. That brought me a good deal into connection with this question of migratory labour, and I was astonished in passing through Mayo and Roscommon, and other places, to find how widely it was prevalent in Ireland. I remember that I visited, at that time, the Island of Achill, where I made a systematic inquiry, and I found that nearly the whole male population of Achill came over to this country for our harvest, and a good deal of the female population went to the mills around Glasgow, going home in the autumn with as much of their wages as they had been able to save. I was much impressed with the peasant population of Ireland and the small farmers, who had always great difficulty in paying their rents. The men who came over to work in our farms—and I have met with farmers in the North of England who have given them the very highest character for good conduct and good work—remained here for some months. I made close inquiries as to what they would earn in this country, what they would save out of their earnings, and what was the rent of their farms, and I remember at this moment the result I arrived at, namely, that out of the earnings of those men here during one summer they would be able to pay for the entire rent of the Island of Achill in one

    1549
    year. I would be very glad if that statement, which sounds rather startling, is tested by anyone else, and I believe it will be found to be fairly accurate.
    The Military Service Act, for some reason or other—probably a good reason—was not made applicable to Ireland; therefore Irishmen ought surely to be exempt unless they become resident in this country. But these residents in county Mayo and the Isle of Achill are in no sense residents in this country, because they have their little farms, of which they know every inch, and they long to get back home with any shillings they can get out of the English farmers. I think it would be very hard indeed if, when they came over here, they were pressed into the Army. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I think the Military Service, Act brings very great hardship on many many individuals in this country, and I do not want these poor Irish labourers, who were never included under the Act, to be made amenable to it. I really did think that the Achill case would be of some interest to the House, and I hope, my poor Irish friends, so industrious, so pious, and so well-behaved, will not be brought under the domination of the military machine of this country.
    Colonel YATE: I should like to thank the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) for the courteous manner in which he received my slight interruption in his speech. I should also like to join with him in all that he said about the splendid soldiers we get from Irishmen who are resident in England. We all know the Irish soldier. The hon. Member described him as lawless. The Irishman may be a little wild, but when it comes to the day of battle you do not want a flock of sheep to drive in front of you but a line of dare-devils, who will follow wherever you are willing to lead them, and of such is the Irish soldier. The Irishmen in England make good soldiers, but we want the Irishmen in Ireland to join as well; and, if they did, then I am sure they would be like the man we were told of, who, once he got into the Army, would not leave it on any account. If the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool would only persuade his colleagues to apply the Military Service Act to Ireland and bring in all Irishmen of military age, drill them in England, and send them to the War, he would do more for Ireland than has been accomplished for generations. He would not only
    1550
    secure money in the shape of separation allowances for the wives, but when those men go back after the War they will go back wiser and better men, and I am sure once they have joined with us in this War there will be very few of us, when Irishmen have proved their sincerity, who will not be ready to join in giving them the national assembly that they are asking for.
    Mr. BARNES: The hon. Member who has just spoken has entirely lost sight of the matter at issue. It is not a question as to whether it is desirable for Irishmen to make common cause with us in this country, but as to whether Irishmen temporarily resident in this country are legally taken into the Army. I rose to make common cause with the Irishmen, and I do so, not on the ground put forward by my hon. Friend, who, as I understand him, pleaded that it was a hard thing for Irishmen to be taken into the Army. I am not concerned whether the taking into the Army of an Irishman is a hard thing. I speak as a Scottish Member, and I want to emphasise the point put by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that it is desirable that these Irishmen should come over here and that the Irishmen who have not come should have a feeling of confidence that they can come and be secure under the shield of the law. I speak as one with some special knowledge of the need of Scotland at the present moment for these agriculturists from Ireland. It has been my lot—I was going to say good fortune, but it has not really been a good fortune—for the last few months to have to sit upon the Central Tribunal which has dealt with these applications for exemption from military service, and in the course of our proceedings we have had many applications from Scottish agriculturists. The appeal was responded to by Scotland perhaps more liberally than by any other part of the country. Men from Scotland went into the Army in great numbers. Thirty thousand, as has been said, went from Glasgow, including, as I know, many Irishmen and many of my own Constituents. My Constituency is largely composed of Irishmen, and I have it on good authority that it contributed more per head of population to the Army than any other constituency, even in Glasgow. The industries of Scotland have been denuded of men. That is particularly true of agriculture. In the course of our examination into this matter

    1551
    and of our consideration of applications for exemption we frequently send to the Board of Agriculture for advice, and we are constantly in touch with that Board with regard to the number of men now in Scotland relative to the needs of Scotland and the number of men now in the agricultural districts of Scotland relative to the prospective needs of Scotland for the harvest. We are, therefore, in touch with the Board of Agriculture on all aspects of this question, and I can say, as a matter of fact, that in Scotland we are dependent upon the usual incursion of men from Ireland to get in this year's harvest. Therefore, from, the point of view of Scottish agriculturists, it is most important that this year, above all years, we should have the usual number of men from Ireland to get in the produce for the Scottish people and for the British Empire. I want to say a word or two as to the speech of the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Forster). He certainly went a good deal in advance of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Tennant) in his interpretation of the Act. Yet I think he gave rather a narrow interpretation of the Act. He said that the Act was primarily intended for the agriculturist. I suppose it was, but the wording of the Act covers more than the agriculturist. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would have inquiries made into some particular cases, and that if they are agriculturists he will give them the benefit of the Act—
    Mr. FORSTER: No, no! I did not intend to apply that to cases of agriculturists only. I said that the question really is: Is a man ordinarily resident or is he not? That is a question which can only be finally decided by a Civil Court. What I said was that in cases where it could be established that a man was a migratory labourer, and it could be proved that he was, then I would do my best to see that he was given an opportunity of staying in his occupation. I should like to carry it one stage further, and say that when that is established then, as a matter of course, under the terms of the Act, he will be exempted from military service.
    Mr. BARNES: That being so, I need say little more on this point, but I may say what I was driving at, and it is this: It must be made manifest that not only the agriculturists are going to have the benefit of
    1552
    the Act, but that other people are going to have the benefit. There was something said as to the Secretary for Scotland giving certain directions to the police to do certain things in Glasgow. I think that would be rather stepping outside the Secretary for Scotland's duty, because the police of Glasgow are under the jurisdiction of the Glasgow municipal authorities. There seems to me no used to give directions to the police of Glasgow if the military authorities did their duty. We may take it for granted that the Scottish police would not act unless they get instructions from somebody. Who has given them these istructions? I take it that these instructions have come from the military authorities, and if the military authorities have given instructions contrary to the law, creating that feeling of lack of confidence in the law on the part of these people whose labour we need, then I say that these people are properly asking—and here I agree with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool—that they should be dealt with as they ought to be dealt with.
    Captain BATHURST: I have never had the very smallest sympathy with the exception of the Irish agricultural labourer from the provisions of the Military Service Act. I am bound to say that I think he must in many cases be sensible of the inestimable privilege which most of his fellows in other parts of the United Kingdom are enjoying in fighting for their country in existing circumstances. The question which has to be decided, however, is this: "Is that labourer really excepted from the provisions of the Act or is he not?" If he is excepted, I think the interpretation of the somewhat vague words ought to be such as to indicate not merely to his mind, but particularly to the minds of all those who usually employ him in agricultural operations in this country, that it is safe for him to come over, and that he will be employed if he does come over. I put a question on behalf of the Central Chamber of Agriculture about a year ago to the President of the Local Government Board, asking him point blank whether in the event of these men coming over, as they had been wont to come over for many years, to engage in harvesting or other seasonal operations on farms they would or would not be in any way interfered with; and the personal opinion of the President of the Local Government Board was that they would not be interfered with.

    1553
    I happen to know that in many districts where these men in past years have been in the habit, of coming over, they have not come at all, or not in the same numbers as formerly. That very seriously disorganises the work of those farmers where their work is exceptionally valuable at the present time. All I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentlemen concerned is that they should make it perfectly clear not merely to the men themselves, but to the farmers of this country who have been in the habit of employing them upon this seasonal work, that they will be allowed to come, that, if they do come, their employers may depend upon their remaining to carry through their harvest operations, and that they will be in no way interfered with by the military authorities if they do. It is not only fair to the men themselves, whatever views we may have as to their patriotism or otherwise, but it is also most important from the point of view of agricultural operations in this country.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I do not rise with the object of prolonging the discussion, but in order to make a suggestion to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whose courtesy throughout this Debate, as in all other matters, those who have come in contact with him freely recognise. The Secretary for Scotland has stated that he will give instructions to the police authorities in Scotland to prevent any mistake or misunderstanding in the future so far as they are concerned in the application of the Act. I suggest to the Financial Secretary to the War Office that he should issue similar instructions from the War Office to the military authorities in England and in Scotland, telling them what the law is upon the question, putting it beyond a shadow of doubt, and instructing them how they are to construe this Section of the Military Service Act. If he will do that, there will be an end to all controversy or misunderstanding on the subject, and it will make it impossible for any misunderstanding or disagreeable criticism to occur in future. It is not an unreasonable request that he should make it perfectly clear, as he has done to-night, and that he should convey this clear understanding to the military authorities all over the country, whose understandings, I am sorry to think, are not always as clear as that of the hon. Gentleman himself. I hope this suggestion will appeal to him, and that he will be able to tell us that the authorities will issue this clear definition of what is the law upon the subject.
    Mr. HUGH LAW: In view of the assurances given by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen representing the Government, and the courteous manner in which they have met us, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion for Adjournment, by leave, withdrawn.

    SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL.
    Postponed proceeding resumed, on consideration of the Bill in Committee.
    [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Expenses and Receipts of Board.)
    (1) Any expenses of the Board incurred in the exercise of any of their powers under this Act in relation to land acquired or to be acquired under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, shall be defrayed out of any advances made to the Board for the purpose under that Act; and any sums received by the Board in respect of any such land shall be applied as the Treasury may direct.
    (2) Any sums expended or received by the Board in pursuance of their powers under this Act in relation to land acquired under this Act, shall be paid out of or into the Small Holdings Account.—[Mr. Acland.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that I do not propose to ask hon. Members to proceed further with the consideration of this Bill this evening or to-morrow morning beyond the new Clauses, thus getting to the end of the Committee stage. If we can get rid of the new Clauses, which are only five in number, we shall not propose to embark on the Report stage to-night.
    This Clause is practically formal, and merely says that the expenses which may fall upon the Board under the Bill, so far as they relate to the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, shall be defrayed out of the advances made for the purposes of that Act, and that sums expended with regard to these small-holding colonies shall be defrayed out of the Small Holdings Account. Conversely, the

    1555
    income received in carrying out this scheme of small-holding colonies will be paid into that account. That was the natural, simple system of framing the financial provisions of the Bill, as I explained at an early stage. It was not put into the Bill in its original form because the measure was initiated in another place.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Particulars of Valuations to be Ascertained and Recorded.)
    Where land is purchased or leased under this Act the Board shall ascertain and record the annual value thereof as adopted for rating purposes at the date of such purchase or lease, and, in the event of the land having been valued under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the various values mentioned in Section twenty-five of that Act; and these particulars, together with the amount of the price or rent, shall be included in the information set out in the annual report presented to Parliament.
    Provided that when the land purchased or leased is part of a larger unit for valuation, particulars shall be given showing the apportionment of the said valuations as between the several portions after severance.—[Mr. D. White.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. D. WHITE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This is really not such a new departure, because as far back as March, 1914, I asked the Prime Minister:
    "Whether he will take steps to secure that in every future purchase of land which is effected or facilitated out of money provided by Parliament, whether wholly or in part, and whether by way of grant, loan or otherwise, a record shall be kept showing, amongst other things, the locality and approximate acreage of such property, the price paid for it and its annual value as adopted foliating purposes at the time of purchase."
    and several other details, and the Prime Minister promised:
    "I will give instructions for as complete a record as possible to be kept in every case of purchase and the nature to which my hon. Friend refers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1914, col. 440, Vol. LIX.]
    A few days ago I asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether this record had been kept both before and during the War, and
    1556
    the answer was that it had been so kept. In these circumstances, the record being kept and as the record will go on being kept, I ask that, so far as these holdings are concerned, the particulars in that record should be entered and should appear in the annual report. In addition to that, I am asking that the particulars of valuation under Part I. of the Finance Act should be entered as well. These valuations have been made at the expense of the taxpayer, and they have cost a considerable amount, and I should like to see them used as far its they possibly can be, and it seems to me that when we are purchasing land and want to purchase it at its true value it would be desirable, if possible, that these particulars should be given as well as the particulars of the rating valuation to which I have referred. This record of these two things seems to me to be very important. After all, so far as proceeding under this Act is concerned, there is to be an annual report. We know a good deal will have to be paid one way and another for the land, and we want these particulars to see where we stand as regards the valuation for these various purposes. We have heard a good deal about land being offered freely. My own impression is that in many parts, if we want to get land suitable for the purpose we have in view, we shall have to pay for it. There may be some generous gifts, there may be some reduced rents, but public money will be employed more or less in purchasing the laud. Where that is done, and where particulars of valuation are available, I submit those particulars ought to be entered in the annual report along with the purchase price as throwing a useful light on the way they are doing things.
    Mr. ACLAND: The Board wants to make as full and complete a report with regard to these colonies from year to year as is possible, and when my hon. Friend asks me, as he did practically, whether we should have any objection to setting down in that report particulars with regard to which the Prime Minister has already given a pledge, I do not see for the moment any objection. We want to give full information. I think it can always be extracted from us if there is any doubt by question, and when we are asked in the particulars which are to be under any circumstances ascertained and recorded, I do not see why we should not give them in the report. But with

    1557
    regard to the middle of the New Clause, that is a new principle altogether which has not yet been established. With regard to Bills in which the Government seeks to acquire land, I know that anything which touches the Finance Act, 1909, is in some quarters of the House regarded as contentious, and I have hitherto, as the Committee knows, had to take up the view, with regard to many Amendments that have already been moved, that I did not wish to plunge the Committee into any contentious questions, and I am afraid this would be contentious, and would be so regarded by some Members. Therefore, if the hon. Member would be satisfied, as a slight step in advance perhaps from his point of view, by my saying I would accept the New Clause subject to the omission of the two lines, I should be very glad to meet him on those terms.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he has made, but I must express my deep disappointment that he is unable to accept the Clause as it stands. I am bound to say that I cannot understand why it should be considered contentious merely to record the value of this land as taken under the Finance Act, 1909–10. After all, though that Act was very hotly contested in this House, it was passed in this House, and is the law of the land, and if it is ever to be of any use for any purpose, surely this is one of the purposes to which it could be put. When the present Minister for War (Mr. Lloyd George), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, carried this Act through, he attached so much importance to this point as to say that it would no longer be possible after this valuation was taken to have one price for rating and taxation and another price for purchase. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) pressed that point again and again upon the House, and there was no point to which more importance was attached in this House and in the country, and if that is a ground of contention one would like to hear from some quarter why it is a ground of contention, and what objection is taken to it. At great expense we have taken this valuation; we have maintained it; this House year by year votes the money for the purpose of continuing it; and upon practically the first opportunity which we get to put it to real use in the interests of the nation we are told we cannot apply it because it is conten-
    1558
    tious. The right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Acland) apparently does not object to it himself.
    Mr. ACLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to interpose. He is mistaken in thinking I was making a full argument in regard to the points he raises. The position is quite different with regard to these valuations and the statements made on behalf of the Government to that indicated. The present Secretary of State for War pledged the Government most definitely that these valuations should not be used for any purpose except that of taxation, and I know that that is most strictly recorded, because it is quite impossible for one Government Department to find out from the Inland Revenue—where presumably these valuations under the Budget are recorded—what these valuations are, so strictly is that pledge regarded. That being so, the Government being pledged not to make public these valuations in any way but to regard them as confidential, I am not able to vary that by agreeing to their being published as the Clause requests.
    Mr. WHITE: In the circumstances, as half a loaf is better than no bread, I will accept the Clause as proposed to be modified by my right hon. Friend.
    Proposed Clause amended by leaving out the words "and in the event of the land having been valued under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the various values mentioned in Section 25 of that Act."
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    The following stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. WHITE:

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Valuation for Rating of Small Holdings.)
    In the valuation for rating purposes of any small holding constituted under this Act, the value of any building or equipment made or provided subsequent to the acquisition of the land under this Act shall not be included.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. WHITE: On a point of Order. May I submit that as this is a Bill to set up small holdings and to make them a success we are entitled to consider the conditions of success? It has been suggested that small holdings should be established

    1559
    as market gardens near large towns. If glasshouses were erected for that purpose and the holding were assessed at a higher rate, and the holder was then rated on his improvements, it would make the holdings commercially impossible for that purpose.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The point of Order is that this is proposing legislation which affects the general law of rating, and is therefore outside the scope of this Bill.
    Mr. WHITE: But I submit on the point of Order—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have ruled on it.
    Mr. WHITE: I would like, if I may—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the hon. and learned Member has any right to argue with me. I have heard him and given my decision.
    Mr. WHITE: Would you hear another point of Order?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Determination of Rent.)
    In determining the rent to be paid by small holders on such colonies there shall not be taken into account such portion of the cost of erecting buildings on and otherwise equipping the holdings (including the higher rate of interest payable for money) as is attributable to the War.—[Mr. C. Harmsworth.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The experience of many Members of this House is that there has been a tendency to overload small holdings with expenses of one kind or another. That is not always avoidable, but I think that we should always avoid it whenever it is possible to do so. The expenses of building, according to such authorities as I have consulted, are at present at least 25 per cent, over the rates prevailing before the outbreak of war. I think that the Committee would desire that these small holdings would start under the most favourable auspices. I move the Amendment in the hope that those extra charges in establishing these colonies which may be attributable to the War should not be placed on the small
    1560
    holdings, but should be discharged by the Department concerned, whether by accepting this Amendment or, perhaps, administratively, if it can be done. I am afraid that I have no very practical suggestion to make to my right hon. Friend, but it appears to me that it is possible that these charges might be debited to the Small Holdings Account of the Act of 1908. However, my desire is at the moment merely to elicit from my right hon. Friend a sympathetic response, because I am sure he agrees with me and those who have tabled this Amendment in our desire that small holding cultivation should not be debited with greater charges than can possibly be avoided.
    Mr. WHITE: This Clause raises a very important point. We hoped there would be a chance of establishing these small holdings colonies on a self-supporting basis, and that the system could be extended. My hon. Friend, and various other Members, will recognise that this proposal practically means that these holdings are really to be on a charitable basis.
    Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH: I hope my hon. Friend does not attribute any sentiment of that kind to me. All I wish is that the extra and abnormal expenditure due to the War should not be charged against the small holder.
    Mr. WHITE: I am perfectly familiar with the terms of the Clause, and I have given very considerable attention to it. I am not speaking of intention, I am speaking of the result of doing the thing in a certain way. If you run this on the basis that you borrow money at 5 per cent., and then charge only 3 per cent, for it, then it is not on a commercial but on a charity basis. Those who are supporting this Bill most strongly must recognise that if you get money at present prices, and you have to charge less, there will be a dead loss, and the difference will come upon the taxpayer. That is what this Clause means, if it means anything. It is very remarkable the way this is limited: "In determining the rent to be paid by small holders on such colonies there shall not be taken into account such portion of the cost of erecting buildings on and otherwise equipping the holding (including the higher rate of interest payable for money) as is attributable to the war." Another point is that the hon. Member, and another hon. Gentleman who has the same new Clause

    1561
    upon the Paper, appear to have overlooked the fact that agricultural prices have risen very much, and so have the profits of agriculturists. In many cases the prices of agricultural produce have gone up steadily. When my right hon. Friend goes into the market to buy agricultural land for this purpose, he will have to purchase on a commercial basis, and not only will there be increased prices for buildings and equipment of the farm, but he will have to pay a war price for the land. I rather wonder that those hon. Members who have put forward this Clause, while so very careful to make this limitation in respect of those other charges have not made it in respect of the land. I would say if they were to adopt this principle at all the first thing they should do would be in the case of land, which after all is the fundamental matter of the whole thing. I do not say I would be in favour of that. I would not be in favour of it. My views on the land question in various respects are fairly well known, and I do not think that this setting up of small holdings for the benefit of our countrymen should be used either to exploit the taxpayer whose calls are pretty heavy, and above all, should not be used to exploit the taxpayer in order to give the landlord a little more price for the land we are using. I would really have liked, if my hon. Friend, who I know takes so keen an interest in these matters, had dealt with that and with the war price of land as well as the war price of equipment. It seems to me, therefore, that the whole thing is on an unsound basis. The fact is that owing to land monopoly and the land being held back we have got to pay too high prices even for poor land and that is what has wrecked a great many small-holding schemes. If we once go on this principle, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it being done if those administering it like to do it, and charge allowances to the ratepayers' pockets, I see no end to it and to the burden of the taxpayer for these experiments we are hearing about and the more impossible they will become. In fact, it would be of very much greater importance if, instead of trying experiments of one kind and of another, we should really go to the root of the difficulty and deal with the fundamental conditions which up to now have made all such experiments unfortunate.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am not able, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amend-
    1562
    ment. I am glad it has been raised because the principle which it seeks to give expression to is an important one in the administration of the Bill. I think really it ought to be left for the administration of the Bill to be worked out between the responsible Departments and the Treasury rather than put in a very hard and fast way, as is here proposed. I do not think anyone would really take the extreme view that it is necessary, especially if you want to try whether these colonies will succeed as an experiment and to give them a fair start as an experiment, that that experiment should be from the beginning burdened with the price of everything at tiptop war prices. There are a great many things which have been done with the consent of the Treasury during the War. Local building schemes have been started and buildings erected, and the authorities have been able to make their case to the Treasury that the special increase of price owing to the high cost of everything during the War should to a greater or lesser extent be borne by the Treasury, and that the locality should only be called upon to repay the cost which would ordinarily be attributable to building as in normal times. I think that sort of principle applies to the Bill, and I think it is due to the House, which has been very kind to me in agreeing, at any rate in putting up with the fact that the scope of the Bill is not to be extended, that with regard to the small amount of work which I hope will be allowed to the Government under the Bill, that that work should be capable of being tried under reasonable possible conditions and that the holders should not be burdened from the first with an impossibly high rent.
    11.0 P.M.
    But, if I may say so, I approach the matter from an entirely different point of view, not primarily from the point of view of whether or not the rents ought to be calculated and regulated on the cost of this or that charge, but simply from the point of view that the rents charged shall not be higher than the tenants can properly afford to pay, and shall not be lower than the tenants can properly afford to pay. I think it is as important that the rent shall be the full proper rent which ought to be charged to a man who has a thoroughly good bit of land to cultivate, as this land will be, as that they shall not be too high for the man to be able to afford. There is probably in England to-day much more

    1563
    land badly cultivated because it is under-rented than because it is over-rented. Under-renting would be just as great a mistake as over-renting in these colonies. It is possible that some landowners will be patriotic enough to present a piece of land suitable for a colony in England. It would be right that for such a piece of land the tenants should be charged a proper rent, and that the rents should be calculated without any consideration of the fact that the land or housing had been presented. Would it then be reasonable to act on this Clause and say that the rent shall in no case take into account such cost of erecting the buildings, assuming the land had been presented? The rent in that case would be bound to be higher than the rent due to the cost of erecting the buildings, because it would have to cover something for the fair value of the land. This Clause, if it were carried, would make impossible the proper carrying out of the work of the Bill, which is really an experiment to see whether colonies of holders cannot be established, paying fair rents for the land they occupy and making a thoroughly good living as colonists associated together. I do not think this matter should be one to be discussed before the Lords of the Treasury from that point of view. I hope I shall have no difficulty in satisfying the Treasury that the schemes will be fair to the tenants, and if they are fair to the tenants they ought to be such as would be accepted by the Treasury, whether or not they carry sufficient to cover these costs taken on a war basis. We cannot tell, until we come to consider particular prices of land, whether or not in each case fair rents will produce a full return in these war expenses. I think it is much better that the question should be approached simply from the point of view of seeing that the rents are not too high and not too low rather than that the rent should be fixed with regard to any particular point as to the cost of the land itself, or of the buildings, or of materials, or anything of that kind. It is only by looking at these holdings from the agricultural point of view of what is fair to the holder rather than from the point of view of the cost, that the holdings are likely to have the success which I believe the whole Committee would like them to have.
    Mr. PETO: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the arrangements he so vaguely foreshadows as being likely to be made with the Treasury in regard to the rents to be charged the soldiers in these experimental colonies are to be applied also to the question of the price to be charged in the case of sale? In view of the fact that, the Government have amended Clause 1 to make it quite clear that they take power under this Bill to transfer what, I think, the lawyers call the "fee simple" of the holding to the cultivator, I hope the right hon. Gentleman is also confident; if he is making arrangements for charging the fair rent, then he will be able to make similar arrangements with the Treasury for charging a fair price for sale. I should prefer to see something fairly and clearly put in the Bill. In starting this experiment we ought not to put upon the men who take advantage of the Act a grave hardship as compared with the men who have been established for a few years prior to the War on similar holdings and carrying on the same industry. If you have not got such a principle as that clearly in the Bill, you really may say that the Bill is worthless. I think it will meet with general acceptance in the Committee when I say that it will be a very poor kind of thing to propose that these men who, having borne the brunt of the War, if they desire to settle down, not in Australia, or Canada, or some other portion of the British Empire—but upon land in their own country—if you are going to say to them, as compared with their absent brother or cousin who has been in a similar business for some years before the War, that they are to have the opportunity of a special Act of Parliament debated here for days in order to confer this boon upon them, and that because money will be 5 per cent, or 6 per cent., and the cost, of building perhaps 30 per cent, higher than before the War, that handicap shall be placed upon them as a privilege for having fought for their country? I do not want to put it higher than that. I only say that so far as I am concerned—I speak with no disrespect of the right hon. Gentleman—I place very small reliance upon the picture of a complacent squeezable Treasury with whom the right hon. Gentleman is going to deal and arrange fair rent. The Treasury, presumably, is going to say: "This is an excellent object for which you are asking the money; we will find the money"—I do not know from where—

    1565
    from the Secret Service Fund or the Development Fund, which are really not applicable to this particular Bill—"we will find it from some source; go along, go ahead! Charge what you consider a fair rent." Will the Bill provide that the cultivating tenants may become cultivating owners, and will the conditions applying to the rent, apply equally to the price to be charged for the freehold—and where the ownership of the holding and the buildings erected thereon, are kept in the hands of the Government? If the right hon. Gentleman can reassure me on these points, I shall not trouble the Committee with the Amendments standing in my name.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There seems to me to be two questions before the Committee. One is: is this Bill intended to make a present to certain people who have fought for their country, and to put them into an advantageous position at the expense of the taxpayer? That is one question which is apparently in the mind or my hon. Friend. The other question is: is this Bill supposed to be an experiment to see whether people who have taken, under the State, small holdings can make a living out of them? If the latter is the idea of the Bill, then all this questioning does not arise. Either this is to be a charity, or it is not. If it is to be a charity then there may be something to be said for it, but then do not let us talk about it as being business, and as being something to show whether or not you can put people on small holdings, and they can make a living. All people who are put into a business and financed by the State can make a living out of the business provided the assistance of the State is large enough, but do not let us say we are putting these people into the business to see if they can make a living out of it in an ordinary commercial way.
    The statement which the right hon. Gentleman made a short time ago, which I confess I did not understand, did not seem to have very much to do with the Bill. What I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say was that the Treasury had already given money to local authorities where the local authorities had incurred a greater expense owing to the fact that prices had risen during the War. That is quite news to me. I do not know, if it is true, for what reason the Treasury had to do that, and as the right hon. Gentleman has let the cat out of the bag, I hope he will tell me, supposing I under-
    1566
    stood him correctly, under what authority the Treasury has done that and when they have done that. It is a most important statement to make that the Treasury has been handing the taxpayers' money over to the local authorities where the local authorities have built a town hall which, in the ordinary state of things, would have cost £20,000, but which now, owing to the increased cost of materials and wages, costs £30,000, and the Treasury have—
    Mr. ACLAND: It is towards the cost of munition factories.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is not quite what I understood the right hon. Gentleman said, and if it is so, and as it remains the property of the local authorities I do not quite see what right the Treasury have to interfere and make a present to the local authorities out of the taxpayers' money without the consent of this House. With regard to the Amendment, I am sorry to differ from the hon. Gentleman who proposed it, but how would you ever find out how much increase in the rate of interest was attributable to the War? The rate of interest has risen, and it is attributable to all sorts of things. In my view the rate of interest will remain higher for 20, 30 or 40 years, and I suppose primarily that is attributable to the War. This would be a great opportunity for the legal profession to argue how far the increase in the rate of interest was, or was not, attributable to the War. I believe some members of the legal profession are not doing well at the present moment. If we put in an Amendment of this sort they would all be making fortunes, and the Excess Profits Tax should then certainly apply to them. I do not think we should be doing anything which would render the working of the Bill easier, although we should no doubt be doing estimable work in assisting the legal profession to make a large profit.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: I understood this Bill was put forward on the same lines as other Bills are put forward, namely, on the ground that the man was to pay a rent based on the expenditure of the Government, and there was to be no charge on the Government except the ordinary expense of administering the Act. Now we are told that a fair rent is to be charged, and by a fair rent is meant all that the small holder can pay. The rent is not to be determined by the cost of the land or the buildings, but the small holder

    1567
    has to analyse with the Board of Agriculture what a fair rent should be. Our experience of that leads us to believe that it will be a loss to the British taxpayers and the tenant will pay a smaller sum, and he will justify this on the ground that the men have been fighting at the front and are entitled to have land at charity rates. There will be favouritism, and the granting to specific members of the fighting force of land on cheap terms will rouse more indignation amongst all those who do not get small holdings than it will create blessings amongst the few who do get them. 'The scheme deals with about 600 men out of the 6,000,000 who have been fighting, and who are going to be benefited by having small holdings on specifically economical terms. They are to be put into a favoured position. How will they be selected? That is the first question. Is it going to be by nomination or competitive examination? Under what system are you going to pick out 600 out of 6,000,000 of men?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: How does that apply to the Clause we are discussing?
    Commander WEDGWOOD: I will bring my remarks in order. Directly you accept this Amendment, that people should be granted small holdings at rents which are not economical and not based upon the cost of the land and buildings which are a loss to the ratepayer, you are presenting them with money down and making them a cash present from the British taxpayer. What right have you to hand over to the Board of Agriculture the privilege of making 600 favourites amongst so many applicants. You know perfectly well if you make the terms attractive enough you will get any number of people to apply for them. You will be overwhelmed with applications, and Members of Parliament who have busied themselves with these things will see that their own particular friends get the allotments. That is one of the worst results of this bureaucratic administration of the land. You are bound to have favouritism, and you will have far more heart-burning from those who do not get holdings than satisfaction from those who do. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be guided by the good old Liberal lines. We are not now governed by a Conservative Government but by a Coalition Government with a Liberal element in it. One of the tenets of Liberalism is sound finance, and when I hear that the Treasury
    1568
    is prepared to lend money to bolster up an industry which is not financially sound I am bound to enter my protest. Let all the soldiers share in this: See that their pensions are sufficient and the allowances for widows and orphans adequate, but do not squander your money on specific individuals, who, how worthy they may be, are not more worthy than the hundreds of thousands of others who have done equally good work.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: There is a misapprehension with regard to the experiment proposed to be mace under this Bill. After all, it is an experiment to show what can be done by a colony of small holdings placed together and worked together, and it is in the national interest that the experiment should be made, and made as soon as possible. It is not in the national interest that we should wait until the War is over, and that is the justification of this Clause. If we thought that the War rates of interest, and the War cost of buildings were going to be permanent, then clearly they would have to be taken into account as part of the conditions in asking ourselves whether a colony of small holdings could be made a successful experiment; but, if we are right in believing that the cost of building certainly will go down, and that the rates of interest will also go down after the War, then we are not learning very much if we charge the experiment with perfectly exceptional expenses. It has been suggested that this Amendment would make a present to a very small number of specially chosen soldiers among all the soldiers for whom we hope to do something after this War. I put it the other way. If you charge these 600 men with the War cost of building and the War rates of interest in order to make an experiment, which it is in the national interest should be made, then so far from giving them a benefit you are going to put a very heavy burden upon them. If they are to be the instruments of making this experiment in the interests of the nation, it is only fair to them that they should not be charged with the excessive cost of building and the high rate of interest which are due to the War, and which we hope will be transitory, certainly so far as the cost of building is concerned, and I hope the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) was a little pessimistic when he talked of the high rate of interest continuing twenty or thirty years. Therefore, in essence and spirit, the Amendment is an excellent one, but I am not sure, after

    1569
    the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, if it would be wise to press it.
    Mr. RAFFAN: The speech made by the hon. Member (Mr. A. Williams), raises a point of extreme importance upon which we ought to have some explanation. My hon. Friend has used a phrase so often used during this Debate. He has said that this is an experiment; but in his view you are experimenting with this 600, and, apparently you are not going to experiment with any more than 600 until the War is over. If the experiment is successful, apparently in his mind extending over a period of three or four years, then, when the War is over, when the resettlement and reconstruction after the War has all taken place, when the men who have come back from the front have all had to find employment and a living for themselves—then, if the experiment is successful, it may be of some use in considering future small holdings policy in this country. I should like to ask the representative of the Government whether it is his view of the nature of the experiment. The figures given in the Report upon which this Bill is based, show that it is not required to provide for 600 men coming back from the trenches, but that as a result of enquiries made by the Commanding Officer at the front there are something like a quarter of a million men, I believe—I speak under correction, and my hon. Friend on the Front Bench was a Member of the Committee—who have expressed their willingness to take up land when they come back. In addition to that there are something like a quarter of a million men more who have been agricultural labourers at 9s., 10s., 11s., and 12s. a week who are out there, and for whom it is eminently desirable to make better provision when they come back. If you are to have any policy which is to find room, occupation, and livelihood for the men who are fighting for their country, you need to provide not for 600 but for 600,000 men, and not after a series of years be shown whether this experiment succeeds or not, but when demobilisation takes place and these men are faced with the question of how they are to make a living in the future, and whether the land which they want is to be open for them. If that is the nature of the experiment, if we are to have the experiment now before the War is over, say, for twelve months, with this measure, with the 600 men for the purpose of ascertain-
    1570
    ing at the end of the year, before demobilisation takes place, whether this experiment with 600 men would be equally successful with regard to 600,000. Surely we are entitled to ask for something more, definite than the statement the right hon. Gentleman made to-night as to whether he hopes to put that experiment on a self-supporting basis. I should not have supported this Amendment if it had been pressed to a Division. I do not want to dispute that, but I would infinitely rather the Amendment had been pressed to a Division and carried by this House than that we had been told: "We cannot accept your Amendment. The House of Commons and Parliament will have no opportunity of judging on it or of saying whether they approve of it or not. Whether the House of Commons approves of it or does not approve of it, we propose to carry it through by administration. Whether the House of Commons desires it or does not desire it, this Bill ceases to be a Bill which will be a self-supporting Bill."
    While this Government has not courage to face the land question, and to break up the land monopoly in this country by the only methods that can break it up, methods which the right hon. Gentleman himself has advocated in many speeches, they have the courage, apparently, to throw on the taxpayers of this country a burden, which will be a continuous burden. This Amendment is represented as if it only means that some payment which had been a little heavier during the first two or three years upon the small holder has to be lightened and thrown upon the taxpayer, but that those two or three years over, then it is withdrawn, the burden on the taxpayer ceases, and therefore it is a small trifle to higgle about. The amount being these few pounds for a year or two, let the taxpayer pay it for the year or two. It is not so. If it is not to be an economic scheme in the first few years, it will never be an economic scheme. The increase in the cost of building which is making the cost of your buildings dearer is a cost which you are going to spread over the whole period during which this experiment is going to exist. It is not a question of this year, next year, or the year after. For the whole period of the existence of this scheme the man pays his rent and the State pays its subsidy. It is not a question of a year or two. It does mean that this scheme is not meant to be a self-supporting scheme. It is meant to be a charity scheme.

    1571
    That would be of comparatively small importance if this scheme stood by itself and if it meant that we were to subsidise these 600 men. I do not think it would be worth doing. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Commander Wedgwood) was quite effective with regard to that. Probably, also, it would not be worth fighting about. If the Government have any real scheme in their minds for resettling people on the land after the War is over, if there is any intention, after demobilisation takes place, of effectively settling people on the land, does it come to this? That the Government, having settled the 600 men upon this charity basis, with this continuous burden upon the Treasury, mean, to go on to provide for the 600,000 in the same way? Does it mean that the annual deficit on this scheme is to be multiplied a thousandfold, and that that is the method by which the Government hope to settle the land question? I can only say that I regard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this matter as a deplorable one. Until now we have always been told that it was intended the scheme should be self-supporting, that even if it were an experiment it was one that would show, rents and prices being what they are, that it was possible, without any subsidy or assistance, for a man to make a decent livelihood on the land. Now we are told that all that is to be torn up and abandoned. That is to be done not upon a decision of this Committee upon the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Harmsworth), and not upon a decision which shows it is desired by the House of Commons that it should be done. It is to be done without the consent of the House of Commons and without the House of Commons having any opportunity to decide the matter. It is to be done administratively. I submit that when a decision of that importance is taken it should not be taken in that way, but that it should be taken in some way which enables the House of Commons to record its judgment in a proper manner.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Those of us who all through have been opposed to this Bill as being a futile, foolish, and fraudulent measure, have been fully justified by the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, because now we see that it is not a self-supporting measure but a measure that can only continue when the representative of the Board of Agri-
    1572
    culture runs round to the Treasury and gets sufficient money to make up the deficit both on the absurd methods they have adopted in securing land and putting buildings upon it, and possible also to cover the foolish and costly administrative methods of the Board of Agriculture itself. I, with my hon. Friends, have been protesting all along against this Bill because of the pitiable fraud it perpetrates upon these hundreds of thousands of these unfortunate men whom—
    The CHAIRMAN: This really seems to be the Third Reading of the Bill. We have not quite reached there yet. We must avoid a Third Reading Debate until we reach that stage.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. Has not the Minister in charge of the Bill introduced a new principle, namely, that this should be done upon charity lines rather than on self-supporting lines?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member himself and the hon. Member who followed him were permitted to make some reference to that, but there are limits. We cannot, upon a simple statement of a Minister upon an Amendment, have a review of the whole Bill. We should never get any work done if we proceeded upon those lines.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I am speaking to the Amendment, which virtually sets forth that the scheme is not a workable one in itself and can only be carried out by means of a State subsidy. The Minister in charge of the Bill has told us that a State subsidy will be granted. Therefore one is able to argue that this measure is not one that will stand by itself and that every extension of it will mean an increase of the subsidy. I will devote myself more closely to the principle of the Amendment. If the intention of the Amendment is to subsidise these small holdings and regard them as summarily uneconomic, and to levy upon the taxpayer for purpose of the support of the small holder to enable him by State subsidy to earn a living, he will not be doing what we intend to provide. He will not be living by way of the land. He will be living partly on the general taxpayer. Therefore, if it is essential to the maintenance of this scheme to include this Amendment, and it seems to be suggested now that it is necessary, the whole Bill is in itself condemned, and if the Government find that the small holder

    1573
    will not be able to make a living off the land acquired at the rate the landowner is demanding, the right method is not to go to the Treasury to subsidise the landlord, and that is what is virtually announced, but to reduce the demand made by the landowners. Therefore, this Amendment really also supports the view that many of us have been contending for all along, that on the present high prices ruling for land, due to the artificial prices ruling for commodities produced from the land, this is the very worst time possible to start a scheme of small holdings. It is the artificial price ruling to-day for commodities that is creating the artificial price of the land, and creates a seeming necessity for the introduction of the proposal in this Amendment, and for the system of subsidy which the Minister in charge of the Bill says surreptitiously he will carry out. For the purpose of meeting the difficulty which is in the mind of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, we should not go by way of subsidy to the Treasury. We should not get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide a subsidy which would go into the pockets of the landlord. We should ask the Chancellor to introduce methods of taxation throwing the burden on the land which will compel the landowner to let his land go at a cheaper rate, and that will solve the whole difficulty.
    Mr. WALSH: I should like to say a few words on this point, because I have had great difficulty in squaring the statements made by hon. Members with whom I usually agree. I thought there was unanimity of opinion as to the desirability of getting the men who had volunteered their lives for our sakes on to an occupation which would develop pride in their own ability as well as do good to the country. I suppose if there is anything we need it is that there should be a greater amount of food produced in this country, and that if anything it should be produced by people who have sustained wounds in our service, but who yet have retained sufficient physical capacity to carry on this kind of work on the land. I thought there was agreement upon that and I believe there is. Then, it is suggested, if these men are put upon the land at all it must be under conditions which make their labour entirely economic. We have heard a great deal of logic and economics. If there were two things which I thought should have been banished to Saturn in the case of men of
    1574
    this character, they were logic and economics. When the hon. Gentleman on the other side asks that the men shall be placed under conditions which shall not burden them with the present abnormal conditions, he said you are asking that they shall be supported on a charity basis. The whole thing is contemptible. Every one of these men will have to work for his living. They will have to produce, I take it, the greatest possible amount from the earth in return for their labour, and can there, under such circumstances, be any charge of pauperism? Are we to place these people simply as veterans upon the land, paying them so much a week and seeing that their families are supported until the end of their days? They have to toil; they have to produce food from the land; they have to labour every day of the week; and they will have to labour under exceedingly difficult conditions. Are we justified then in perpetuating the difficulty of the conditions? They have gone out to fight; they have come back wounded; they are prepared to give their service in the best way possible, and it is the duty of the State to say that that service shall be rendered in the best way possible, and to help them without, however, pauperising them. Is there any pauperism in saying "We shall charge you the same rent as would have been paid had the War not occurred?" and, of course, under the other conditions as to payment for buildings and so on. To say that is pauperism, to say that that is an unfair thing to do for men who have come back after serving their country in the most noble way possible is in my view an absolute misuse of terms. If the hon. Gentleman had taken his Amendment to a Division I should very gladly have supported him. If there is one thing that all parties are agreed upon, including even the most rabid land nationalisers, it is that the resources of our country shall be developed to the greatest possible extent, and here, when the Government say "We will before the War is ended and before this awful onrush of people comes, we will now, when there is a chance of a proper experiment, do this thing to show the possibilities of the land," the hon. Gentleman says—it is not for 600 people you should do it; you will require to do it for 600,000." Is it suggested then that we should do-nothing till the 600,000 come back?
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Not on these lines.
    Mr. WALSH: I suppose you mean we must nationalise the land in the midst of the greatest war the country has ever known?
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Tax them.
    Mr. RAFFAN: My hon. friend knows that land nationalization—
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): As I anticipated, this is diverging really into a discussion on the whole object of the Bill.
    Mr. WALSH: Objection is taken to the fact that the Minister responsible for the Bill says he believes in the principle embodied in the Amendment. So do I; so does every decent hearted man who has given consideration to the conditions under which these men will have to return. While I am in perfect conformity with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan), and would rather see it embodied in the Bill as the expressed will of the House of Commons, yet, believing that the Treasury is a perfectly capable custodian of the finance—money is not easily got out of the Treasury—believing that, I think, short of the Amendment being carried by the House, the principle ought to be recognised that we have an obligation to these men not to saddle them with a burden at the very beginning that will drive the heart out of them. We have a duty to them, and that is to make the conditions easy to start, and not place upon them burdens which will destroy the experiment at the very beginning and damp all other experiments. We are bound in the future to put very many tens of thousands of people on the land. Our own needs as a nation will compel us to do it, and surely we ought to see to it that the conditions laid down at the beginning are not such as to damp the enterprise from the very start. That is the reason why, if the hon. Gentleman had pressed his Amendment, I would have gone into the Lobby with him. But I am satisfied, short of the Amendment being submitted to the judgment of the House, to refuse faith in the Minister in charge of the Bill.
    Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: It may lighten matters if I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. My hon. Friend who has just resumed his seat, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Aneurin Williams) have completely disposed of the very pedantic arguments advanced from the other side of the House,
    1576
    and, after the explanation of my right hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. WHITE: On this question I want to say this: When this Clause was proposed I suggested what I regarded as a grave objection to it. But now, in a sense, we have got behind the Clause, because we have had a statement from my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the Board of Agriculture that puts this in a new light. The proposal of my hon. Friend was that certain deductions should be made in the charges that were made to the small holders. I will pay this tribute to my hon. Friend, that it was a perfectly honest proposal for the House to consider on its merits. I did not agree with it, but it was honest and straightforward. But now we see from what the Under-Secretary says that what is proposed is in effect that though we do not want the Clause there would be expenditure which we need not take into account, such as expenses for cost of material, and interest, that we will just charge the man what we think is fair and that the Treasury will make up the deficit. That throws an entirely new light on this question and shows how this Bill is going to be conducted. We have had this Bill as an experiment, a useful experiment. An experiment on a commercial basis, I say frankly, is a useful experiment, and is a guide. Now we find that it is to be on a totally different basis. I sympathise, in many ways, with my hon. Friend who has just spoken. If, for instance, you mean to say that when we get wounded men back we mean to let them have land, and equip it, below the market value, then if we like to do that let us do it with our eyes open, and let us recognise that that is really a subsidising of this work, a justifiable; subsidising it may be, but these conditions are subsidised conditions, and let us drop this nonsense about this being an economic experiment. I simply put in a plea for fair dealing. Let us see how we stand, in regard to the difficulty of these uneconomic experiments. My hon. Friend said that he would like to see economics banished to Saturn. I wonder if he would like the multiplication table to go as well. After all we must have some principles of action in this world.
    Mr. WALSH: Is this war-logic?
    Mr. WHITE: I do not know any difference between war-logic and peace-logic. Either propositions hang together or they do not. Let me put this point. It is not merely that we say that this is an experiment which is not good as an experiment, and the further you push it the more burdensome it will be to the taxpayer. If we opened up the land to the people, so as to make available the natural opportunities, so that they can—
    The CHAIRMAN: I must put a stop to this. I have heard the hon. Member make the same speech on a different Amendment. It is really an abuse of our procedure, and I should fail in my duty if I permitted that. The hon. Member must be conscious of it himself.
    Mr. WHITE: I do not want to evade your ruling, but my hon. Friend (Mr. Walsh) has put the matter on the lines of a development of land on a basis that was not paying. We want a development on a basis that is paying. I do not want to put it any higher than that. My real point, if you will permit me to make it—it has not been made before—is that if you have a subsidised experiment you prevent others going on.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is exactly what has been said by three other hon. Members.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Purchase of Small Holdings.)
    Where land is purchased for small holdings under this Act such holdings may be purchased by the tenants with the consent of the Board at any time on equitable terms by means of payment in full, or by such addition to the rent as shall include ownership at the end of any term of years that may be arranged between the tenant and the Board.
    Provided that no holdings purchased shall be reduced in extent without the consent of the Board.—[Mr. Haslam.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. HASLAM: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    One of the questions which naturally arise in connection with this subject is whether ownership or tenancy is the preferable system. I think the proper plan is
    1578
    that there should be equal facilities afforded for both systems. One of the principal dangers in connection with this Bill is the institution of State management. Unless we are very careful we may set up a new Department with a fresh army of paid State officials. That would be very detrimental to the interests of the taxpayers and to the workers of the country. I think that owners or tenants, after the first assistance—which in my opinion ought to he liberal—should be taught how to work out their own salvation. All the evidence goes to show that small holdings lead to an enormously increased output of food and other products. Many Members may not have read the recent booklet by Mr. P. H. Middleton, Assistant Secretary to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, on the recent development of German agriculture. My point with regard to this Clause is that in Germany 93 per cent, of the land is owned by the men who cultivate it. In England and Wales only 11 per cent, is so owned. In England and Wales 15.8 per cent, of all holders hold under fifty acres, whilst in Germany 48 per cent, hold holdings under fifty acres. Take the question of products. According to this report, the meat product is 3.9 tons per hundred acres in Great Britain, as against 4.27 tons per hundred acres in Germany. In regard to milk, in Great Britain it is 17.4 tons per hundred acres, while in Germany it is 28.1 tons. The product of wheat is the same in both countries—31 bushels per acre. But when we come to meadow-hay, we find 23 tons in England as against 33.7 tons in Germany. Is not this enormously increased production in Germany due to the men being the owners of the soil which they cultivate? In France, 3,000,000 persons on holdings of less than 25 acres, and 80 per cent, of the total acreage is cultivated by proprietors. If ownership is found so preferable in foreign countries, in order to ensure increased production, would it not be well in this country to have a system by which the tenants could become purchasers of their holdings on fair terms?
    Mr. ACLAND: It is in the Bill.
    Mr. HASLAM: The right hon. Gentleman says it is in the Bill, but it is not very distinctly stated, and I know that in some quarters there is a prejudice against ownership. I have studied the question a good deal, not only with regard to foreign countries, but in regard to Ireland, and I

    1579
    assert that where ownership prevails production is greater than where tenancy prevails. In Ireland, the tenants are becoming owners of their holdings; and I would point out that with a system of ownership there is greater likelihood of a profitable use of the system of co-operation; whereas, under a system of tenancy there is a greater probability of the tenants leaving their holdings, and therefore they do not feel so interested in co-operative methods. In regard to this co-operative system, in Germany, in twelve months, the local societies had a turnover of twenty millions—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting a long way from the point.
    Mr. HASLAM: I want to emphasise the point that under a system of ownership in this country the results would be greater than they would be under a system of tenancy. In Ireland there has been a very successful development of co-operation under the ownership system, the turnover being four millions, and it is constantly increasing. Where you have co-operation associated with ownership, the cultivators of the land can be educated in the best system of farming. This is taking place in Ireland under the Agricultural Organisation Society in that country, and it is a system which can easily be developed by the people themselves. If each of the 100,000 farmers now members of the Agricultural Co-operative Societies in Ireland paid 5s. per head towards the agricultural education movement the sum of £20,000 per annum would be raised, twice as much as the sum which is now being expended by the Agricultural Organisation Societies in Ireland. The whole subject is one which requires careful consideration in order to see whether we cannot introduce some system by means of which occupiers may become cultivators of their own holdings.
    12.0 M.
    Mr. ACLAND: I have appealed to the Committee several times to deny itself the pleasure of plunging into a discussion on the general question of ownership versus tenancy, and I hope we shall not plunge into it now, and particularly as the point is really already dealt with in the Bill. If the hon. Member will look at an Amendment I moved early to-day he will see that it is already possible for persons cultivating their holdings to become owners of their holdings by making peri-
    1580
    odical instalments or otherwise as the Treasury may direct. That really covers the point, and I hope the hon. Member will not press me to do more than what I have done. Our policy is to keep both methods, that of tenancy and that of ownership, completely open in the Bill, and leave it to those in charge of the colonies as they develop to adopt the method they think best.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Would it not be better to state the matter explicitly in the Bill as proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Haslam). When the Amendment was moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board there were very few Members present, and it was approved sub silentio. It is absolutely wrapped up in wording which conceals the object, while we have the whole thing in clear unmistakeable language in this Clause. Whether the House is for tenancy or ownership it should state whether the two systems are available or not. Although I do not wish to emulate the Prussians and prefer to retain tenancy, it is far better to have a clear statement of what the law provides. If you read the words moved by the right hon. Gentleman I defy anybody who is not an expert in the drafting of these Bills to discover that by that Amendment you have a system of land purchase introduced. I do not think any of us are in favour of a very extensive system of land purchase at present, as prices are high and you are going to burden the people who purchase with very high mortgages; but for goodness sake make it clear what you want, and that is not done by the present Bill. I do not think there will be very much movement towards purchase, because capital to develop small holdings is what is required, and there will not be much capital available for other purposes. I do not see why you should not give opportunity to people to go on both lines and state so clearly.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.
    The following appeared on the Order Paper in the name of Commander WEDGWOOD:

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Valuation for Rating of Small Holdings.)
    In the valuation for rating purposes of any small holding constituted under this Act, the value of any building or equipment made or provided subsequent to the acquisition of the land under this Act shall not be included.
    The CHAIRMAN: It may save time if I point out that the principle of this proposed new Clause has been argued on many preceding Amendments.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: It deals with valuation for rating of small holdings.
    The CHAIRMAN: That has already been dealt with.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Automatic Check on Excessive Rents and Prices.)
    (1) Where the Board acquires land on lease under the provisions of this Act the annual rent thereof shall in no case exceed the annual value thereof as adopted for rating purposes at the time of such acquisition.

    (2) Where the Board acquires land by purchase under the provisions of this Act the price shall in no case exceed the gross value of the land as denned and ascertained under Part I. of the Finance (1909–1910) Act, 1910, or twenty-five times the annual value of the land as adopted for rating purposes at the time of such acquisition, whichever be the greater.

    (3) Where the land acquired under the provisions of this Act forms part of a larger unit of valuation, the Board shall apply for an apportionment and revision of the valuation as between the acquired portion and the portion not acquired, and this section shall apply accordingly.—[Commander Wedgwood.]

    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Where land is acquired on lease we desire that the rent shall not be higher than the annual value as adopted for rating purposes. I hope in this proposition I shall have the support of hon. Members who are so jealously enthusiastic for a lower rate of interest on the capital invested in these small holdings. I would like particularly to have with me the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) on account of his sober and sound policy. If he will support me in this Amendment with the energy he has devoted to other Amendments directed towards the development of small holdings, I assure him he will have a great deal more logic and economics, because this Amendment is directly aimed at
    1582
    securing for the small holder cheaper land, less rent and sound leases, instead of dearer land and unsound leases. What has been seen all over England in the cases where the Small Holdings Act has been brought into operation—I speak from experience on the Small Holdings Committee of the Staffordshire County Council—has been the perpetual leasing of land. County councils are going in even more for the leasing of land than the purchasing of it. They arrange holdings, and then let the small holding in place of the whole farm, and over and over again the rents at which they have let them are three times the original rating charged upon that particular farm. You cannot have any sounder line of demarcation than to say that the rating basis shall be the basis for leasing purposes. This rules out immediately all the people who are trying to foist land upon the authorities at a big price, for you could say that you were prohibited by Act of Parliament from offering more than the equivalent of the present rateable value. The land you would have to acquire would be the land of chose people who were genuinely anxious to assist the Government in their experiments. It would be well if you got people who were willing to let the Government have land, say 2,000 or 3,000 acres, on a 33 years or 99 years lease on reasonable terms, with reasonable sale or reversion, and with a rental not in excess of the rateable value of the land. You would then be quite certain that the Government had, at any rate, made a fair bargain with a landlord who was genuinely anxious to make the scheme work well, and push it to a satisfactory conclusion. That is my main argument in favour of the first sub-section of the proposed new Clause.
    Now comes the question of the land that is purchased. In this case it is even more important to have an automatic check upon the price to be paid by the Board than it is in the case of the leased land. In the case of the leased land there is always the power of comparing the previous rental. But in the case of buying land, especially in war time, or at war prices, it is very advisable that there should be some guidance before the Board, so that they may see what price not to exceed, and so as not to be landed with a fancy price. My Amendment says:—
    "Where the Board acquires land by purchase under the provisions of this Act the price shall in no ease exceed the

    1583
    gross value of the land as denned and ascertained under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910,"—
    I do not want to be too pedantic—
    "or twenty-five times the annual value of the land as adopted for rating purposes at the time of such acquisition, whichever be the greater."
    Give the landlords the benefit of the doubt, but do put down the maximum, so that you cannot have land speculation on the part of the man who is anxious to sell his land to the Government to the detriment of the small holders, so that the rates are forced up and the small holders are driven into the bankruptcy court. Immediately this Bill becomes an Act, the Board of Agriculture will be deluged with offers of land, and they will send round a man to inspect the land and bargain about the price. I submit that it will facilitate their labours, as well as cheapen the land, if they say at the outset, before these offers come in, "We cannot pay you more than twenty-five times the annual value of the land, or the value under the Finance Act. 1909–10." If they say that, they will get the land at a reasonable price; but if they submit to bargaining with people; if they have their local agent recommending a price; if they have, as they have at the present time, to compete with the county council in these matters, they will find that the price they have to pay is enormously in excess of twenty-five years' purchase, and more like thirty years' purchase. In that case you will saddle the wounded soldier who has gone on to a small holding with rent he cannot pay. The argument as to cheap money applies even more to cheap land, because if you get land cheap private individuals will be able to get their land cheap and start this experiment.
    My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham started a very large number of co-operative housing schemes. If the Government is going to buy up land at high prices it will absolutely stop societies entering upon co-operative smallholding schemes, because the private society cannot compete. The third part of my Clause provides that where the land acquired forms part of a larger unit assessed for rating purposes, the Board shall be able to apply for an apportionment and revision of the valuation as between the acquired portion and the portion not acquired. The two main parts of
    1584
    the Clause are therefore that there should be some automatic check upon the price paid by the Board. The whole of this Clause has been drafted so as to prevent the strangling of small holdings at their birth. Under the cloak of charity to our wounded soldiers they are doing a good thing for the British landlord. This is what naturally would be expected, but at the same time this is a test case, and if you do mean to do your duty by the wounded soldier, and to help these people to become self-respecting, self-supporting small holders, you will accept this Clause. If you do not, it will be in accordance with the rest of the Bill.
    Mr. ACLAND: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend will expect me to deal with this Clause at any length, because he has explained it so fully. It would, of course, kill the Bill, and I think was meant to. My hon. and gallant Friend made it quite clear that that is his purpose, and he would succeed perfectly well if this Clause were added to the Bill. That is clear enough if we look at the first Sub-section. There is, of course, much land that could be made into excellent land for colonists, if taken at its present—
    Commander WEDGWOOD: We thought you were to get land given you free.
    Mr. ACLAND: I never said so. I said I hoped somebody might come forward and make the sort of offer in England which has been made in Scotland. There is land which would make excellent colonies if it were taken over at its present rent. It may be cultivated as large farms, and when it is divided into smaller farms the rent works out at something which we can quite well afford to pay, but my hon. and gallant Friend would make it impossible that any land of that kind could be taken. We should not be able to go to anyone, however good the land might be, and say, "We are willing to continue the rent which you have hitherto been obtaining. We will not give you any more, but we can reasonably ask you to accept the same rent." That may be, and I believe it will be, a perfectly good thing to do with certain Crown lands which happen to be rented low and which has been offered to us at the present rent. If this Clause were accepted, we should not be able to do that; we should not be able to look at it, because the hon. Member says that it must not be taken at any price greater than its rateable

    1585
    value. Being a great expert on the whole law of rating, he knows that rating is not now based on the full value of the land.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Oh!
    Mr. ACLAND: I am perfectly certain that is true. I doubt if there is a single Member of this House occupying any land or house the rateable value of which is as high as the rent. It is an absolutely established principle among rating authorities to put the rateable value lower than the rent that is paid, and therefore his proposal comes to this, that the rent which he admits it might be reasonable for us to pay could never exceed the rateable value, although, as a matter of fact, in all cases that I know it is assessed so as to be less than the full rent. A proposal of that kind that the whole shall be equal to a part is, as we know, absurd in Euclid, and it is rather absurd in this Bill. We should not be able to accept any land, however reasonable the rent was, and pay the present rent, because the rateable value would be lower. It would deprive us of the opportunity of taking some of the best land that could be offered at reasonable terms, and I do not think that he can reasonably ask us to accept it, except of course with the object of destroying the Bill. The second part of the Clause is really covered by the machinery of the Bill. The Board of Agriculture, I was going to say, are not such fools as the hon. Member would seem to suppose. We do not wish, to use the hon. Member's own phrase, "to strangle all these small holdings in their conception, so as to prevent them coming to birth," and we are not likely to take highly expensive land for the purpose of defeating our own scheme. Everything that we do has to be subject to Treasury approval, and the Treasury is so anxious not to spend more money than they can help that they have kept down the scope of this Bill more than the majority of people like. That sort of safeguard with regard to the public purse is sufficient, particularly, if I may quote the hon. Member's own words used a few days ago, as
    "Ministers in charge of proposals of this kind will always be subject to account by question and comment in this House day by day."
    I took down those words thinking that they might be useful, and those words upon which he laid such emphasis in another connection ought to be sufficient to obviate the necessity for this part of his Clause. The third sub-section of this Clause followed automatically. There will
    1586
    be, of course, a reapportionment of the rates when the land comes under a fresh occupier.
    Mr. WHITE: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has met the Amendment in the way that he has done. I have much sympathy with his new Clause, because it really embodies in a practical sense an object I have followed in this House again and again, namely, that we should try to establish some sort of parity between the valuation on which the landowner contributes to the rates and that on which the people purchase from the landowner. It is on that general principle that I support this Clause. I would like to remind my right hon. Friend that whatever deductions are made the rateable value is based on the actual rent or on the rent which might be supposed to be obtainable for the property if it were in fact rented to someone other than the owner. I think that he will agree with that proposition. In these circumstances, it may perhaps be too much to ask, as my hon. friend does in his Amendment, that the annual rent shall in no case exceed the annual value adopted for rating purposes, but if my hon. and gallant Friend is willing to add 10 per cent., or 20 per cent.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Or even 25 per cent.
    Mr. WHITE: Or 25 per cent., will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to accept the Amendment? I want to establish some standard. The one criticism that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward is that the rating value is too low a value. Supposing we advanced 25 per cent, on the rating value, would my right hon. Friend accept that? Similarly, it may be that twenty-five times the rating value is too little. I made some inquiries some time back in this House as to prices that were paid for land obtained under similar conditions to these. Some exceeded 100 years' purchase of the rateable value, one exceeded 500 years' purchase, and another exceeded 700 years' purchase. I remember one case which should be borne in mind now in view of the necessities of the time. Some land was purchased for a torpedo-boat depot in Scotland near Greenock. That land was rated at £11 2s. 0d., and the taxpayer had to pay more than £2,700 for it; in fact, more than 2,100 years' purchase. That is the sort of thing which we want to stop. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the actual proposal as it stands may be too low. It may be that twenty-five years' purchase is too little. I

    1587
    ask him frankly: What will be taken? Will he take thirty years' purchase? Will he take forty years' purchase? Will he take fifty years' purchase? If he will take anything in reason, I will ask my hon. and gallant Friend to meet him by amending his Clause. We want to establish some parity between the two valuations. When the Bill was introduced, we were told of the generosity of many landowners who were willing to let us have suitable land, either freely or at something very much below its market value. My right hon. Friend has repeated the latter point tonight. The House has been induced to proceed so far with this Bill under that general impression, but now all we hear is that the right hon. Gentleman hopes that it will be so. I may remind my right hon. Friend, who is a student of Adam Smith, that Adam Smith in his great "Wealth of Nations" drew a very definite distinction between a gold mine and a project for a gold mine. In the same way, I draw a distinction between getting a firm offer of land on the terms that the House was generally led to expect and the hope that a firm offer will come at some time or other. Having got so far, it is very important that we should see that we put some limit to the amount of money that we are going to lay out; and the second fact that makes this important is the statement the right hon. Gentleman made on an Amendment not so long ago on the question of subsidies from the Treasury in aid of these. I do want to put it that if these are to be subsidised, and if the country is going to subsidise the building and equipment and so on, it is necessary both in the interest of the holder and in the interest of the taxpayer that you should certainly not go out of your way to subsidise the landlord as well. In these circumstances, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see if he cannot accept this Amendment. I frankly admit that there is something in the criticism he has passed. Would not he accept the first sub-section if twenty, thirty, or even fifty per cent. were added to the valuation for rating, and accept the second sub-section if, instead of twenty-five times the annual rating value, it were made thirty, forty, or fifty times? These are the suggestions I venture to make.
    I would like to dissociate myself from my hon. and gallant Friend who said, I think a little in haste, that the object of the Bill was rather to assist the landlord.
    1588
    I do not think that for a moment, and I am sure that on reflection my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that the right hon. Gentleman and those responsible for this Bill are animated by the sincerest and highest motives. We all agree on that, and the only question is whether the method is right. I suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend's Clause should be accepted, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the modifications I have suggested if he is willing to do so.
    Mr. RAFFAN: The right hon. Gentle man stated that if this Clause were adopted it would kill the Bill. So far as I personally am concerned, and I think I speak for my Friends, I have no desire whatever to kill the Bill, but might I say to the right hon. Gentleman, in all sincerity, that if he refuses to meet us in any way in this matter, not merely to accept the exact words of my hon. and gallant Friend to which, I have no doubt, he is not specially attached, but if he refuses to have put in any limit to the amount that the landlord can secure as a result of land monopoly for the land that is to be acquired for this purpose, then he may save his Bill in his view, but he kills, the wider scheme of which we were told this Bill was to form a part. It is now perfectly clear, as a result of the discussions we have had, that if the right hon. Gentleman refuses to put a limit of that kind it does mean that the monopolist may be able to secure a price far in excess of the reasonable market price for his land.
    It then follows that the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the statement that he has made earlier in the day, admits that it is his intention to charge the tenant less than the market rent. Of course, he says he does not do that to relieve the landlord, he is doing that because of the excessive war prices of building and of interest. But the net result is that there is an annual loss which falls on the Exchequer, and that loss is caused, not because of the reasons of which we have been told, but because the right hon. Gentleman and the Government dare not meet the land monopoly.
    The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I have complained of repetition before. I would suggest that this is a repetition of the same thing, and I cannot allow it.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Tuesday), and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

    MERCHANT SHIPPING (SALVAGE) BILL.
    Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
    WAR CHARITIES BILL.
    As amended, further considered.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition Against Raising Money for War Charities Unless Registered.)
    (1) 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 defined, or to raise or attempt to raise money for any such charity by promoting 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, either directly or through any person duly authorised to give such approval on behalf of such governing body, in writing, 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.
    (2) This Section, so far as it relates to registration, shall not apply to any charity until the expiration of one month after the passing of this Act, nor pending the consideration by the registration authority of an application for registration made within such month.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "approval" ["and the approval"], insert the words "in writing."
    After the word "body" ["such governing body"], leave out the words "in writing."—[Mr. Brace.]
    Mr. HAZLETON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "provision" ["Provided that this provision"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Act."
    I do so, because it seems to me, on the reading of this Section as it stands, it would bear the exclusion of war charities or collections at Divine Service at a place
    1590
    of worship for any charity which may, subject to any regulations made under this Act, be exempted by the registration authority from the provisions of this Section. It would appear to me that if this change was not made, these charities would be exempted from Section 1, but they would be covered by the whole of the rest of the Clauses of this Bill. I would ask the Under-Secretary to deal with this.
    Mr. BRACE: The word "provision" conveys the same meaning exactly as the word "Act," but, as it will make no difference to the principle of the Bill, I will accept the hon. Member's Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "nor" ["nor pending the consideration by"], insert the words "to any charity." Leave out the words "consideration by" and insert instead thereof the words "decision of." Leave out the word "of" ["of an application for registration"] and insert instead thereof the word "on." After the word "for" ["application for registration"], insert the word "the." After the word "registration" ["application for registration made"] insert the words "of such charity."—[Mr. Brace.]

    CLAUSE 7.—(Powers as to Unregistered War Charities.)
    (1) Where the Charity Commissioners are satisfied on the representation of the registration authority that there is reasonable ground for believing that any unregistered war charity is not being or has not been carried on in good faith for charitable purposes, or is not complying or has not complied with conditions substantially corresponding with the conditions imposed on registered charities under this Act, or is not being or has not been properly administered, the Commissioners may exercise as respects the charity any of the powers which are exerciseable by them with respect to a charity which, having been registered under this Act, has been removed from the register, and for the purpose of an inquiry into any charity under this Section the Charity Commissioners shall have such powers in relation to the charity as are conferred by this Act on the Commissioners for the purposes of appeals:
    Provided that the Charity Commissioners shall not exercise the power of

    1591
    establishing a scheme for the regulation of any charity under this Section without giving the charity a full opportunity of being heard.
    (2) This Section shall apply to unregistered war charities whether or not an application for registration has been made, and to war charities registration of which has been refused.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "authority" ["representation of the registration authority"], insert the words "or a Chief Officer of Police."—[Mr. Brace.]

    CLAUSE 10.—(Interpretation.)
    For the purposes of this Act—
    The expression "war charity" means any fund, institution, or association (whether established before or after the commencement of this Act) having for its object or amongst its objects the relief of suffering or distress, the supply of needs or comforts, or any other charitable purpose connected with the present war, but shall not include any fund, institution, or association established before the commencement of the present war where any such object as aforesaid is subsidiary only to the principal purposes of the charity.
    Any question whether a charity is a war charity shall be finally determined by the Charity Commissioners.
    Mr. BRACE: I beg to move, after the word "charity" ["principal purposes of the charity"], to insert the words "nor shall it include the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, or the Statutory Committee or any local or district committee established under the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915."
    Sir H. DALZIEL: On a point of Order, Sir. Did I understand you to say that we are dealing with Clause 10?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Clause 10; yes.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I have an Amendment which the Government will know I had intended to raise on Clause 3 on a point of Order. I do not know whether it is necessary, but the different Clauses of the Bill have not been put separately.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are now on the Report stage.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Then do I understand that it is not possible for me, at this stage, to ask for an explanation of certain points in Clause 3?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member handed in anything I would take it.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I gave notice to the Government.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I can only go by what reaches me at the Table.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I shall raise the point on the Third Reading. Are we going to take the Third Reading to-night?
    Mr. BRACE: Yes.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Short Title, Commencement and Extent.)
    (1) This Act may be cited as the War Charities Act, 1916.

    (2) This Act shall not extend to Ireland.

    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    The Sub-section states that this Act shall not extend to Ireland. I would like to point out that this is really not an Irish question. It is a matter which affects Ireland very much less than it affects England and Wales. If this were purely an Irish question I think it might be quite proper that the Government should leave the decision as to whether Ireland should or should not come in to be settled by the Irish people. But it is not an Irish question. Irish war charities can, under the Bill, appeal for funds in England, Scotland, and Wales, and I want to point out, in order to allay any suspicion on the part of my Irish Friends—I impute to Ireland no greater dose of original sin than belongs to England—that it would be open, under the Bill as it now stands, for an unscrupulous Englishman or Scotsman or Welshman to make his headquarters in Ireland, and from Dublin, Cork, or Belfast to exploit the British public under the guise of raising money for Irish war charities. In order to make that quite clear, I think I must point out that the Bill as it stands creates five new main offences—offences which are punishable by a fine up to £100 or three months' imprisonment, with or without hard labour.
    These offences are as follow: The first offence is soliciting or collecting money

    1593
    for any unregistered or unregulated war charity. I would ask, if that is necessary for England, Scotland and Wales, why is it not necessary for Ireland also? The second offence under the Bill is to promote a bazaar, or other entertainment for any unregistered or unregulated war charity. That also applies to England, Scotland and Wales, but not to Ireland. I again ask, if that is an offence in England, Scotland and Wales, punishable by a heavy fine and imprisonment with hard labour, why should it not be an offence when committed in Ireland? The third crime or offence under the Bill is collecting or soliciting for any war charity without the authority of such charity. Obviously that is a very proper provision, but if it is a crime for a man in England, Scotland or Wales to collect money for a charity without having the authority of that charity, why should a man in Ireland be able to do it with impunity? Those are three main offences, but there are others. It is an offence to promote any bazaar for a charity without authority in England, Scotland or Wales—this is a different offence from collecting or soliciting, it is the offence of promoting an entertainment without authority—and if that is an offence in England, punishable by fine and imprisonment, why should any unscrupulous person in Ireland be able to commit that offence without punishment? There is this fifth offence, if a person falsely represents that he is an officer or agent of a war charity. If that is an offence in England, Scotland and Wales, as it is, and if it ought to be punished, as it ought to be, why should it not be an offence in Ireland, and why should it not be punished in Ireland?
    The main point is that, as matters now stand in the Bill, there is nothing whatever to prevent an unscrupulous person leaving England, we will say, migrating to Ireland, making the headquarters of his bogus charity in Ireland, and from Ireland advertising in the British newspapers, appointing agents in England, Scotland and Wales, appointing sub-committees, and collecting money in this country, taking it over to Ireland in order to escape all the Regulations that are set up in this Act, in other words, in order to evade this Act and defeat its very object. That being the case, I do submit that it is very necessary indeed that these words should be struck out, or otherwise you might have the case of a man in this country committing any of these offences and being imprisoned or heavily fined, while another man walking
    1594
    side by side in the same street might commit the tame offences on behalf of a war charity having its headquarters in Ireland and get off scot free. I do not want to detain the Committee at this late hour. If this Bill is, as we believe it to be, a beneficial Bill which will be for the benefit of respectable war charities in England, Scotland, and Wales, and will be a safeguard to the public; if that is the case, if this Bill will be such a good thing for England, Scotland, and Wales, why deprive Ireland of the benefit of that good thing? Surely that would be another injustice to Ireland. For all these reasons I have, after very careful consideration and examination, come to the conclusion that it is absolutely essential to the carrying out of the intention of this Bill properly, justly, and fairly that this Sub-section should be deleted. I hope it may not be necessary, but, if it should be necessary, I am prepared to back that opinion by going to a Division, if I can find anybody to second the Amendment and anybody to tell.
    Mr. LUNDON: I desire to second the Motion of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. When this Bill was going through the Second Reading stage, I asked the Under-Secretary to the Home Office if it was possible to have it extended to Ireland, and he asked me to put an Amendment on the Paper and said that the matter would be considered favourably, and that he would submit it to the Irish Office and let me know whether or not that body would be willing to accept it. I see no reason why this Bill should not be extended to Ireland, and I am satisfied that none of my colleagues think that it should not be. I am all the more anxious that the Amendment should be accepted, for the simple reason that since I put the question to the Under-Secretary for the Home Office asking that this Bill should be extended to Ireland, a halfpenny influential and powerful newspaper, the most powerful newspaper in our country, made a most vicious personal and untruthful attack upon me, because I asked the House to extend the Bill to Ireland, an attack which I think a Member of this House is entitled to ask protection from. When I asked that this Bill should be extended, I did so in all good faith, and on the following day the London correspondent of the "Irish Daily Independent" made a statement in the London Letter that I wished this Bill to

    1595
    be extended to Ireland in order to prevent charities being raised in Ireland to relieve the distress caused by the rebellion. I cannot understand how any man could stretch his imagination to such an extent as to suggest that I would be the medium for asking that the Bill should be extended to Ireland to prevent money being raised to relieve such distress. He knew when he was writing these words, as well as I do, that this Bill could by no chance cover any funds raised for the relief of distress in Dublin. But his idea was to rake up the dying embers of what took place in Easter week, and hold my party up to odium.
    This Bill relates to war charities, and no others. I, for one, am not going to be brow-beaten by any political newspaper, no matter how powerful it may be in Ireland or in this country, and I am all the more determined that this Amendment should be accepted and that the Bill should be made to apply to Ireland. I am not casting any suspicions upon anyone who is carrying on war charities in Ireland; up and down the country from Belfast to Cork men of all political parties have helped to carry them on. I will say that in the great bulk of cases they have been carried on without fee or reward for their promotion. I know that in Limerick, Dublin, and Cork gift sales have been held and not a penny has been charged by anyone for carrying them on, and every halfpenny collected has been accounted for, and the amount has been published in balance-sheets which have been distributed among those who subscribed. I object to this Bill being withheld from Ireland, because I think that no matter how high up in society a person may be, whether a lady or a gentleman, if that person collects money in aid of the Red Cross or any other charity, those who subscribe are entitled to know how the money has been spent. My object in asking that this Amendment should be made is that, as I understand it, the Bill covers the question of the distribution of the funds, and it insists that only a certain percentage of the funds shall be used for expenses, and in order to prevent any overlapping or wastage of these funds I am interested in having the Bill extended to Ireland.
    I am the more anxious that it should be so extended since I heard the other day in the Committee Room upstairs the Member for Cambridge tell us that all up and down
    1596
    this country you have persons asking for subscriptions to certain war funds and putting the receipts into their own pockets. I ask the right hon. Gentleman who is going to answer for the Government how are you going to prevent swindlers leaving Liverpool or London and going over to Dublin and obtaining money in that way for war charities? I do not agree with the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool (Mr. Pennefather) that it is possible to collect funds in this country for Irish war charities, because they would have to get registered here. However, it is possible, I think, for people to collect funds in Ireland and devote them to their own private purposes, and in order to prevent that from going on I ask that the Amendment should be accepted. I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply for the Government that I do not intend to cast any aspersion upon any persons in Ireland who are engaged in collecting for Bed Cross work. I have given them every assistance in Ireland, in my own Constituency and elsewhere, and I shall continue to do so. Whatever differences of opinion may have sprung up among our people, or between the party of which I am a member and the Government over recent events, one thing we shall not be prevented from doing—we shall continue to give every comfort we can to the men who are fighting our battles at the front. We are anxious to give them that comfort, but we are also anxious to see that any swindler, or anyone carrying on a bogus charity, will not have a fair and open field in Ireland.
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): There is one reason which, I think, is conclusive against this Amendment, and that is: If it were adopted, every Clause in the Bill would have to be reviewed and the measure would have to be recast. The hon. Member will find that this has been done for Scotland, and it would require to be done for Ireland, and if it had to be done at this period of the Session I do not believe the Bill would have any chance of being passed. I say, apart from all argument on the merits of the Amendment, I do not believe that you can apply the Bill to Ireland at this stage, in view of the changes that would be necessary. The House knows that the Chief Secretary is in Ireland, and that is the reason why the Irish Office is not directly represented now; but I can say there is no evidence of

    1597
    that maladministration in Ireland the existence of which has been made quite clear in England, and which is the reason, I think, why this Bill has been produced. It is because of the maladministration of some of these war charity funds that this Bill has been rendered necessary. There is no evidence of any such maladministration in Ireland, and I do not see why you should introduce the Bill where it is not necessary in the circumstances of the country.
    In the second place, registrations would be very few in Ireland. In some counties there would be none and in others only one or two, and yet it would be necessary for the county council to set up registration machinery almost as elaborate as if there was a large number of registrations to take place. That is an argument against the working of the Bill, to show that it is unnecessary in these places. In the third place, there is no central authority for Ireland. That is one case in which machinery for the Bill in Ireland would have to be provided. There is no central authority in Ireland with powers and jurisdiction similar to this in the Bill. It would be necessary to confer such powers and jurisdiction upon some other body, probably the Irish Local Government Board. That again is a matter which would require some consideration; at all events, the Bill would have to go through the Irish Office and go through the hands of the draftsman, and that could not be taken in hand now. The Clause would have to be revised to make it apply to Ireland. All the information we have from Ireland, and I speak also from my own personal knowledge is the same; I have been informed over and over again, by Government officials and by other people in Ireland, that the Bill has no support in Ireland whatever, and it is rather taken as a reflection upon that country that it should be proposed to apply it there.
    Mr. LUNDON: Your information is taken from the "Irish Independent" and those who are against the Bill.
    Mr. RUSSELL: I refuse to be drawn into any controversy between the hon. Member and the "Irish Independent." There is, I repeat, no demand from Ireland for this Bill, and a large section of the people rather take it as a reflection upon the country.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Is it not also a reflection upon England?
    Mr. RUSSELL: In England the people have asked for the Bill.
    Mr. LUNDON: The right hon. Gentleman has not been in Dublin since I put down my Amendment. He knows nothing about the feeling of the people of Dublin on it.
    Mr. RUSSELL: At all events I know that is the case. I hope the House will not destroy the Bill, because that is what it means if the Amendment is accepted now. If the Amendment is accepted the Bill can go no further this Session. It will take time to revise it, and in any case you will not be conferring any boon upon Ireland.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I am sorry my right hon. Friend (Mr. Russell) has taken such a strong line in regard to this Amendment. He tells us—he seems to be speaking for the Cabinet and the Home Office—that this Amendment cannot be inserted. Does; the Under-Secretary to the Home Office agree?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I am speaking for the Irish Office.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: He tells us he is only speaking for the Irish Office!
    Mr. RUSSELL: I said we have got close to the end of the Session, and if this Bill has to be recast and applied to Ireland it will occupy time, and there is no time to spare for that.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: It is no good telling us that we cannot find time to modify the Bill if we wish to apply it to Ireland, and that therefore if we do so the Bill cannot pass. I think the House should take notice of the manner in which the Government is treating us in regard to this legislation. At this late period of the night an Amendment of this kind comes forward, after a half a dozen Amendments which were not on the Paper, and we find that, even if the House desires it, they have so managed the business that we cannot alter the Bill according to our wishes at this time of the Session. I cannot understand the position of the Government with regard to this Amendment. My right hon. Friend said there was no central authority for Ireland. There is just as much of an authority in Ireland as in Scotland, where it is the Local Government Board.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: There are no Charity Commissioners in Ireland.
    1.0 A.M.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Why not use the Local Government Board in Ireland as in Scotland? These powers are given to the Local Government Board in Scotland, and yet we are told the Bill cannot be applied to Ireland because there is no central authority there. If, as the House knows, and he knows, swindling has been going on to the extent of thousands of pounds in regard to these war charities, and is going on at the present moment, why should not the Irish people want to be protected just as much as the people of England or Scotland? It is not for anyone to say that no swindling is going on in Ireland. Swindlers work under curious garbs and names. It is not a case of what has happened in the past or what is happening at present. These swindlers may probably move from this country to Ireland, and they will have the whole field there to make any appeals they like. If this Bill is good for England it must be good for Ireland, and I am sorry the Government have taken this strong view. I should think that in one hour they could draft all the modification that is necessary to apply this Bill to Ireland, and I hope my hon. Friend will persevere with the proposal he has put forward. Let the Government get their Bill to-night, and let them undertake to insert this Amendment in the Lords. It would not delay the passage of the Bill in any degree, and I do hope we shall show by a Division in the Lobby our protest against the limitation to England of a Bill which we believe will be for the good of the general public.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I think that the House will agree that the hon. Gentleman has not made out a very strong case against the extension to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken pointed out that really it would be a very simple matter if it were desirable to extend this Bill to Ireland to make the necessary adjustments and that it need not delay the progress of this Bill to the Statute Book by one hour. If this Clause is deleted to-night the Bill goes to another place to-morrow, and all you have to do is to put in a machinery Clause for application to Ireland similar to Clause No. 11, which applies to Scotland. Scotland, as has been pointed out, has no Charity Commissioners, and the Local Government Board for Ireland would be quite capable of doing for that country what the Local Government Board for Scotland does for
    1600
    Scotland in connection with this Bill. I object very strongly to one remark of the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench (Mr. Russell) in dealing with this Amendment. He said that people in Ireland would take it as a reflection upon the country if this Bill were to be extended to them. I do not know whose views he is representing in making that extraordinary statement. Is it the views of the Government? Is it the view of the Irish Office, or whose views is it? He has not told us. It is not a reflection upon the people of this country, where all persons are anxious that these war charities should be well-regulated, but I do say that if there were no necessity up to the present time for a Bill of this kind being applied to Ireland, you are creating the necessity by passing this Bill for England and for Scotland because swindlers and other people in Great Britain whose vocation will be gone will be driven over to Ireland. What did we witness at the time racing was very largely curtailed in this country? That all sorts of undesirable people who had made their living here crossed the Channel, many of them trying to do their best there to imitate the practices which they adopted in this country.
    When the right hon. Gentleman put forward the assertion that to extend this Bill to Ireland would be a reflection upon the country he was not representing the view of anybody, or of anybody of opinion in Ireland itself. I am sorry that he has not made a stronger case, because it seems to me that the only real objection to the extension of this Bill to Ireland is the laziness of Irish Government officials who do not want the trouble of applying it. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of setting up a great deal of elaborate machinery all over the country. I have followed the discussion from start to finish of this Bill, and I say there is really no elaborate machinery at all in this Bill. All the county councils have got to do is to appoint a committee and to keep a notebook for registration, and if the Irish Local Government Board or the Irish Office or the Chief Secretary's Office—I do not know for whom the right hon. Gentleman was speaking—think that that is a trouble and that Irish county councils would resent it I tell him that he has, in my opinion, taken a very mistaken view. There is one other point. The right hon. Gentleman, to come back to one of his remarks, said this Bill would be a reflection upon Ireland. I consider that

    1601
    one of his observations was a much more serious reflection on Ireland, that was when he told the House what I was most surprised to learn, and cannot accept without further corroboration, that in some counties in Ireland there were very few war charities, and that in other counties there were no war charities at all. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to mention the name of any single county in Ireland where there is no war charity. I say that is not correct, and that he is misrepresenting our country when he brings forward an assertion of that kind, because you have only got to look at the Irish papers week atfer week, whatever district they come from, to see that these gift days to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Limerick referred, and the flag days and such things are in operation all over the country. I say that if there is a reflection casting discredit upon Ireland it is not from hon. Members on this bench who have been advocating the extension of this Bill to Ireland, but it is in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who opposes it.
    Mr. BRACE: I regret to see this development at a late hour. The House will remember that my hon. Friend who seconded the Motion tabled an Amendment for the inclusion of Ireland when the Bill was before the House on the first occasion. After some talk with him, I understood that he would not press this Amendment.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I moved the Amendment.
    Mr. BRACE: I understood the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment, and therefore it has rather taken me by surprise to-night that this position has developed in the way it has. I make a special appeal to my right hon. Friend, and I hope the House will not put us in this position that we shall jeopardise this Bill.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: There is no jeopardising.
    Mr. BRACE: Will the House forgive me. I am not an astute politician; I am simply an ordinary, plain business man. This Bill is based upon the Report of a Committee. The Committee inquired into the whole of this problem. The Irish problem formed no part of this inquiry. No Irishman was a member of the Committee. No evidence whatever was taken from Ireland as to war charities. I am, therefore, in this position, that we have had a Committee inquiring exhaustively into the
    1602
    position of war charities in England and Scotland, and we have a unanimous recommendation based upon evidence taken from both England and Scotland, and consequently the Bill was drafted leaving Ireland out altogether.
    After the Amendment had been put upon the Paper, I placed myself in communication with the Irish Office, and the reply I received from them was this:
    "The Chief Secretary thinks that the Bill ought not to be extended to Ireland. He has received reports adverse to the extension from the Under-Secretary, the Solicitor-General for Ireland, and the Secretary to the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland."
    In face of that, I do not think the House ought to ask me to accept the responsibility of including Ireland at this juncture. I am keenly anxious to get this Bill. We have a known problem in England and in Scotland, the problem in connection with these charitable funds with which we hope to deal without the slightest delay. I hope to see this Bill placed in the Statute Book within hours from now, and to have the whole scheme of the Bill in operation to deal with the exploitation with which it is intended to deal. In all the circumstances, I hope my hon. Friend will not press upon me the acceptance of the Amendment to include Ireland. I place myself entirely at the disposal of the House of Commons, and it is because I feel myself in this difficulty that I do venture very respectfully to make an appeal that the Amendment should be withdrawn, that the Bill should be pushed forward without delay and placed on the Statute Book, and that, if necessary, the Irish problem can be dealt with as a separate problem after inquiry.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: As one of the Members keenly anxious to see this Bill passed, I rise to support the Amendment, notwithstanding the fact that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Irish Office (Mr. Russell) did say, with that deep knowledge of Ireland, that keen, clear perception of Irish character which justifies him in stating it, that Ireland does not want this Amendment. It was moved by an Irishman, seconded by an Irishman, and it is supported by Irishmen, and I sincerely hope that the House will not be led astray by any statement from the Irish Office that Ireland does not want it. I believe Ireland does want it. We all know that war charities are necessary, that war charities are being liberally and well subscribed to by the inhabitants of the United Kingdom, and I am confident that the men of Ireland

    1603
    are as anxious to see war charities subscribed to, and honestly subscribed to, in Ireland, and honestly run, as any other men of any other part of the United Kingdom. I hope very sincerely that the House will agree to have this Amendment, and to see that Ireland is included in the Bill.
    Mr. PETO: We have had two speeches from the Front Bench, both opposed to the acceptance of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman who represents the Irish Office (Mr. Russell) says that there is no maladministration in Ireland of war charities, and that maladministration was the only reason for this Bill. When the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill (Mr. Brace) got up, he did not enlighten the House on that point. He told us, what I have no doubt was in the minds of a good many hon. Members who have studied the Report of this Committee, that no evidence of maladministration of war charities had been taken. He, therefore, knocked away the whole basis of the argument put forward by his right hon. Friend as to why we should not press and carry this Amendment. If there was no evidence taken one way or the other, what right has the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that—taking his assumption as correct, which I do not, that maladministration is the only basis of this Bill—there is no maladministration in Ireland? Even supposing that maladministration is the only basis of the Bill, it is not so. The Bill is intended to see that perfectly genuine charities are run on reasonably economic lines, and that they are reasonably regulated, so that the beneficiaries of the charities shall get a proper proportion of the money subscribed. As the Committee knows, it is a far more common case to have extravagant expenses in administration than to have anyone appropriating the money to himself and not intending to pay it out. Supposing that is so, why do the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen propose to make a sort of Alsatia of Ireland; why do they propose to leave out one part of the United Kingdom intentionally, so that when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament Ireland will be a sort of sink, and, just as the undesirable racing people go to Boulogne, and the people who want to work lotteries go to Hamburg, all the people who want to have shady charities, with no supervision, will migrate to Ireland, where the right hon. Gentleman says everything is all right and everyone can be quite confident in an Irish war charity?
    1604
    He says now that Irish war charities are above suspicion, but what will the liberal public think when they know that every war charity in England, Scotland, and Wales is subject to the requirements provided by this Bill, when they are asked to subscribe to an Irish war charity, and they know it has been expressly and intentionally left out of the Bill? Money may be asked for for the Leinsters, the Munsters, the Connaughts, or whatever it may be, but people will say, "That is for Ireland. Ireland is not regulated under the Bill. If I have a 'fiver' to spare, I shall have to give it to an English charity which is regulated by the provisions which are needed and which are provided by this Bill." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) has dealt with the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Irish Office in connection with what I can only regard as a threat to the House when he said, in his final words, "Do we want to destroy this Bill?" I have never heard a speech which has made more of a mountain out of a molehill. An hour's work by a competent draftsman would produce an additional Clause, and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that he could get it inserted without any difficulty in another place to-morrow, and that it would go through. We have not had the real reasons given us, and no real arguments have been advanced against those of my hon. Friend who put forward arguments for the inclusion of Ireland. The case has never been met from the Front Bench opposite, and as we have had such arguments as would not bear the slightest investigation I certainly shall support my hon. Friend and the Seconder of the Amendment in the Lobby.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I think my hon. Friend who is in charge of this Bill (Mr. Brace) will have realised that a very strong and powerful case has been brought forward. One point which I think the right hon. Gentleman who represents Ireland (Mr. Russell) has missed is the possibility that war charities killed in Great Britain may be transferred to Ireland. That is a point which has not been dealt with. At the same time I do not think that my hon. Friend is entitled to feel that the House should pass this Bill to-night. He had practically a promise on the last occasion that if he would not take the Report stage on that night, which he asked to do, he would not have great difficulty tonight. Nevertheless, I venture to ask

    1605
    whether, in view of the strong feeling expressed, he cannot see his way to promise that a Committee should be set up to consider the question of Ireland, as a Committee has considered the question of England and Wales. If that were done, and if the result of the inquiry by the Committee showed that legislation was necessary, then I have no doubt that legislation would be brought forward. If my hon. Friend would give a promise of that kind, then I should appeal to hon. Gentlemen to be satisfied with that, because it would give them an opportunity to state their case, and to secure an Irish Bill, with proper Irish machinery, to deal with the Irish position and with any special difficulties that might arise with regard to Ireland. I do venture respectfully to suggest to my hon. Friend that he might see his way to make a promise of that kind, and if that were done I hope it would prove to be a solution of the difficulty.
    Mr. BRACE: I feel myself in an awkward position—of course, the House of Commons is supreme—when you ask me to undertake a further investigation of this problem, and if possible to deal with it, either in another place or by a Committee. Of course, you are asking me to deal with a question of high policy which I cannot myself without consulting my leaders. But I will certainly cause the whole of the mind of the House of Commons, as I understand it, to be placed before the responsible authorities, and will explain to them that I gathered that there was a strong feeling in the House of Commons that Ireland should be included in this Bill or that inquiry should be undertaken with a view to giving them a Bill of their own. I will most certainly undertake to do that, and I would respectfully ask the House, on this undertaking, to give me this Bill. We do know that there is a great problem in England and Scotland, and if we get the Bill within the next day or two it will be more or less of an advance. I earnestly hope that the House will give us both the Report stage and the Third Reading at this Sitting.
    Mr. LUNDON: I do not want to make a second speech, but I wish the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to understand my position. I do assure him that I was not going to persist in my Amendment, and I am sorry to have placed him in an awkward position. In one moment, I will read a paragraph that will explain my position—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member is going to respond to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. LUNDON: I am going to respond to the appeal, but this paper said I would not dare to—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment? I cannot have a second speech.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Sir H. DALZIEL: All parts of the House will recognise the courtesy and frankness with which my hon. Friend (Mr. Brace) has conducted this Bill, and I very warmly congratulate him on the success of his efforts. There is no doubt that he has introduced and carried it through all its stages in order to deal with what is really a great public scandal. I am sorry that has not been introduced before, because the Bill is not retrospective in the manner in which I could have wished to have seen it. I think it is a blot on the Bill that it does not deal with all the swindling that we know has been going on for months past—members of committee drawing huge salaries, £300 and £400 a year; honorary officials drawing salaries amounting to thousands; and all this kind of thing which has been going on at the expense of the charitable public. Well, I think it is time the public were informed as to what societies they are justified in supporting, and it is time that the public knew the expenses of some of the charities making a public appeal. I rise to ask my hon. Friend to give us an assurance, before the Third Reading is carried, that the Bill has power to deal with the larger expenses of a society irrespective of more incidental demands that are made. We speak of an account, a collection, and so on, but I strongly urge that we need the interpretation of the Government in a matter which might only apply to these special appeals. I am very anxious to have the assurance of the Government that they will apply generally to the expenses of a society irrespective of a special appeal. I am quite sure that that was the hon. Gentleman's original intention, and I think it might be covered by the point which says—I think it was in Clause 3—that the society ought to keep proper accounts.

    1607
    But I should like an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that the intention of this Bill is to deal generally with the income and the expenditure of the society, altogether apart from any special emergency appeals for particular purposes, which really govern the machinery of the appeal as a whole. I have been specially asked, on behalf of the Press in Scotland, and almost the whole of the papers in Scotland, to put forward these demands. I am very glad that, as a result of negotiations that have taken place, many of them have been met. But I should like an assurance from my hon. Friend that they are covered in the Bill. The first point is that societies making these appeals should be compelled to publish the correct amount of their receipts—I think there is little doubt that that is so irrespective of the printed appeal—the exact amount of their expenses, and also the name of the auditor or auditors. Societies who go out for swindling through the charges to the expenses very often have a friend living in a different part of the country who is able to audit the accounts. Of course in this case the registration authority has to approve of the auditor, and I very much hope that the registration authority will be a fully qualified chartered accountant, because these men are quite willing, as a rule, to give their services for nothing, and are very glad to assist the cause of charity in that way. We ought to take care and to see that no particular friends of the directors are the auditors of these appeals which are made.
    Then there is another point I desire my hon. Friend to give me an assurance on, and that is that the accounts will be available to the Press who represent the public. We all know that these appeals are successful owing to the amount of attention which has been drawn to them by the public Press. The Press in this respect represents the public, and, as the Bill stands, the Press has no right or authority to inspect the accounts when they are sent to the registration authority. I should have liked to have moved an Amendment to the Bill compelling such charities to submit their accounts not only to the local registration authority, but also to send them to at least three newspapers circulating in the particular districts where the appeal was made, because every conceivable difficulty has been put in the way of the Press getting at the real facts of the case, although the
    1608
    Press, in my opinion, have really got the money for the charities. I want an assurance, I do not think I ought to go further than that, because this matter is one for the local registration authority, that facilities will be given to the representatives of the Press to obtain copies of these accounts, and in that way I think we shall have security, that we would not otherwise have, that these matters will really be closely investigated. I hope, before the Bill passes, that my hon. Friend will be able to give me an assurance on some of these points.
    Mr. KEATING: I do not think that this Third Reading stage should be concluded without our giving our hearty congratulations to the Under-Secretary to the Home Office on the kindliness, consideration, and courtesy which he has shown in the conduct, of this Bill. He has gone about his work in a way which has appealed to all of us, and I am sure that my Friends who have found it necessary to oppose him have not done so with any willing hearts. At the same time, I think it is only right that the House should know that Irish Members rather resent the suggestion made by the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture that this Bill would be a reflection on Ireland. I believe that the county councils ought to have full control in Ireland of war charities of this kind, and ought to have the right to say something as to how they should be conducted. I was very much impressed by what was said about the possibility of people conducting war charities in this country, and, being shut out under the Bill from England, might find perhaps a field for operations in Ireland. I want also to say that I hope we have not heard the last of the proposal that this measure should be extended to Ireland in the future. I think that the Under-Secretary will do well to bear in mind all the protests that have been made during this Debate, and I hope he will consult the feeling not only of the House but of Irish Members in regard to the Committee to investigate the position of Ireland in view of the bringing in of a separate Bill. I do not think it would be fair to the House if I did not express also another thing. There is something more in the attitude of Irish Members than that which has been given expression to.
    We have in Ireland a sort of Press campaign, and at every stage of our public

    1609
    life we are threatened with all sorts of political punishment if we take steps according to what we consider to be the dictates of the interests of the country and our own consciences. I want the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture to understand this, whether he takes his opinions from the "Independent" or not, that we Irish Members who represent Nationalist constituencies, and who represent that spirit of unity and determination with which we are fighting the battle of Ireland, are not time-servers, and we will not take our views from the "Independent," whatever he may do. We have the courage of our convictions, and I would be very sorry to make any statement which would reflect upon the hon. Gentleman's courage. He has shown great courage in his career, the courage of changing his opinion several times, and I want him to understand this, that it will probably be worth his while to consider the changing of his opinions again on this matter. Now, having said that much, I do not think I should say anything more except that whatever has been done by my hon. Friends, has been done in what we consider to be the interests of the country, and we continue to press for the appointment of a Committee for the purpose of bringing in a separate Bill to extend this to Ireland.
    Mr. BRACE: In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel) I would say that the points he has raised are really covered by the Bill, and, if they were not, we would have them covered, because it is the intention of the Bill to meet the cases that my right hon. Friend has in mind. If he will follow me he will see that in Sub-section (2) of Clause 3, it says that
    "the accounts shall be audited at such intervals as may be prescribed by Regulations under this Act, by some person or persons approved by the registration authority, and copies of the accounts so audited shall be sent to the registration authority."
    There we assure that the accounts are audited and that they shall be audited by a proper auditor approved by the registration authority. If he will follow me again, he will see in Sub-section (4) of Clause 3 that
    "the books and accounts of the charity shall be open to inspection at any time by any person duly authorised by the registration authority or by the Charity Commissioners."
    1610
    Either the registration authority or the Charity Commissioners can give permission for free inspection of the accounts of the charity. Now the registration authority is either the town council, the borough council, the urban council, or the county council, four public authorities under the control of the public, and I imagine that there could be no easier thing than for an accredited Press representative to get permission from the registration authority, and, failing them, if there is any difficulty, from the Charity Commissioners, to examine the accounts of any charity he likes to write about. It will be seen further in Sub-section (d) of Clause 4 that the Charity Commissioners will provide for such an examination of accounts as my right hon. Friend has in mind because they will arrange what fees shall be paid
    "for making or obtaining copies of and extracts from registers and lists."
    Therefore he will see that provision is made for every publicity to be given, and if he will turn to Clause 7, Sub-section (2), he will find there the words, "This Section shall apply to unregistered war charities whether or not application for registration has been made, and to war charities the registration of which has been refused." I can only say that the idea underlying this Bill, and the instructions upon which the Parliamentary draftsman worked, were to make the Bill as complete as possible, to put an end to the exploitation of the generous emotions of the public which were moved at a time of great national stress. Because I think the Bill will meet this purpose, I think we might have the Third Reading and now complete it. In asking for that, I should like to convey my warm appreciation of the kindly way in which the House has received this measure, and the more than kindly way in which the House has treated me in connection with it.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. Gentleman on this side (Mr. Keating) just now with regard to the hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill, and the courteous and considerate manner in which he has led the Bill through the House. I was much more convinced by his conciliatory manner throughout than I was by the force of the arguments, if they may be so called, which were brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Russell). I do realise, however, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brace) would be in

    1611
    a difficult position if we pressed this matter to a Division, and for that reason, and having full confidence that he will be as good as his word, and better, I will not press the Amendment to a Division, and I suggest that the hon. Member will perhaps go not only as far as he said but will go farther. I suggest that it would be a perfectly simple thing still to get the necessary Amendments drafted and introduced in another place without, I will not say a day's delay, but without losing the Bill or sacrificing any time in amending the Bill. It is not many months ago since, on the Third Reading of a Bill, I made a very hurried suggestion at the last moment to the Solicitor-General, and within two days that suggestion came back here in the form of Amendments from another place, and it was accepted by this House. With very little drafting, knowing this Bill insider-out as I do, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, I say the necessary provisions can be made in an hour or two, and can be introduced in another place, and I respectfully urge upon the hon. Gentleman to try if he can meet the wishes of the House so clearly expressed, a House which, as he said, has treated him very cordially in this matter. I hope he will carry out this suggestion, and that only if it is impossible to carry out this suggestion will he fall back upon the other suggestion that has been made.

    BRITISH SHIPS (TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Mr. Beck.]
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I do not see any representative of the Board of Trade present nor any Member whose name is on the back of the Bill. I think that surely we are entitled to have the courtesy that some one of them should be here to give us an explanation of a Bill of this kind at this late hour of the morning. Personally I am sorry the Government have not thought it worth while to move the Adjournment now. They have had up to the
    1612
    present a very good night's legislation, and I should have thought that they had better postpone the several Bills, which they are about to take, until another occasion.
    This Bill deals with the important question of the transfer of British ships, and again I say I think we are entitled to the courtesy of an official explanation of it. I am one of those who complained that from the very beginning of the War the Government allowed British ships to change their flag without taking any notice whatever of it. They have allowed British ships to change their flag and the number of them is considerable; it was 100 some time ago. I know that certain restrictions were made as to particular ships that were allowed to do it, after these transfers were made, and I understand that the object of this Bill is to deal with an oversight that was made upon that occasion. This is intended to deal with mortgages that might exist in regard to any particular ship, thereby giving practically a certain price to the owners in exchange for the real proprietorship. The Board of Trade can also deal with a foreign controlled company, and the question of foreign directors having control. These are matters of most vital importance, and I hope the Government will be content to have this Debate adjourned to-night. I do not know whether it is intended to take the Bill through now. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] We are prepared for anything in these times of Second Reading, Committee, and Third Beading in one night. I only wish to register my protest against this Bill being taken without any representative of the Board of Trade being present. I care not what other Minister is going to deal with the matter; I know he will deal with it excellently and courteously, but for a matter of this kind we have certain Ministers, and their names are on the back of the Bill. There is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and the President of the Board of Trade, and in his absence we might have had the Acting President of the Board of Trade. The name of the Secretary to the Admiralty is also on the back of the Bill. Yet there is not one of them here to give the slightest explanation of it. It is due to the House that the Debate should be adjourned even now. It is not treating the House fairly. Unless we make a protest, heaven only knows what the Government will try to do when the House is sitting very late some of these nights.
    Mr. BECK (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): Perhaps the fault is mine that the right hon. Gentleman has had to complain, but the facts are very simple. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has unfortunately met with a slight accident which has rendered him lame. He was here until a late hour to-night to take this Bill, which is a Bill not at all controversial in character, and he has asked me to explain it to the House, and he hopes the House will assist him to get it before the Adjournment. He only left the House when it became obvious that it would become impossible for him to get home except by walking. Unless he took a cab whilst he could get it, it would be quite impossible for him in the condition in which he was after the slight accident to get home, and that is why he asked me to explain the Bill to the House.
    Indeed, this Bill is only one for extending a principle which the House accepted and passed as recently as March of last year. It is simply a Bill which stops up certain gaps which have since appeared, and which I think no one is more anxious to stop up than the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. Under the Act of 1915 the transfer of ships which were British ships to foreigners was prohibited, unless the consent of the Board of Trade was obtained. That Act has been useful, and great use has been made of it. But certain gaps have appeared in its working. One of the most noticeable is the granting of a mortgage up to the limit on a British ship to a foreigner or foreigners and that, of course, gives the foreigner the control of the British ship. This Bill takes power to stop that, and requires that such transactions also shall have the consent of the Board of Trade. Then another great gap discovered in the Act was that, whereas the Act makes it illegal to transfer British ships to foreign ownership without sanction, it has been found possible for a foreigner to float a British company, which is really a foreign company to this extent, that the money or the shares are held in foreign hands, and there is no law to prevent what may be called a bogus British company holding a British ship. This is another gap which this Act is intended to stop. The only other really important feature of this Bill is that it gives the Board of Trade power to call for full information from companies with a view to seeing whether the law is being com-
    1614
    plied with—that is to say, it enables the Board of Trade to see constantly that British ships are really and genuinely in British ownership. I really do not think that anybody in the House will object to this Bill, and I can assure my right hon. Friend below the Gangway (Sir H. Dalziel) that it really was, as he would know, a great deprivation, if I may use the word, to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade (Mr. Pretyman) not to be here to conduct the Bill in person. As we all know, he is one of the most assiduous and conscientious of our Ministers, and it was with great reluctance that he was persuaded even by the Whips to leave this Bill to our tender mercies. He asked me to say to the House that he would be certain, as far as a human person can say he is certain, to be here on Committee stage to explain any points that may arise. I hope that, both in justice to the urgency of the occasion and as a sort of token of esteem for my right hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman), the House will agree to the Second Reading being taken. There is really nothing that we have not already agreed to; it is merely a practical measure for carrying out a principle which, I believe, this House will warmly approve, and of which my right hon. Friend is one of the most ardent supporters.
    Mr. HAZLETON: After the explanation we have had, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) will not press his objection, though I think, in principle, that objection is sound, especially when we have such a large number of these Departmental Bills being brought forward by the Government at so late a stage of the Session. I always think that the Government will never learn from its own experience. Here is a gap to be filled in a Bill that, as late as March last, I think, was before the House—or certainly it was in the last Session—to extend to British ships the Act of 1915. If that Bill had been properly discussed and considered by the House there would not now be the necessity to bring forward this Amendment to stop up the gaps. While I think the House can rest perfectly satisfied with the explanation which has been given to us from the Front Bench, and whilst we all deplore the slight accident that has happened to the right hon. Gentleman referred to (Mr. Pretyman), there was another right hon. Gentleman, whose name is on the back of the Bill, here until a couple of hours ago and who has gone away. I refer to the

    1615
    Secretary to the Admiralty (Dr. Macnamara). I do not see why, since his name is on the back of the Bill, he should not have remained here to give the House any explanation it desires. Like the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Dalziel) I have only intervened to safeguard what I think are the rights of the House of Commons in a matter of this kind.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

    RETIRING ALLOWANCES AND GRATUITIES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, in certain cases, out of the revenues of India of a Retiring Allowance to the Auditor of the Accounts of the Secretary of State for India in Council and his assistants, and of a Gratuity to the legal representatives of the said Auditor and his assistants under any Act of the present Session, to amend certain enactments relating to the Government of India, and to remove doubts as to the validity of certain Orders in Council made for India."—[Mr. Charles Roberts.]
    Mr. KING: I must object again on principle to another indefinite financial Resolution without any limit of fund. I suppose it is limited to a small amount because it is only for a retiring allowance for the auditor of the accounts or his assistants. There may be an indefinite number of assistants, and they may all be very high salaried officials. Altogether I think it is a very unsatisfactory principle to have no sum put in a financial Resolution. There is another point, too. I have been looking at the various Government of India Bills. I think we have two before us now, and apparently neither of these Government of India Bills—the. Government of India Bill
    1616
    or the Government of India Amendment Bill—requires a financial Resolution of this kind. I presume, therefore, that another Bill is to be founded upon it. I am very glad to understand that possibly some indication may be given as to what point in either of these Bills it is necessary for us to have this financial Resolution. I dare say my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) will be able to explain.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I rise to ask whether this deals with the Bill which was on the Order Paper last night and was not taken?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It is really an extremely small—a minute, almost a meticulous—point. The Government of India originated it in the House of Lords, and in one of its provisions it deals with a small flaw in the original Consolidation Bill which was passed last Session. The law did not allow a retiring allowance or a gratuity to be paid to the assistants or the auditor of the revenues of India, and it is in order to meet that point that this Resolution has now to be proposed, simply because the Bill originated in the House of Lords and not in the House of Commons. Therefore it is necessary to preserve the privileges of this House. It refers simply and solely to the Government of India Amendment Bill which is on the Order Paper, and which was not taken this morning. It is not the foundation of any other Bill, and I assure the hon. Member it deals with an extremely small amount of money. It is purely to save the technical privileges of the House of Commons.
    Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday).
    It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Two of the clock

WAR.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SIR FRANCIS VANE.
  SIR FRANCIS VANE.
  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTORS, CROYDON (OVERTIME RATES).
  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTORS, CROYDON (OVERTIME RATES).
  HAY PURCHASES.
  HAY PURCHASES.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  IRISH MIGRATORY LABOURERS.
  IRISH MIGRATORY LABOURERS.
  UNDES-AGE SOLDIER.
  UNDES-AGE SOLDIER.
  NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
  NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.
  IRISH NBWSPAPEBS (TEANSMISSION ABROAD).
  IRISH NBWSPAPEBS (TEANSMISSION ABROAD).
  ADVISOSY COMMITTEE (DECISIONS).
  ADVISOSY COMMITTEE (DECISIONS).
  DEATH or CONSTABLE FBITH.
  DEATH or CONSTABLE FBITH.
  DUBLIN REBUILDING (MR. RAYMOND UNWIN'S SERVICES).
  DUBLIN REBUILDING (MR. RAYMOND UNWIN'S SERVICES).
  DUBLIN FIRE BRIGADE.
  DUBLIN FIRE BRIGADE.
MUNITIONS.
  MEDICAL ATTENDANCE FOB WORKERS.
  MEDICAL ATTENDANCE FOB WORKERS.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (ANNUAL LEAVE).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (ANNUAL LEAVE).
  PALM KERNELS.
  PALM KERNELS.
  BRICKLAYERS' ASSISTANTS (WAGES).
  BRICKLAYERS' ASSISTANTS (WAGES).
  EMBROIDERY IMPORTED.
  EMBROIDERY IMPORTED.
  BOMBARDMENT RISKS (INSURANCE).
  BOMBARDMENT RISKS (INSURANCE).
  SHIPBUILDING FOR SWEDISH OWNERS.
  SHIPBUILDING FOR SWEDISH OWNERS.
  SOUTH WALES COLLIERS (WAGES).
  SOUTH WALES COLLIERS (WAGES).
  WOOL SHIPMENTS FROM AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH AMERICA.
  WOOL SHIPMENTS FROM AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH AMERICA.
  ENEMY GOODS CONDEMNED BY PRIZE COURTS.
  ENEMY GOODS CONDEMNED BY PRIZE COURTS.
  MAILS ON NEUTRAL VESSELS.
  MAILS ON NEUTRAL VESSELS.
  Post Office Savings Bank (Irish Deposits).
  Post Office Savings Bank (Irish Deposits).
  Loan Fund Societies, Ireland.
  Loan Fund Societies, Ireland.
  Poor Law Relief (Guardians' Powers).
  Poor Law Relief (Guardians' Powers).
  Irish Mails.
  Irish Mails.