Sitting of 18 December 1916

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

NEW WRITS.
For Borough of Sheffield (Hallam Division) in the room of the Right Hon. Charles Beilby Stuart-Wortley, K.C. (Chiltern Hundreds).
For the Borough of Ashton-under-Lyne, in the room of Sir William Maxwell Aitken, Baronet (Manor of Northstead).—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

ARMY.
Copy presented of Final Report of the Committee on the Administration and Command of the Royal Flying Corps, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MISSION TO THE VATICAN.
Copy presented of Notification of His Majesty's determination that service on His Majesty's Special Mission to the Holy See shall be deemed to be service on a Diplomatic Mission of the Second Class [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GLEBE LANDS ACT, 1888.
Copy presented of Rule, dated 12th December, 1916, fixing the fees to be paid to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in respect of transactions under the Glebe Lands Act, 1888, as amended by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, pursuant to Section 9 (2) of the Act [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report No. 912 (Barbados, Report for 1915–16) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPREME COURT FEES.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House: Copy of Order as to Supreme Court Fees (Deposit of Securities with the Treasury), 1916 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    GERMAN STEAMERS IN NEUTRAL PORTS.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the number of German steamers sheltering in the ports of neutral countries; whether he is aware that many of these steamers are potential commerce destroyers; and whether, in view of international welfare and commerce, the Foreign Office will make representations to these neutral countries of the danger arising out of the presence of these German steamers in their ports, with a view to their internment or disablement or use by these neutral Governments under proper safeguards or of handing them over to Allied Governments for commercial use, making it clear to these neutral Governments that Germany's aim and object is to diminish or destroy all mercantile vessels, irrespective of nationality, with a view to prevent or destroy international trade and commerce while conserving German mercantile tonnage for immediate use on the termination of the War?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government have on many occasions since the War began drawn the attention of different neutral Governments to the responsibility they would incur if enemy vessels were to leave their ports and take part in belligerent operations, and will continue to make similar representations if and when they seem to be desirable. The precise measures which may be required to safeguard the neutrality in this respect of the neutral Governments concerned must necessarily be left to those Governments. As regards the utilisation for commercial purposes of German

    1099
    steamers lying in neutral ports, the matter is one in which the initiative must lie with the Governments concerned.

    SOUTH AMEEICA (SHIPMENTS BY ENEMY FIRMS).
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can explain why British statutory listed enemy or pro-enemy firms were permitted by the British authorities to ship cargo at Buenos Ayres by the steamer "Santa Barbara," which sailed from that port on or about 1st November; whether the agent or broker for this steamer is a British subject residdent in Buenos Ayres; and whether this agent has been prohibited by the British authorities from accepting cargo from enemy or pro-enemy statutory listed firms in the steamships "Panaman" and "Kentuckian" previously loaded by this agent at Buenos Ayres for the United States?
    Lord R. CECIL: The cargo in question was shipped under a contract made before the shippers were placed upon the statutory list; the remaining parts of my hon. Friend's question do not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether a parcel of wolfram ore was shipped by a British statutory listed enemy firm on board the steamship "Ohioan" loaded at Buenos Ayres; whether the agent who loaded this steamer is a British subject resident at Buenos Ayres; whether the steamship "Ohioan" sailed from Buenos Ayres for the United States on or about 16th September, calling at Montevideo en route; if so, whether the British authorities compelled this parcel of wolfram ore to be discharged from the ship and landed at Montevideo; whether this parcel of wolfram ore was afterwards shipped on board the steamship "Kentuckian" for the United States; whether the principal steamship agent in the River Plate was the same in both cases and a British subject; and will he explain this transaction?
    Lord R. CECIL: The ore in question was shipped by one Melber, who is not on the statutory list; but as suspicion was aroused that this shipment was being made on behalf of a firm on the statutory list, the agent of the steamship company
    1100
    was asked to make inquiries, and as he could not get a satisfactory reply he caused the ore to be discharged at Montevideo. It was afterwards ascertained that the real shipper was a mining company not on the statutory list, so it was forwarded to the consignee by the steamship "Kentuckian." The agent in question is a British subject.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether some bales of rubber were shipped on board the steamship "Hostilius," at Montevideo, by the firm of Otero Borrazas, on or about the 12th October, for the United States; whether the "Hostilius" sailed from Montevideo on or about the 13th October; whether the British Minister at Montevideo notified Messrs. Dodero Brothers, the Montevideo agents of the steamer, on or about the 19th October, some six days after the steamer had sailed, that the shipment made by Borrazas was on account of Stofen Schnack Miiller, a Brazilian firm, whose name is on the British statutory list for Brazil; whether the name of Borrazas is yet on the British statutory list of enemy or pro-enemy firms for Uruguay, and, if not, why it is not on the list; whether the British Minister at Montevideo endeavoured to hold Dodero Brothers responsible for this shipment; whether the responsibility for this shipment lies with the British Minister at Montevideo or Dodero Brothers, seeing that the name of Otero Borrazas is not on the statutory list; whether representations have been made to the Foreign Office here, through diplomatic channels, from Allied Ministers in South America, of the bond fides, loyalty, and zeal of Dodero Brothers in supporting the Allied cause; whether the British Minister at Montevideo will be instructed by the Foreign Office to perform his own duties, and not altogether rely upon steamship agents at that port to do his work when he fails to give them proper instructions or advice regarding firms whose names are not on the statutory list; and whether, in the absence of such instructions or advice or the appearance of a firm's name on the British statutory list, steamship agents are, expected by the Foreign Office to refuse to engage cargo from a merchant or shipping agent who, in the absence of his name appearing on the British statutory list or of such advice, is presumably a loyal or neutral shipper?
    Lord R. CECIL: The facts are substantially as stated in the question. I cannot free Messrs. Dodero Brothers from responsibility for accepting the shipment of rubber made by Otero Borrazas since Messrs. Borrazas were known in Montevideo as far back as July last to be acting on occasion for the statutory-listed firm of Stofen Schnack Miiller, which is on the Statutory List. Messrs. Borrazas as a neutral firm of independent standing have not been included in the statutory list pending the result of representations which it is hoped will shortly lead to their giving a definite undertaking not to act for enemy firms in the future where British facilities are concerned. If such an undertaking is not given the firm will be placed on the statutory list.
    With regard to the last part of the question, the statutory-list policy of His Majesty's Government can only be carried out in the spirit as well as in the letter by the closest co-operation between His Majesty's representatives abroad and the agents of British shipping companies, which co-operation is usually most loyally given.
    His Majesty's Government are satisfied that there is not the slightest ground for the suggestion that His Majesty's Minister at Montevideo has failed in the performance of his duties.
    Mr. HOUSTON: As the Noble Lord's reply is very unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice I shall deal with both question and reply at early date, either in Debate or otherwise.

    GERMANY'S PEACE PROPOSALS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement about an alleged offer by the Central Powers of peace to Belgium on the following terms: That the country is to be restored to them, their independence guaranteed, and financial assistance given for its economic rehabilitation; and, in the event of these terms being refused, an intimation has been given to Belgium that the very existence of her monuments, public buildings, institutions, and towns is threatened?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have seen a statement to this effect in the Press, but I have not up to the present received any confirmation from the Belgian Government.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if the German Government have made any alteration in their regulations established in 1915 for the treatment of British prisoners, including their accommodation, clothing, feeding, etc., and whether the agreement remains in force by which the German Government pledged themselves to communicate any alteration to the British Government?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): No alteration in the regulations has been communicated to us; the reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

  GREECE.

    ALLIED FORCES AT SALONIKA.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether the Allied Forces went in the first instance to Salonika on the invitation of the Greek Government; if so, by what official representing the Greek Government the invitation was conveyed; on what date and in what precise terms; and whether M. Venizelos has denied that he, when Prime Minister, gave that invitation?
    Lord R. CECIL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I returned to a similar question from the hon. Member for West Clare on 8th November last. I have nothing to add thereto.
    Mr. GINNELL: The Noble Lord has not stated by what official the invitation was given, at what date or its terms. Will he inform the House on these points?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I can add nothing to my previous reply.
    Mr. LYNCH: Was not the reply to my question equally ambiguous with that given to-day?

    TRADE BOARDS ACT (BELFAST LINEN TRADE).
    Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the placing of the whole of the departments in connection with the linen and textile trades in Belfast under the operation of the Trade Boards Act?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. George Roberts): I am not in a position to add to the answers already given to the hon. Member on this subject.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say why he cannot give the information?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I know the question is receiving the serious consideration of the Department, and we are not without hope of being able to make a statement shortly.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the necessity for the fullest possible information, so far as the workers are concerned, in connection with the Belfast linen trade, he will take steps to have an independent report supplied monthly to the "Board of Trade Gazette" by some person in whom the workers have confidence and who has a knowledge of their needs and conditions, and, if possible, that a report should be supplied also by a direct representative of the Irish Textile Workers' Union?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Textile Operatives' Society of Ireland already supply monthly information as to the state of employment in the linen trade to the local correspondent of the Board of Trade in Belfast, and the particulars are embodied by him in his report. The society may communicate direct with the Board if they prefer to do so.

    HOUSE OF COMMON'S (SALE OF INTOXICANTS).
    Mr. WINGasked the right hon. Member for West Essex, as representing the Kitchen Committee, if he, in conjunction with the members in the Committee over which he presides, will approach the Government with a view to their giving the Members of the House of Commons an opportunity of expressing their wishes as to the propriety, under present national conditions, of suspending the sale of intoxicants at the bars and other places of sale in the House of Commons, or at least imposing upon the Members of Parliament similar restrictions to those already imposed on their constituents?
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: I regret that I have nothing to add to what was said in Debate on the Resolution moved by the
    1104
    hon. Member on 20th April, 1915. On that occasion my right hon. Friend, who is now the Leader of the House, said:
    "Obviously this is a question which ought to be discussed by Members of the House as individuals, and not in connection with any party ties."—[OFPICIAI. REPORT, 20th April, 1015, col. 228, Vol. LXXI.]
    Those of my colleagues on the Committee that I have seen are still of that opinion, and it is for the hon. Member to again ask the House for time to discuss it, and to issue an Instruction to us, on the lines adopted, which we will endeavour to carry out.
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman call us together under his chairmanship to discuss this matter?
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Not having that title, I can hardly answer that question.
    Mr. WING: May I ask a representative of the Government if he will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the House an opportunity of really deciding this question?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): I will communicate that to my right hon. Friend.

  MUNITIONS.

    WOMEN EMPLOYES.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions the reason of the delay in issuing the revised circular L 2 dealing with women's wages; and when the revised circular will operate?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): My right hon. Friend is issuing a revision of L 2 dealing with the rates for women engaged on work done by men other than skilled men immediately. He hopes to issue soon after that a further Order dealing with the case of women employed on work customarily done by fully-skilled men.
    Mr. THORNE: When will that Order come into practical operation, so that the women can have the advantage of it?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The first Order will be issued this week. We hope the one referred to in the second part of my answer will be issued in the week following.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether between 200 and 300 women are under notice of discharge at Park Royal Cartridge Factory, Acton; if he can give any reason why these women are being discharged just before Christmas; and if he intends taking any action in the matter with a view of seeing that these women are found work of some kind?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The facts in the first part of the question are as stated. The reason for the discharges is that a considerable drop in supply of material rendered necessary either a reduction of hours or a reduction of hands, and the former alternative was strongly opposed by a majority of the employés. I regret the necessity for these discharges, but I understand that the Employment Exchange do not anticipate difficulty in finding other employment for the women.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman say why arrangements could not be made where women are going to be discharged from this or any other factory by which employment should be found for them somewhere else, so that they should not be out of employment in the week before Christmas, or any other time?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The first consideration in the employment of workpeople is that there is need for the product they produce. All possible steps have been taken in this case and all other cases to see that the names of the women are immediately placed before the machinery that exists, namely, the Employment Exchanges, in order to see that everything is done to find them other work.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    IRISH PRISONERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to state the policy of the new Government with reference to the Irish political prisoners now in this country, both those untried and those tried by secret court-martial; and when and to what extent the policy will come into operation?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am not able at present to add anything to the answers on these subjects which I gave last Thursday and Friday.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement on this subject before Christmas?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not think I shall be able to do that.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware of the ill-feeling and discontent in Ireland caused by the continued internment and imprisonment of the Irish prisoners; if he proposes to adopt any scheme to remove the ill-feeling; and if he will recommend their release and, pending release, that they should be treated in a manner suitable to prisoners of war?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I have nothing at present to add to the answers which I have lately given on this subject.
    Mr. BYRNE: When may we expect some statement in connection with the Irish prisoners? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of parcels of foodstuffs that have been sent to Irish prisoners have been returned to Ireland, and that the prisoners have been denied parcels of food sent by their friends?
    Mr. DUKE: That is not a matter which arises out of the question on the Paper. If the hon. Member puts down a question, I will make inquiries.

    PROPERTY LOSSES COMMITTEE.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary whether the terms of reference to Sir William Goulding's Committee re ruined property in Dublin asked it to advise how on analogy the several claims of uninsured persons could be fairly dealt with; whether there is now an intention of differentiating between the claims of the insured and the uninsured in the question of rent; whether there is any thing in the terms of reference to justify such different treatment; if so, will he quote the words, or whether supplementary instructions were given privately to the Committee; and, if so, by whom; and whether the ex-Premier conveyed the impression that sufferers were to be compensated alike whether insured or not?
    Mr. DUKE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Property Losses Committee came to the conclusion, in the exercise of their discretion, that loss of rent is normally a consequential loss which would be excluded under the terms of reference, but that in view of the fact that it is sometimes

    1107
    treated as a building loss covered by a fire policy, they would be justified in admitting such a claim when there was insurance. The last inquiry in the question is not one which I can answer, but I may say the Government has acted and is acting in conformity with the promises of the late Prime Minister.

  FOOD SUPPLY.

    FEEDING OF GAME.
    Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Control Department whether he is aware of the amounts of maize and other foodstuffs given to pheasants and other birds and to beasts ferce natures; and whether steps are being taken to stop this waste?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the FOOD CONTROL DEPARTMENT (Captain Bathurst): The hand-rearing of game by means of food fit for human consumption is, under present circumstances, to be deprecated. The necessary powers to stop game preserving are being obtained, and will be exercised.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is my hon. Friend aware of the clauses put in leases by landlords compelling tenants to keep up the stock of game, and how does he propose to deal with that?
    Captain BATHURST: I am not aware of such clauses.
    Mr. BOOTH: I have just signed one.
    Captain BATHURST: If such clauses exist they will be carefully watched by the Department which I am now serving.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Under what Statute will the Regulations be made?
    Captain BATHURST: I cannot add anything further to the reply I have given.

    GLUCOSE AND SACCHARINE.
    Mr. CAUTLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Control Department whether, having regard to the scarcity of cane sugar and the difficulty of the poor in obtaining even a limited quantity of it, and considering that glucose is a variety of sugar which from a physiological point of view is as nutritious and as easily digested as cane sugar, that glucose can be prepared in large quantities and cheaply by the several factories already making it in this coun-
    1108
    try or their extensions, and that the sole objection to it as a sweetening agent is that it is not sweet enough, but this can easily be overcome by the addition of a suitable quantity of saccharine, he will encourage or undertake the manufacture of glucose and the addition of saccharine thereto as a means of providing for the people a nutritious sugar, cheap, and in no respect injurious, and thereby solving the sugar difficulty?
    Captain BATHURST: As the raw materials from which glucose is made would have to be imported, and would occupy more tonnage than an equivalent amount of sugar, there would not appear to be any advantage in offering special encouragement for the manufacture of this article. Moreover, as matters now stand, it is probably of greater importance to adjust more accurately the distribution of sugar than to increase its quantity or the quantity of possible substitutes. The possibility and desirability of extending the use of saccharine for flavouring purposes will be considered, but I should point out that saccharine has no food value.

    HOME PRODUCTION.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether the Government adopts and sanctions the proposal of the Earl of Crawford to authorise the use of selected portions of common land for the purposes of food production; and, if so, why the scanty land possessions of the common people are preferred to the broad acres of private landowners?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey): The proposal to take powers to use selected portions of common lands, if necessary, for the purpose of food production during the; War was announced by the late President of the Board of Agriculture in another place on the 29th ult., after it had been sanctioned by the Cabinet. It is embodied in an Order in Council dated the 5th inst., a copy of which I will send to my hon. Friend. It is not proposed to take common land where other suitable land is available.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there are millions of acres of land out of cultivation, and cannot he deal with those instead of taking commons and parks?
    Sir R. WINFREY: We shall take that land before we take common land.

    SEAMEN AND STOKERS (OVERCOATS).
    Mr. SCANLANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether men on joining the Navy as seamen or stokers are charged 28s. 6d. for their uniform overcoats; whether they are allowed to wear any other overcoats than the uniform overcoats made for the use of the Navy and charged for at the above rate; whether he recognises that this charge is a burden on men with dependants; and whether the Government can now see their way to supply overcoats free of cost to seamen and stokers and also refund to men who have already paid for their overcoats the sums paid by them?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Overcoats form part of the "optional" kit of naval ratings. They are not included in the free kit issued to new entries. The issuing price to any man who wishes to take one up is not 28s. 6d., but 28s. 2d., a figure I may say below the actual cost price to the Admiralty. To add an overcoat to the compulsory kit and include it in the free kit on entry would entail very heavy initial expense upon the Crown; and, moreover, would throw upon all ratings the burden of the cost of subsequent upkeep of this article of kit whether they wanted to wear an overcoat or not. Many men do not take one up. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that Service oilskins, watchcoats, duffle suits, warm-lined rubber suits are provided for issue "on loan" to men upon exposed duties.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Is it not as necessary in winter for an ordinary seaman to have an overcoat as it is for him to have any other part of his uniform; and in view of the hardship entailed on these men, will the Admiralty reconsider the regulations under which a charge is made for overcoats?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I really do not think there is any hardship. Whenever a man is on exposed duty he has the right to the loan of an overcoat. For the rest, many men do not wish for an overcoat, because if it were issued to them on entry they would have to replace it from their own pockets.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Why should they?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is the rule.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that that is a distinction
    1110
    which works unfairly with seamen as compared with soldiers, and that the Admiralty make a seaman pay for his overcoat which is as necessary to him as it is to a soldier? I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will bring this matter under the notice of the Board of Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly, I will, with pleasure, but I must point out that it is not right to take one item and compare sailors with soldiers and say that the sailor is treated worse than the soldier. That is not a complete comparison. You must take the whole field of pay and promotion before you can say that one person is worse treated. To say that the sailor is worse treated is not true.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Of course, the sailor is worse treated.

    DISTRESS IN BELFAST.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary whether he proposes to take any action with regard to the distress which is officially admitted to exist amongst the women workers in the linen trade in Belfast?
    Mr. DUKE: I am advised that special measures of relief are not required to deal with the distress to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Ministry of Munitions to have munitions works in Belfast?
    Mr. DUKE: I know the Minister of Munitions is giving special attention to the possibility of employing labour in that way.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary whether he will take steps to have the Small Holdings Act applied to Ireland in order to provide sustenance for the sweated workers in the linen trade in Belfast, who are deprived of the necessaries of life owing to low wages and lack of employment?
    Mr. DUKE: The question of the best means of increasing the food supply of Ireland and of whether legislation is necessary for that purpose is engaging the attention of the Irish Government.

    NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the

    1111
    monitors and monitresses in Irish national schools are paid a small salary as a contribution towards their upkeep, and of the fact that the value of this salary has largely depreciated owing to the increased cost of living, he will take steps to see that the amount of the salary is increased during the War?
    Mr. DUKE: I cannot add anything to my answer on Thursday last to the hon. Member's question on this subject.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary whether he is now in a position to state the result of the consultations between the various Departments with reference to the dismissal of assistant teachers and the reduction of grade salary of principal teachers owing to the condition of average attendance of pupils; and whether the application of the Commissioners of National Education for power to suspend during the War period the operation of rules requiring a withdrawal or reduction of salaries of teachers consequent upon a decline in the attendance of pupils has been granted?
    Mr. DUKE: I cannot at present add anything to my reply to the hon. Member's question on Thursday last.
    Mr. DILLON: May we not hope soon to have the answer of the Department on this question, which is becoming extremely urgent in Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: The matter is being attended to with all possible urgency.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Board of Education that it should set itself to the matter, which practically affects the existence of many assistant teachers in Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: The matter will be further dealt with. It is not either overlooked or neglected.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman press the matter on the Treasury?
    Mr. DUKE: I will press it in every quarter in which pressure can be used.
    Mr. P. MEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Viceregal Commission on Education has made written recommendations in connection with this matter, and will he see that they are carried out?
    Mr. DUKE: I have not those recommendations in my mind.

    SUNDAY DRILLS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that on Sunday, 3rd December, a number of men of the 63rd Battalion Training Reserve stationed at 20th Camp, Kinmel Park, Denbighshire, were paraded and drilled, and that on arrival at the camp were unable to obtain dinner, as there was not enough food to go round; and whether he will endeavour to stop the practice of strenuous drilling on Sundays and make inquiries into the alleged lack of food?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. I. Macpherson): I have made inquiry, and I find that the feeding arrangements on the occasion in question were quite satisfactory, and that there was no question of any shortage of food. No complaints were received from the orderly officer nor from any non-commissioned officer or man on that day. No drilling is done on Sundays beyond what the exigencies of the Service require.

    OFFICERS' PAY.
    Major HENRY TERRELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that many officers of junior rank at the commencement of the war gave up substantial incomes to accept commissions in the Army, and that many such officers have wives and families to maintain on their pay; and whether, seeing that the pay is 7s. 6d. a day in the case of a second lieutenant, 8s. 6d. a day in the case of a lieutenant, and 12s. 6d. a day in the case of a captain, he will at once take steps to raise the rates of pay of officers to such figures as, having regard to the increased cost of living, will enable them to maintain themselves and families in a manner suitable to their position?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers in the first part of his question, and would remind him that the Government appointed the Civil Liabilities Committee to relieve the hardship of

    1113
    such cases. As regards the second part, I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply I gave him on the 16th November.
    Mr. G. FABER: Does the measure to which the hon. Gentleman refers deal with capital or income liabilities?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think it includes both.
    Major TERRELL: The answer is so unsatisfactory that I will call attention to the whole matter on the Adjournment at a very early date.

    PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC CLERKS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is in pursuance of instructions from the War Office that Mr. MacMillan, hay buyer for the Army in county Wexford, having the use of a motor car for himself and of motor bicycles for several assistants, and having several clerks, all Protestants, has offensively boasted that he will not employ a Catholic; and, if this boast does not represent the policy of the present Government, will the practice be stopped in this and other cases?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have no information as to the alleged statement by Mr. MacMillan. The War Office has, of course, not issued instructions of the kind suggested.
    Mr. LUNDON: Was the appointment of twelve Protestant employés in the county of Wexford due to recommendations made by the hon. Member for Derry, who is the only Irish representative on the Forage Commission, and, in view of the fact that this hon. Member is a large exporter of all kinds of Irish produce, will the Government, or whoever is responsible for the formation of the Commission, see that an Irishman who is absolutely uninterested as regards forage of every kind will be appointed on the Commission?
    Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that. It does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this sort of thing does not help recruiting in Ireland?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that the authorities at the War Office are making inquiries into the allegations contained in the question.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. WINGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that dissatisfaction is expressed by the local authorities in Houghton-le-Spring at the withdrawal of ring-papers and draft books by paymasters before new issues are ready, thus depriving soldiers' dependants from drawing their allowances regularly, and suspending such payment for indefinite periods, to the inconvenience and injury of dependants; and will a guarantee be given that books will not be withdrawn until new issues are in order, to prevent hardship to those who depend on their weekly allowance?
    Mr. FORSTER: I explained to my hon. Friend in the reply I gave him on the 16th November that the official orders forbid the withdrawal of these papers and books until new ones are received. The cases he has in mind probably refer to draft books which have expired at the end of a quarter. If he will furnish me with particulars of cases I will inquire into any avoidable delays.
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that Private Patrick Reddin, No. 4260, Leinster Regiment, was serving at the front up to 29th November, 1915, when he was reported missing at headquarters, and has not since been heard of; that up to that time his mother, Mrs. Sarah Red-din, Forge Street, Mountmelliek, Queen's County, was receiving an allowance of 3s. 6d. per week; that since then no allowance has been received by Mrs. Reddin; and, as she is in need of such allowance, will inquiries be made with a view to granting her a pension or gratuity?
    Mr. FORSTER: Mrs. Reddin is in receipt of separation allowance in respect of her husband who is serving. Inquiries are being made as to the son, and the result of the inquiries will be communicated to the hon. Member in due course.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    SUBSTITUTION SCHBME.
    Mr. KINGasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will give figures showing how many recruits have been obtained for the Army by the substitution of discharged or Reserve

    1115
    soldiers for necessary men employed in agriculture; and whether recruiting by substituting soldiers for necessary men is? being practised in industrial and non-agricultural employments?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It would not be in the public interest to give the figures asked for in the first part of the question. Substitution is proceeding in connection with a great number of industrial and non-agricultural employments, as well as in connection with agriculture.

    TRANSFER OF IRISH SOLDIERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked if Irishmen desiring to transfer from English regiments to Irish regiments will be allowed to do so?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In the case of units serving abroad this is already within the discretion of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief under whom the applicant is serving. At home Irishmen are given the option of being posted to an Irish unit when they are called up.
    Mr. BYRNE: If soldiers on active service who received leave and are now at home wish to transfer to Irish regiments, can they do so?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: That must rest with the commanding officer in the field, where possible.

    LANCE-CORPORAL BERMINGHAM.
    Mr. HACKETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Lance-Corporal Bermingham, No. 26,459, joined the 8th Battalion, B Company, Royal Munster Fusiliers, on 6th May, 1915, and was afterwards transferred to the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers; that he was wounded in action, and that his mother, Mrs. Bermingham, Templemore, county Tipperary, who was dependent upon him, has never received any separation allowance; and whether he will have her claim investigated and full separation allowance granted to Mrs. Bermingham from the date of her son's enlistment?
    Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries will be made and the hon. Member informed of the result in due course.

    FIELD PUNISHMENT.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office
    1116
    whether he is yet able to inform the House as to the result of his inquiries into the form of field punishment, popularly known as "crucifixion"; and whether it is proposed to make any modification in the Regulations with regard to it?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There are several questions sdealing with this matter on the Paper for to-morrow, when I hope, although I cannot to-day make any promise, that it may be possible to make a statement. In the circumstances perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to excuse me from anticipating to-day the eventual statement.

    NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) whether men of the Non-Combatant Corps now at Newhaven have been recently employed in loading munitions, although a formal promise was given to them when on parade that they would not be employed in handling ammunition; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the difficulties that have arisen at Newhaven in consequence of the employment of men from the Non-Combatant Corps, including drafts from other commands, to replace dock labourers who were threatening to strike; and whether he is taking action in the matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will answer at the same time Question No. 48, and I must at the outset express regret that my hon. Friend included in his question military information which, in the national interest, should not appear in a question. It is the case that the N.C.C. companies have been employed at the place mentioned to augment the available civilian labour, which which was insufficient for the work requiring to be done. My hon. Friend will recall that when the N.C.C. was raised it was decided that it should be composed of men whom the tribunals found to have a genuine objection to fighting or taking life, but. who were considered fit for labour work in the Army. I am not aware that any question ever arose, or has arisen, as to what kind of work they should do, provided always that they were not trained with arms or employed anywhere where a man might be called upon to use his arms in self-defence. If, as is suggested by my hon. Friend, any promise inconsistent with what I have just said was made, the officer who gave it exceeded his authority.
    Mr. HARVEY: Seeing that this question was on the Order Paper ten days ago, and that I called at the War Office about the matter, why was it not suggested privately that it was not in the public interest that the question should be put upon the Order Paper—when it would at once have been withdrawn?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
    Mr. HARVEY: I gave notice.

    CHRISTMAS LEAVE FOB SOLDIERS.
    Major Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will consider the possibility of granting to all, soldiers and sailors serving at home who obtain Christmas leave a prior right of travel over civilians in such railway facilities as are available?
    Colonel CARNEGIEasked whether the Government have reconsidered the question of Christmas leave restriction and the facilities of travelling in connection therewith for soldiers serving at home; and whether any statement can be made as to the proposal that civilians should share the necessary restrictions?
    Mr. FORSTER: The question of leave at Christmas has been carefully reviewed since the Debate on Thursday last, and we have done our best to meet the views which were then expressed. The arrangements are briefly as follows:

    1. Men on leave from the front will have priority over all other travellers.

    2. Leave may be given to men under training for service abroad up to 10 per cent. of the unit. Those men will proceed on leave on 21st December.

    In addition to that, leave may also be given to men whose training is finished without restriction as to numbers or the days of travel.

    3. To men in the Home Forces leave may be given up to 10 per cent. of the unit, and these men will proceed on leave on 21st December.

    4. Men of the Royal Defence Corps will be dealt with by the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, Home Forces.

    5. Officers and men employed under the Minister of Munitions will conform to arrangements made by the Minister.

    6. As far as possible, soldiers will have priority over civilians on the railways on December 22nd–25th inclusive.

    1118

    7. Arrangements have been made for allowing New Year leave to Scottish regiments in lieu of Christmas leave.

    Mr. ASHLEY: When the hon. Gentleman says that leave up to 10 per cent. may be given to those serving at home, are we to understand that the commanding officer has discretion to refuse all leave, even the 10 per cent.?
    Mr. FORSTER: It always is so.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Does it mean that the commanding officer in his discretion can nullify the Order of the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes. Of course he can, and the Army Council does not impose upon the commanding officer any obligation.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is not that the very thing that happened at Winchester last summer, when the hon. Gentleman made a promise, and the local authorities entirely nullified it?
    Mr. P. MEEHAN: Will facilities be given to Members of this House who will be going home?
    Mr. FORSTER: Members of the House have insisted upon soldiers having priority.

    ARMY CONTRACTS (BELFAST).
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the official statement that the War Department has recently placed contracts for 5,000,000 yards of dowlas for bedding, the bulk of which order has gone to the Belfast manufacturers, and that the Department has also under consideration tenders from Belfast firms in respect of linen tent duck, he will insist that the contractors for this work shall be bound by the terms of the Fair-Wages Clause, or, failing that, that the rate of wages should be determined by a trade board specially constituted for this work under the provisions of the Trade Boards Act, more especially since it is officially admitted that the wages at present paid to many of these workers are insufficient to maintain them?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir. These orders are placed subject to the usual conditions of War Office contracts, of which observance of the Fair-Wages Resolution of the House is one.

    RUSSIAN JEWS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the Russian Government has asked that Russian Jews in this country shall be compelled to return to Russia?
    Sir G. CAVE: No such request has been received.

    NEW MINISTERS (SEATS IN PARLIAMENT).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether seats will be found in Parliament for the Controller of Shipping, the President of the Board of Education, and other members of the Ministry who are not Members of either House?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): It is hoped that the Presidents of the Boards of Trade and Education will shortly be Members of this House. In the meantime it is not intended that the Controller of Shipping shall be a Member of either House of Parliament, but his Department will be represented by an Under-Secretary who will be a Member of this House.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Would it not be better for the Controller of Shipping to be in this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: He does not think so. He thinks he can more usefully employ his time outside.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is it not a question for the Government to consider, rather than the Controller?
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the Controller of Shipping to be understood to be a Minister of the Crown? Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that from the Revolution to the present time a Minister of the Crown has been identified as a Member with either the House of Commons or the House of Lords?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware of the constitutional doctrine stated by the hon. Gentleman, but the present is a very exceptional time, and I think the House will agree with the Government that what they have to do is to get the work done in the best way possible.

    CONTROLLER OF SHIPPING.
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister the exact duties and powers of the Con-
    1120
    troller of Shipping; whether he has any authority to limit in any way the shipping demands of the Admiralty and the War Office; whether the control of fishing, pleasure, and private vessels is also under his control; and whether the powers of Controller of Shipping will be settled by legislation or otherwise?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member will no doubt be willing to await the introduction of the Bill, which deals inter alia with the office of Controller of Shipping, and which is the first Order on the Paper to-day

    FOOD CONTROLLER.
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Food Controller is to exercise his administrative functions while the Bill giving him his powers is still before Parliament; if so, under what Statute will he have such powers; and, if such powers are already possessed by him, will he say why he should not continue to act under them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Pending the passing of the Bill to confer statutory powers on the Food Controller, it has been arranged that the Board of Trade should exercise, at his request, their powers under Regulation 2F of the Defence of the Realm Regulations for purposes of food control.

    DOG LICENCES.
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the necessity for national economy in food and the amount of good food expended on pet dogs, such as Pekingese, Pomeranians, Yorkshire terriers, and the like, he will consider the desirability of placing a heavy annual licence of not less than £5 a head on these animals?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary said a day or two ago that there was no intention whatever to attack dogs during the War, and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he intends to make any economic policy on these principles, whether he will begin first with curs of every description, and then with rats?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion as well as any others made to me in reference to taxation.

    BRITISH CIVILIAN PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
    Mr. E. HARVEYasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether the new arrangements now in force with regard to the sending of parcels of food to British civilian prisoners of war in Germany prevent relatives from sending food which they themselves purchase, even when sent through the recognised central committee; and whether this arrangement can be modified so as to allow invalids and others requiring special diet to receive parcels of food chosen for them by their families who know their individual needs?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I am sorry to have to ask my hon. Friend to postpone this question until to-morrow, when I hope to give a fuller and more satisfactory answer than I could to-day.

    CORRESPONDENCE (CENSORSHIP).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that the Censor is now opening letters from France where it is clearly shown on the envelope that the persons to whom they are addressed are Members of Parliament; if this is done because Members are suspected of being lacking in discretion, or why is it done; will he say whether, in practice as well as in theory, the correspondence of all Members of Parliament is treated in the same way, without discrimination, or does the procedure apply only to selected Members; and, if so, on what basis and by whom is the discrimination exercised?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: All mails coming from France are liable to be submitted to the Military Censor. No discrimination is made between different Members of the House. I need hardly say that it is a mistake to suppose that the opening of a letter by the Censor constitutes any reflection either on the writer or the recipient. The object of the censorship is to prevent the enemy making use of indiscretions, to which experience shows that even the best-intentioned persons are liable.
    Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether his own letters are opened?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Personally, I am not a privileged Member.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the hon. Member agree not to open mine?

    SIGNAL MASTERS (COMMISSIONS).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked if it is now the practice to refuse applications of noncommissioned officers who are recommended by their commanding officers for commissions as signal masters in the signal service, and whose applications are well supported by their military superiors, if the candidate's age is over forty-one years, notwithstanding that his commanding officer reports him to be so physically active as to be able to carry out any duties which he may be called upon to perform in that capacity, or is there any other age limit?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It has been found necessary to fix a limit of age for applicants for general service cadetships in the signal service. Vacancies for signal masterships are few and applicants many, so that the fact that a commanding officer recommends a candidate does not necessarily imply that he will obtain a cadet-ship.

    Irish Cattle (Detention).
    Mr. WHITTYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he will now revoke the detention regulations on Irish cattle, seeing that the country has now been free from foot-and-mouth disease for about three years; and is he aware that the present long detention of 10 hours not only tends to increase the price of food but dislocates the cattle trade, causes loss to the owners, and does not improve the condition of the animals?
    Sir R. WINFREY: In reply to the first part of the question, I will refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for West Waterford by my predecessor on the 12th instant. With regard to the last part, the Board's information does not support the contentions made therein. The trade having now settled down to the new conditions, appears to enjoy advantage by the arrangement. The period of rest, after

    1123
    landing, benefits the animals and improves their market value to an extent which more than covers the slight additional cost to the owners.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the time of detention at the ports in Ireland and the detention in Great Britain, and will he not reduce that time to a minimum?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I will consider that point.

    Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
    Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners have received application from Patrick and James Doran, who were evicted from their holding at Clonkeen, in the parish of Taughmonconnell, county Roscommon, in or about the month of January, 1893; and if the Commissioners have given consideration to their application to be treated as evicted tenants for the purpose of reinstatement, and, if so, what is the result?
    Mr. DUKE: The reply to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The holding in question is in the occupation of another tenant, and the Commissioners have informed the applicants that they are not prepared to take any action in the matter of their applications for reinstatement.

    Intermediate Education Board (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give facilities for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Kerry with reference to the new rules and examination time-table of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland; and whether he is aware that unless such facilities are given on some evening at the close of public business within the present week the Intermediate Education Board will be enabled to destroy the system of science teaching which has been in force for the last fifteen years, by enforcing a new system of written examination for science, against which all educational bodies in Ireland have protested?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is impossible for the Government to give facilities for this Motion at the present stage of business.
    Mr. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these rules were only laid on the Table of the House on Thursday, and that I gave notice immediately, and
    1124
    that if this House adjourns for 30 days-the rules cannot be dealt with by the House of Commons?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It will be possible for the hon. Member to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment any evening. I think that will be the most convenient course.
    Mr. LYNCH: Would it not be better, under the circumstances, for the Government to give every encouragement to the science teaching instead of throwing obstacles in the way?
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of throwing these rules into the waste-paper basket?

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Re-election of Ministers (No. 2) Billy without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    IRISH PRISONERS.
    Mr. DILLON: I beg to ask the Leader of the House whether his attention has been called to the fact that the late Prime Minister promised me an opportunity of discussing the question of the Irish prisoners, unless I received before the close of the Session a satisfactory private assurance on the matter. Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to remind the present Prime Minister of that promise, and to ask him if he can make a reference to the question of the Irish prisoners to-morrow and to say that, if he cannot do so, I will request him to give me an opportunity before the Session closes of discussing the matter, as I am assuming that he will consider himself to be bound by the pledge of the late Prime Minister?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall, of course, convey what has just been stated to the Prime Minister, who will be here tomorrow.

    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (VOTES).
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will any opportunity be given during the present Session of discussing the question of votes for soldiers and sailors and the setting up of a special register for the purpose?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is obvious that if the House is to prorogue this week it would be impossible to give facilities for a discussion of this kind.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the Government announce their intention with regard to the matter before the Prorogation?
    Mr. W. THORNE: When will responsible Ministers be in the House to reply if a question is put down?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think to-morrow.

    BILLS FOR THE WEEK.
    Mr. McKENNA: What will be the business for the rest of the week?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have now been able to get the time table of the work which the Government think has to be done during this Session. I think that it will be possible to prorogue on Friday of this week. It will not be easy and can only be done if it is the general desire of the House that that course should be taken. In addi-
    1134
    tion to the business which is down on the Order Paper there are the following items which have to be dealt with:

    The Appropriation Bill.

    The Volunteer Bill.

    The Acquisition of Land Bill.

    The Pensions Bill.

    Supply (Army Supplementary Estimates), and two Bills which have not yet been mentioned—

    The Counties and Municipal Boroughs Loans Bill, and

    The War Loans Bill.

    These last two are concerned with the finances of the country. They were prepared by my right hon. Friend who preceded me in my present office. He thought it was necessary to have them, and I take the same view. One, the Corporations Bill, is to enable corporations, if they think fit, to borrow money elsewhere than in the United Kingdom. The War Loans Bill will be in exactly the same terms as the previous Bill. Its object will be to enable the Treasury, if they think the time opportune, to issue a Loan even if the House is not sitting. That does not, of course, mean that there is any intention at present of taking that course, but it has been thought that it might happen that it would be wise to do so, and I hope that the House will give us the facilities to make it possible for us to adopt this course if considered desirable. If this is to be done the Bill will have to be treated as a non-controversial Bill on which there can be no discussion. To-morrow it will be put down as a purely formal stage on the Resolution, and its subsequent stages will have to be gone through by special Resolution enabling more than one stage of the Bill to be taken on the same day. That has been done more than once, and if it is the general desire of the House to rise on Friday I do not think that there will be any objection to that course.
    Mr. McKENNA: Am I right in assuming that the Bill will be a Bill authorising the issue of the Loan, but without at the present time specifying the particular terms?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Bill will be in precisely the same form as that in which it was arranged by my right hon. Friend.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: What is the alternative if we are not able to rise on Friday?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Then we must sit next week.
    Sir C. HENRY: If the House passes the Bill authorising the issue of a Loan, and if a Loan be issued under it, will there be no opportunity for the House to discuss the terms of the Loan?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That would necessarily follow, but there is no intention at the present time, in taking this Bill, to issue a Loan at once, and I am sure that my predecessor will agree that when a Loan is being carried through it is not generally advisable to discuss its terms before it is issued.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Unless my memory fails me, it has generally been the custom, when a Loan is being issued, to communicate its terms as soon as the Loan is being issued, and to receive the authority of the House. Now, as I understand, what might take place might be that the House might not meet for three or four weeks after the issue of the Loan, and therefore the money might be obtained without the authority of the House; but I quite see, of course, that it would not do to give the House the terms of the Loan some few days before it is issued; but it has generally been done on the same day, unless I am mistaken.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend. Of course the formal authority of the House will be given in the Bill to which I refer. I agree also that it is very undesirable that a Loan of this kind should be issued when the House is not sitting, and that course will only be adopted if the Government, the Treasury, and those who advise us think that there is some disadvantage in postponing it until the House meets again.

    NATIONAL GALLERY.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Have the Government any intention of asking the House to pass the Bill promoted by the Trustees of the National Gallery in another place?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; it is not down in the list which I have read out, and, as at present advised, we have not any intention of proceeding with it.

    PARLIAMENTARY RECESS.
    Mr. G. FABER: Is the fact that the War Loan Bill is being taken an indication that we are to have an unusually long Recess?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Not at all. It is simply that if we think it opportune we may take advantage of the situation before the House meets again.
    Mr. McKENNA: How long will be the period of adjournment of the House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend will understand that owing to the illness of the Prime Minister I have been able to see him but seldom. I have seen him this morning, and our present intention is to Prorogue on Friday if we can. The House will reassemble by Proclamation of the Sovereign, which is expected to take place early in February.

    ENEMY PRINCES.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is it the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with enemy princes?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not the intention to introduce a Bill this Session. I promised the hon. Gentleman who raised this question the other day that it will be gone into. That is being done, and there will be no delay beyond what is unavoidable.
    Ordered, "That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business be not interrupted under any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."—[Mr. Bonar Laic]

  NEW MINISTRIES AND SECRETARIES.

    SALARIES AND REMUNERATION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Resolution of the Committee on New Ministries and Secretaries [Salaries and Remuneration] may be considered this day as soon as it is reported from the-Committee, notwithstanding the practice-of the House relating to the interval between the Report and Consideration of such a Resolution."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]
    Mr. SHERWELL: Before the Resolution is adopted, may I ask the Leader of the House for some explanation of this Motion; and is he aware that it is very unusual indeed? I understand that there is no precedent for it as far as this House is concerned, and my information from a responsible authority is that it ought not to be made save under very exceptional

    1137
    circumstances. The circumstances, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, are hardly to be characterised in that way. So far not one word of the Bill has been considered by the House. It is rather an unusual thing, also, because the whole effect that the Bill may have upon the House will undoubtedly be determined by the indication of the scope and purpose of it given by the right hon. Gentleman who may be in charge of the Bill. I would remind the Leader of the House that it is not proposed to go further with this Bill than the Second Reading of it to-night, so that it is difficult to see where the question of urgency really arises. It is not, in my judgment, as if the progress of the Bill would be at all materially delayed if the right hon. Gentleman did not press this Motion; and in view of all the circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that unquestionably the right hon. Gentleman can get his Motion, as a matter of form, next day, before the Committee stage, I do not think the Financial Resolution is one that ought to pass out of the control of the House until after they have had fuller information from the Government on the Bill.
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): It is not the case, I am informed, that this is unprecedented. There have been precedents for it during the War, and at least one before the War, but I quite agree that it is not a desirable course. The reason why I ask the House to agree to it is this: If my hon. Friend will calculate the number of days, he will see that it is necessary to get it through all its stages in time to pass. I would point out that the House will have power to stop the Bill in its later stages, if it so desires. There must be an opportunity for some discussion on the Second Reading, Committee, and Report stages. The putting down of this Motion is due to the fact that we want to get the Session ended before Christmas, but that is a matter which entirely rests with the House itself, and it is for it to decide whether or hot to take the exceptional measures necessary to secure the Bill passing in time.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not at all sure that this is going to help my right hon. Friend. As I understand it, the position is that in regard to this Money Resolution, which is now, I suppose, in the Clerk's desk, no one in this House knows any-
    1138
    thing whatever about it. In the ordinary way you cannot take two stages of the Money Resolution on the same day, and, therefore, when the Committee stage has been passed, on the Report stage you can go to the Vote Office and get the Resolution in print, and we should know something on the Report stage about what is being done. If you take the two stages of the Resolution to-day, the House will not in the least know what it is doing. I am not endeavouring in any kind of way to be unreasonable. It is not the whole Bill which is founded upon the Money Resolution. It is only one Clause of it, and if we were not to adopt the suggestion of my right hon. Friend my belief is that the situation would be as follows: We should pass the Money Resolution after the Committee stage, and that would not in any way interfere with the Money Resolution. To-morrow we could take the Report stage' of the Money Resolution, and the Committee stage afterwards. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think that is so. You could go on with the Committee stage of the Bill until Clause 6 or 7, I believe—it is the Clause in italics—and then get the Money Resolution. You will not want the Money Resolution until you have got the Committee stage on Clause 7. If my right hon. Friend will allow me to say so, I do not think that he is losing anything, while he is preserving a custom or a tradition of the House which is very desirable.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure the House knows that I do not pretend personally that this is the best course to follow, but I was informed that it was the best method of getting the Bill completed. I have made inquiry, and I find that there will be no loss of time in adopting the course suggested by my right hon. Friend, and therefore I do not in the circumstances propose to press the Resolution.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of an annual Salary not exceeding two thousand pounds to any Minister, and to any Under-Secretary to a Secretary of State while he performs the duties of Minister of Blockade, appointed under any Act of the present Session for establishing

    1139
    certain new Ministries, and for the appointment of additional Secretaries or Under-Secretaries in certain Government Departments, and of other Salaries, Remuneration, and expenses which may become payable in pursuance of such Act."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think we should have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to the amount involved under the Resolution. We find that under this Bill there are three separate Ministers: one of them permanent, and two of them axe temporary, being only for the period of the War, but in addition to that under Clause 7 there is a very wide provision made as to the possible appointment of new Under-Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries. I do not know exactly how many new Secretaries are to be appointed under this Clause, and I think it is obviously right that the Committee before passing the Resolution should, in the first instance, know exactly the salaries of those Ministers for whose appointment the Bill provides, and secondly, as to the number of Under-Secretaries which the Government intend to appoint under the Bill and the remuneration which will be paid to the Under-Secretaries. I hope the right hon. Genitleman will give an answer to this point.
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): It is almost impossible to give an exact estimate as to the cost of a Bill like this, but my hon. Friend can make a calculation for himself. The Bill provides for three new Ministers—
    Mr. HOGGE: At £5,000 a year?
    Sir G. CAVE: Three at £2,000 a year each.
    Mr. HOGGE: That is £6,000.
    Sir G. CAVE: As to Under-Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries their salaries will be determined by the Treasury, and my hon. Friend may feel quite sure that the amount of their remuneration will not exceed, but probably may be less than the remuneration now paid to Under-Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will the Under-Secretary represent the Controller of Shipping?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes; he will.
    Mr. HOUSTON: As the Controller is an expert in shipping, will he have an Under-Secretary who is an expert in shipping?
    Sir G. CAVE: We are now on the question in relation to money. The House can make some calculation as to the amount involved, but it is impossible for us to know exactly at this moment what the Treasury will sanction. It will not be, as far as I can see, a very large sum. I hope with that statement hon. Members will postpone discussion on the financial part of the Resolution until we come to the Second Reading.
    Mr. DILLON: I desire to make a protest against the statement made by the Home Secretary that they have not yet made up their minds as to the scale of salaries. I wholly object to the principle underlying that statement. It reminds me of a system which always horrified me and which will yet come to be recognised as an evil precedent. This House ought to know before it votes money what is going to be paid to each servant of the Crown. I object on principle to the idea that we are going to do it on the cheap. The danger of the Bill is that it opens the way to an unlimited number of Under-Secretaries, and if a Member is to be invested with the power to appoint an unlimited number of Under-Secretaries at £500 per year or whatever the salary is to be, it would be a degradation of this House and a departure from the whole principle that has ruled this House for 200 years, and which was the result of great and prolonged struggles to put an end to Ministerial corruption in this country. I therefore could not allow this matter to pass sub silentio, and the idea that it did not matter how many Under-Secretaries were to be appointed, provided the salaries were cut down.
    Mr. ASHLEY: I wish to reinforce what has fallen from the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I do think the right hon. Gentleman would do well to let us know the number of Under-Secretaries and what their salaries are to be. If we do not know those two things, what is the use of asking the House of Commons to pass the Resolution, since we would simply be voting money for an indefinite number of Under-Secretaries at indefinite salaries. I do enter a strong protest, but, if the information I ask for is given, I am sure there will be no objection to passing the Resolution.
    Sir G. CAVE: I have not the least desire to withhold information from the House. I know pretty well what is proposed, and the number of Secretaries is limited by the Bill. In Committee on the Bill I will undertake to give the figures.
    Mr. HOUSTON: I do not want to oppose the Second Reading, but I do ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the question as to the Controller of Shipping. The Home Secretary said that he would be represented in this House by an Under-Secretary. If an expert is required in anything, he is required in shipping, and yet, according to the statement made, we shall have no opportunity of any intelligent replies here. It is one of the most vital subjects of the day, and the whole concern and welfare of the country and the prosecution of the War depend on the proper handling of merchant shipping. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the decision as to the Controller of Shipping not having a seat in this House.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    NEW MINISTERS AND SECRETARIES BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    I think the House will agree with me that this Bill deals with matters of very great importance. The intention and purpose of the Bill is, I think, clear. It is to give Parliamentary sanction to what is to some extent a new departure in administration that has already been announced partly by the late Government and partly by the present Prime Minister. As the War goes on certain matters are becoming more and more of pressing and indeed of vital importance, and we are obliged from time to time on those particular questions to reconsider the position and strengthen it as far as we can. Among those matters which are to-day of that degree of importance are the question of food, the question of shipping, the question of labour, and I will add the question of aircraft. We want to put more of our strength into those matters, and the best course is considered to be to obtain in each field an expert to give his undivided attention to the subject and that we should give him the fullest possible powers. There is another circumstance which one ought to mention as a reason for a great part of
    1142
    this Bill, and it is that, during the War, the functions of the Board of Trade have increased very much and very rapidly. It deals, as hon. Members know, with food and shipping, and has a Labour Department. All that has enormously increased during the War, and it seems desirable to transfer to new Ministers such parts of that work as can be readily detached from the rest. In saying that, I hope it will not be thought for a moment that we desire to throw the least reflection on the manner in which the work has been carried on by the Board of Trade and its officials. The staff of the Board of Trade have worked extremely hard during the War with very great devotion to their work, and with very great success. It is partly because their work has got beyond what any one Department could be expected to transact that we think it desirable to form these new Ministries and transfer to them parts of the work of the Board of Trade.
    4.0 P.M.
    Let me first deal with the question of the Labour Ministry. That is not a new proposal by any means. It was first proposed, I think, in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on Labour as long ago as 1894. It was again proposed in the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission in 1909, and during the last twenty-five years there has been a long succession of Bills proposing to deal with the subject of setting up a Ministry of Labour. In some Bills it was proposed to combine Labour and Commerce in one Ministry, and in others to combine Labour with the relief of destitution. In other Bills it was proposed to form a Ministry of Labour pure and simple, such as we propose to form to-day. Among the Bills in question was the Boards of Labour Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Brace), whom, I think, we all desire to congratulate on being a Member of His Majesty's Privy Council. So much for the past. This matter has now become extremely urgent. The provision of labour for munitions, for mines, for railways, and for other purposes is vital to-day for the conduct of the War. It is essential that misunderstandings between employers and workmen should not be liable to interfere with the War, and perhaps bring disaster upon the country and also upon employers and employés themselves. There must be some strong

    1143
    authority to look into these matters beforehand, to note the rocks ahead, and when trouble arises to conciliate, if possible, and if need be to control, those concerned. The Labour Department of the Board of Trade and the Industrial Commissioner have done exceedingly good work, but we think it desirable to have one particular Minister who shall devote his energies to this particular purpose. Let me give one illustration. We all know, I think, that my right hon. Friend who has been designated as Minister for Labour has already made a beginning with his work, and we note with pleasure—and I do not want to say more than is proper—the success that up to now has attended his efforts. What we propose to do is this: to set up a Ministry of Labour, and at once to transfer to the holder of the office the powers of the Board of Trade under the Acts which are set out in the Schedule of the Bill. These Acts are the Conciliation Act, 1896, the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, the Trade Boards Act, 1909, the National Insurance (Unemployment) Acts, 1911 to 1916, and Part I. of the Munitions of War Act, 1915—in each case as amended by any other Act. These matters involve duties which are of very great importance. I do not propose to go through these Acts because they are very familiar to Members of the House. They comprise matters of great moment that occupy, and deserve to occupy, a great part of the time of the Board of Trade.
    If I may, let me deal with the work of the Labour Exchanges alone. A very large amount of additional work has fallen on this Department since the outbreak of the War, largely in connection with the supply of workpeople for munitions manufacture. The Exchanges have placed in employment over 20,000 discharged soldiers, have provided agricultural labour, especially that of women, and have enrolled and distributed the War Munitions Volunteers. They have also assisted in the dilution of labour schemes and the carrying out of the provisions relating to the schemes of substitution of men fit for general military service by men discharged or otherwise unfit, by men called up to the Army for Home Defence and by women. The volume of work of the Labour Exchanges alone can be seen from the fact that over 5,000 persons, men and women, are placed in employment daily by the Exchanges. The utility of
    1144
    the machinery of the Exchanges is made clear by the notification of unfilled vacancies in various places all over the country, and the advancing of over £5,000 a month for the travelling expenses of workmen transferred by the Exchanges from one part of the country to another. Other Acts, such as the Trade Boards Act, and so on, give work to the Departments enumerated; but, taking it altogether, the Exchanges perhaps attract the large volume of the work which will be transferred to the new Department. Other powers may be—no doubt will be—transferred to it by the Board of Agriculture. It is not proposed to transfer the Home Office powers relating to mines and factories. That particular Department has done the work exceedingly well during the War, and it is not desired in any quarter that the powers should be at once transferred to the new Department. Apart from these, however, the new Ministry will have plenty of work to do. Let me add just one word as to the duration of this Ministry. If created, this particular Ministry cannot, I think, come to an end at the end of the War. The Ministry is created for War reasons. But if you set up a Department of this kind, it seems almost impossible that you should put an end to it when the War comes to an end. There will be a great deal of work for this Department to do after the War. There will be great difficulties and matters of great importance which will require adjustment, not only in the demobilisation consequent on the finish of the War, but by reason of events which will happen for many years after the War. There will be need for special work in view of the effect of the insurance of munition workers, an effect which will only be felt on the cessation of manufacture.
    Apart, however, from that, I myself think that most of us have long since come to the conclusion that a Minister of Labour might render great service to this country, and that such a Ministry should be set up. It is one of the most hopeful signs of the present condition of things that there is a general desire that the relations of capital and labour, and the conditions under which labour is done shall, after the War, be improved. We are drawing closer together. We all feel strongly that if a Minister of Labour can take the matter in hand and retain these good relations which are getting better from day to day, if I say he he can retain these conditions after the

    1145
    War he wil be rendering a great service to the country. So much for the Ministry of Labour. I have not, of course, dwelt at any length on the details of the Bill.
    I desire now to refer to the Ministry of Food. The importance of setting up a food control can hardly be exaggerated. We all know that the proposal was made in the time of the late Government which determined to appoint a Food Controller, and framed and passed into law certain Regulations dealing with food which must be of great value to the Food Controller when he begins his work. The existence of this country depends upon imports of food, and upon the increase of the home production of food. Difficulties are necessarily arising to-day, not only from the wanton destruction of shipping by our enemies, but also by reason of the fact that so great a part of our shipping is required for the purpose of the transport of troops and munitions. There is also the scarcity of labour. It is these circumstances that render this subject a really pressing one. I think the whole House is satisfied that it is not at all too soon to appoint an official for the purposes I have indicated. Lord Devon-port, the official appointed, in the observations which he made the other day in another place, showed that he is taking the matter thoroughly in hand and that he proposes to begin his work at once. I do not think he can be too thorough to please the country. What we propose to do will be seen by a perusal of Clauses 3 and 4. The power we propose to give to the Food Controller is to regulate the supply and consumption of food in such a manner as he thinks best for maintaining a proper supply of food, and to take such steps as he thinks best for encouraging the production of food; and for those purposes he shall have certain powers transferred to him, partly statutory powers and partly under regulation. The Regulations already made and conferred upon him include powers to stop waste, to specify the uses to which any article can be put, and especially to regulate the mode of manufacture, the mode of sale or distribution, the fixing of prices, etc. As regards the home supplies, he will necessarily act in close co-operation with the Board of Agriculture. As regards foreign supplies, he will act in close cooperation with the Wheat and Sugar Commissions, and will be able to supplement their action if it is thought necessary or
    1146
    well so to do, by the use of his statutory powers. This particular appointment will be a temporary one, as provided by Clause 11. This office is to cease to exist on the termination of a period of twelve months after the conclusion of the War.
    I come now to the Ministry of Shipping. This proposal is, to me, the most urgent and the most vital of all. The demand for shipping to-day in connection with the War is very very great, and it is essential that we should take immediate steps to review the position. If there is any risk of a shortage of ships in the future we should not lose a moment in appointing someone able to deal with the matter, who shall sit down at once and consider the position and take every step that can be taken both for utilising the shipping which is now available and for seeing when the need comes that new shipping of a proper character, and if need be properly armed, is available for our purposes. I venture to say, speaking my own views, that of all the proposals this is perhaps the most urgent of all. I cannot say how much importance I myself attach to this matter. At present the control of shipping is vested in two Departments: the Admiralty and the Board of Trade, and in three Special Committees—the Shipping Control Committee, the Ships Licensing Committee, and the Port and Transit Executive Committee. It is necessary that there should be closer co-ordination between the different authorities, and that there shall be one Minister whose sole business it shall be to increase our shipping and to make the best use of it. For this purpose the Controller will be able to make use of all the powers possessed by the existing Departments and Committees, and if further powers are required they may be conferred upon him by Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Acts. One of the most difficult questions of the War is to determine what portion of our shipbuilding energy shall be devoted to naval purposes and what part shall be devoted to the building of merchant shipping; also what portion of merchant shipping should be devoted to military and naval purposes, and what to civilian war requirements. It will be the duty of the Controller to study the case from the point of view of the civilian war requirements, in Conjunction with the naval and military authorities, and to make such recommendations as are necessary to the War

    1147
    Cabinet. The powers of the Controller are set out in Clause 6 of the Bill, which says:
    "It shall be the duty of the Shipping Controller to control and regulate any shipping available for the needs of the country in such a manner as to make the best use thereof having regard to the circumstances of the time, and to take such steps as he thinks best for providing and maintaining an efficient supply of shipping."
    The next matter is Clause 7 of the Bill. That provides for the appointment of additional Parliamentary Under-Secretaries for two very hard-worked Departments, the Foreign Office and the War Office.
    Mr. G. FABER: Will they be paid?
    Sir G. CAVE: I have no doubt that is the intention. The Clause also provides for a further Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. It is proposed that they should be remunerated in the ordinary way, and it is also proposed in Clause 8, Sub-section (2), that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who performs the duties of Minister of Blockade, shall receive while he performs those duties a salary of £2,000. The House will agree with me that the duties of Blockade Minister are exceedingly heavy. I know something of them because I worked for nearly a year at the Foreign Office in connection with that Department, and it is only right that they should be recognised in the way proposed.
    Mr. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he has not made a separate Ministry?
    Sir G. CAVE: There are very strong reasons for combining the work connected with the blockade with the work of the Foreign Office. The Clause, as I said, provides for three new Under-Secretaries or Parliamentary Secretaries, and the Bill also provides that His Majesty may appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to any special authority or Board constituted in connection with the supply of aircraft for the present War.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: Are these additional Under-Secretaries of the War Office and the Foriegn Office to be equal to the Under-Secretaries now existing or under them?
    Sir G. CAVE: That is entirely a matter to be determined by the Secretary of State, and I am sure no question will arise. Of course, they will only be appointed during the War. I was just going to refer to the remaining provision of substance which enables His Majesty to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to the Air Board. In that connection I want to make this observation about the Air Board. We propose by the Bill to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to that Board. The Government desire to go somewhat further than that. This matter is, of course, of great and pressing importance, and I think many of us would desire to have a decision as to the position which the Air Board is to take. I am authorised by the Prime Minister to say:
    "In the pressure of work involved in the formation of the Government, it has not been possible to decide to-day all matters connected with the Air Board. The work of President is still being carried on temporarily by Lord Curzon, and the Government have satisfied themselves that the service is not suffering in the interim. But I am glad to be able to say that the two fighting Departments (the War Office and the Admiralty) have arranged to utilise to the full the services of the Air Board, and I hope in the Committee stage to be able to introduce Amendments to give effect to that decision."
    I hope that with that statement the House will be content. Those are the points of the Bill. The rest of the Bill is really machinery, with which I will not occupy the time of the House.
    I do not say that the scheme which I have outlined, and which is embodied in the Bill, is complete. It must be filled up and completed by the Orders in Council, which will, I am sure, be wide enough to give all the powers which the new Ministers may require. And, of course, the success of the proposals must, in the end, depend, not on their form, but on the manner in which the powers are used. We are all of us in deadly earnest about the War. We are determined to throw into it, without stint and without delay, all the strength and all the resources of this country, and if, as I am certain will be the case, the new Ministers take up their duties in that spirit of determination which animates the country as a whole, then this Bill, which I earnestly commend to the favourable consideration of the House, will help us to do that which we consider to be our immediate and paramount duty, namely, to get on as fast as possible with the business of the War.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Bill which the Home Secretary has just introduced in so lucid a manner is a measure which in

    1149
    ordinary times we should have regarded as of first-class importance. To-day, however, we merely consider it as an emergency measure required by the conditions of war, and it is from that point of view, and that point of view only, that I shall delay the House for a few minutes to speak on the Bill. A measure of this kind, which authorises an executive Act, is one which cannot be fundamentally criticised unless we intend to oppose the measure. Criticism which does not reflect policy, but only hampers and delays its execution, is bad. I do not say it would be bad in ordinary times of peace, but when a Government responsible for the conduct of the War finds itself held up at every point by criticism in Parliament which is not going to alter its policy, then I say that a Government suffers to the detriment of the State, and without advantage to the House of Commons. A measure of this kind, therefore, has got to be considered from the point of view of whether we oppose or accept it in principle, and if we do accept it in principle, I would venture to suggest to the House that our criticism should be of anything but a contentious character. Sometimes we may be able to suggest safeguards. We may also be able, possibly, to point out useful Amendments; but anything in the nature of delay or obstruction I am sure the House does not mean to give to the Government in the passing of this Bill. There are one or two points upon which, for my part, I should like to be assured. The language of the Bill is extremely vague. Whether we look at the constititution of the Ministry of Labour and its powers, or the Ministry of Food, or the Ministry of Shipping, we find throughout the same indeterminate phrases. This Bill primarily—in fact, almost entirely—is a Bill for the dismemberment of the Board of Trade. It removes from the Board of Trade three of its main functions, and sets up new Ministers to carry out the work formerly carried out by the President of the Board of Trade in respect of labour, shipping, and food control. Upon the face of it, the language of the Bill seems to transfer to the new Ministers respectively the powers of the Board of Trade relating to labour, food control and shipping, but there are words which seem to suggest that by Order in Counnil, other powers may be transferred without those powers having been authorised under any Statute whatever. It says in Clause 4 that the powers or duties of any Govern-
    1150
    ment Department or authority may be transferred, and "such further powers as may be conferred on him by Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, and Regulations may be made under that Act accordingly." Upon the face of it, this looks as if, under the powers so conferred, any Order in Council could be authorised containing any Regulations or any powers which might be given or transferred to the new Minister. I do not think that that is intended. I believe I am right in assuming that what is intended is that only existing, powers, whether under Statute or under Order in Council, authorised by the Defence of the Realm Act or under the existing Common Law, may be transferred to the new Minister. If that is so, I shall be quite satisfied, because I think less powers than that would be insufficient.
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend says, "existing powers." Of course, it would be possible, under Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, to confer on the Minister of Shipping powers, which have not yet been conferred on the Board of Trade. They may be powers authorised by the Defence of the Realm Act.
    Mr. ROCH: Would that give sufficient power to nationalise shipping?
    Mr. McKENNA: If I may answer the question, that would depend whether the Defence of the Realm Act authorised the issue of an Order in Council to nationalise shipping. I should very much doubt if it did; but if the Defence of the Realm Act did authorise the issue of such an Order in Council, then it would come under the powers transferred by this Act. But the actual language seems to suggest, whether authorised by the Defence of the Realm Act or under this Bill, new Regulations, and that is a point which, I think, is not intended by the measure. One other point, and this is a criticism to which I would invite the attention of the House. I have nothing to say as to the constitution of the Ministry of Labour, although it is to be a permanent Ministry. I think it probably will prove to be a valuable change. I have, equally, nothing to say as to the constitution of the Ministry of Food, a proposal which had been already-made by the late Government. As regards the Ministry of Shipping, the work has hitherto been executed by the Shipping Control Committee, presided over by Lord

    1151
    Curzon. In my judgment, it has been extremely well done in the past, and I can only hope that the future Controller of Shipping will be able to complete the work which Lord Curzon has hitherto so well done.
    When we turn to the next part of the Bill dealing with the Parliamentary Secretaries, I admit that the measure amazes me. We read Clause after Clause providing for the creation of new paid Parliamentary Secretaries. First of all, we begin with Clause 7 by removing the limit hitherto imposed by Statute on the creation of such Secretaries. The Home Secretary tells us that the hard work of the Foreign Office and the War Office and the Board of Trade require the creation of new Parliamentary Secretaries. May I point out that the Board of Trade is having a very important part of its work removed from it, and, notwithstanding this immense withdrawal of its powers and its work, we are to have one, or perhaps two, new paid Parliamentary Secretaries to the Board of Trade. I cannot conceive why that should be necessary. I do not dispute it, of course, if the Secretary of State says it is necessary that there ought to be another Parliamentary Secretary or Under-Secretary to the War Office, but I have never heard it suggested that we require another Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office, and still less an additional Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. But the Bill does not stop there. It proposes new Parliamentary Secretaries to the various new Departments of the Board of Trade into which the Board of Trade has been split. If we look at Clause 10 we find suggested the number of these Parliamentary Secretaries. We are told in Clause 10 that not more than two Secretaries in each Ministry shall sit in the House of Commons. I suppose we shall have one Secretary for each Ministry sitting in the House of Lords, so that we shall have these three new Ministries each having three Parliamentary paid Secretaries.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not intended.
    Mr. McKENNA: Then I think the language of the Bill is a little unfortunate, and I hope on the Committee stage the Home Secretary will be able to give an assurance to the House that we do not intend to turn the House of Commons into a happy hunting ground for paid Parlia-
    1152
    mentary Secretaries. It has never been suggested in the numerous criticisms which have been put forward that there has been an inadequate supply of paid Parliamentary Secretaries hitherto.
    Mr. BOOTH: We have had too many.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend says we have had too many, and I do not think the House of Commons can contemplate with equanimity the creation of six, eight, or ten new paid Parliamentary Secretaries under this Bill. I have nothing more to say upon the measure, and it is too early for the House of Commons to express a confident opinion as to the working of these Ministries. We must give to the House of Commons and to the public time to consider their effect, and when we have had an experience of the work of these Ministries for two or three months we shall then be in a position to judge whether we are satisfied with their work or not. At the present moment all that we can do is to wish the heartiest success to these new Ministries in the task that lies before them.
    Mr. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House may be compared to the burnt child who dreads the fire. He has undergone in recent days a hail of criticism which I am glad to observe has resulted in making him more inclined to extend a larger measure of charity to his successor than he enjoyed himself in office. There are some points of this Bill which I think ought to be criticised at the very earliest opportunity, quite apart from any question of agreeing or differing from the general policy of the Bill. First of all, I want to direct attention to a peculiar and unique treatment accorded to the Noble Lord who now presides over the Blockade, and I want to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill to explain before the Debate closes what is the reason why the Minister in charge of the Blockade has been selected for this extraordinary treatment? It is peculiar in two remarkable ways. The Minister in charge of the Blockade is not made a Minister. He is left as Under-Secretary, as I understand, to the Foreign Office. But while he is left as Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office a special provision is introduced raising his salary to the level of a Ministerial salary. What is the explanation of the departure in his case from the general scope and machinery of the Bill, one of

    1153
    the Clauses of which states that "while he performs the duty of Minister of Blockade his annual salary shall not exceed £2,000 a year." Now, if he is to be Minister of Blockade, why is he not put in the same position as the Controller of Food and the Controller of Shipping? The Blockade is quite as important to the Government as any one of the other Departments. [An HON. MEMBER: "More important."] Well, it is quite as important, and its importance is enormously increased by the explanation given by the Home Secretary in introducing the Bill.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that the only explanation for this extraordinary arrangement was that it was essential to keep the Minister of Blockade in close contact with the Foreign Office. He is not only to be in close contact with the Foreign Office—we hope all the Departments are in close contact with each other—but he is subordinate to the Foreign Office, and maintained as a subordinate. That raises the all-important question which we cannot get away from in discussing this Bill, as to what is to be the relation of the Foreign Office and the new machinery under which this country is to be governed and the lines on which the War is to be run. The Minister of Blockade must be, according to the Home Secretary, in close contact with the Foreign Office. Does that mean that he is to be the servant of the Foreign Office and must he be in closer contact with the Foreign Office than with the Admiralty? 1s not the Minister of Blockade just as closely bound in his daily work to the Admiralty as to the Foreign Office? He ought to be at all events. That raises this question: Are these great questions —and they are great questions—affected by the Minister of Blockade? Is the Foreign Office to be the ultimate Court of Appeal, or must the Foreign Office take its orders from the War Committee? If so, why should the Minister of Blockade be compelled to approach the War Committee through the Foreign Office? Why should he not be an independent Minister ready to take his orders direct from the supreme committee of public safety which we are now setting up to run the War? I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that it will be necessary to give some further explanation of this peculiar treatment of the Minister of Blockade, or the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Why should the Noble Lord be Minister of Blockade and still
    1154
    be retained in the position of Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office? That is the first question I wish to ask. With regard to the functions and powers of the Controller of Food, I wish to put a further question. He is a man who will in the immediate future have enormous powers which, if they are misused, will rapidly increase the peace party in this country. It will be within the power of the Minister of Food, if he acts imprudently or harshly or in an irritating fashion, to create an amount of public disturbance probably unnecessarily, and also an amount of public discontent which would be extremely injurious to the successful conduct of the War, and might lead to very unfortunate consequences. Therefore we are bound to examine very closely what are the powers of the whole system of the Ministry of Food.
    I want to express my amazement that the Minister of Food has been charged, as I understand, with supreme authority in regard to the great and vital question of increased food production. I was rejoiced at one departure made by the Government, and that was when they got out of the rut of not attempting to get hold of really able men who understood their business before they appointed them. In relation to the Board of Agriculture a great new departure was made, and three of the most competent men of the whole country, who undoubtedly were accepted authorities on agriculture, to the amazement of all beholders, were appointed to the control of the Board of Agriculture. But can anything be imagined more ridiculous than to put over the heads of these three men, apparently as Dictator, a man who is an extremely able man, but who knows no more about agriculture than I know about shipping? Are we to be told that the Member for Oxford (Mr. Prothero) and the hon. and gallant Member for Wiltshire (Captain Bathurst) are to get their instructions and orders from Lord Devonport? If that be true, a more absurd and stupid arrangement could not possibly be imagined. Supposing the Board of Agriculture, as is exceedingly likely, and Lord Devonport disagree as to what is the best method to be taken for improving and increasing the production of food, who is to be the arbiter? Are we now under this new system to have a prolongation of all the evils which the late Government suffered under, largely through their own fault, of

    1155
    a conflict of Departments? What the Government suffered from was largely their own fault, because they had not strength of mind enough to squelch the Departments. It was perfectly horrible to find that for weeks and months Departments were quarrelling with each other over trifles, holding up decisions as to details, and exchanging notes as if they were rival Powers. Is that to be repeated? Are we to have the Food Controller fighting with the Member for Oxford University? Instead of giving the two thoroughly competent men whom you have now got hold of, in whom the country has every confidence, a free hand, are you going to set the Food Controller over their heads? That would be an outrageous thing to do, and there is not a solitary argument in favour of it. The Food Controller's Department is a wholly different Department. He can obtain from the Agricultural Department an estimate of the crops and what they are doing, but he ought to have nothing to do with the arrangements made for the increase of our food production. His duty is to ascertain how much food he can get from abroad and from this country, and to superintend the distribution, in order that there will not be a severe shortage. I hope this point will be set right before the Bill passes through Committee.
    There is another extraordinary and important point. The Home Secretary said they had now appointed a Controller of Shipping, whose position he describes as of vital and enormous importance. So it is. The Home Secretary said that the Controller of Shipping, amongst his other duties, would be called upon to apportion the use of man-power for skilled work and divide it between shipbuilding for commerce and the Navy, and to apportion the number of ships to be used for transport and commercial purposes; and he also said that the Controller of Shipping would consider this matter in consultation with the Admiralty, and be able to come to a decision. That is a very Utopian view. That is exactly what has been going for the last year. The Board of Trade has been considering this question with the Admiralty and has not been able to come to a decision. What proof have we that the Controller of Shipping will have any additional power in dealing with the Admiralty over and above what the Board of Trade had in the past?
    1156
    When the Controller of Shipping, as is inevitable, differs from the Admiralty—it is no blame to the Admiralty, which approaches this problem from the opposite point of view—who will decide between them? We ought to know. I do not believe that they would be able to come to a decision. I suppose it will be the War Committee. I think the Controller of Shipping ought to be in this House. The idea that he can control shipping better outside than inside the House is quite a mistake.
    I do not intend to press the matter at present, but I want to warn the Home Secretary that we in Ireland have such confidence—at least, I personally have-in the hon. Member for Oxford University and the hon. Member for Wiltshire,. with whom I have had some opportunity of working, that we are not very uneasy about their rule being applied to the production of food in Ireland. But it is a very different thing with Lord Devonport. I do not want to say anything against Lord Devonport. I have no doubt that he will be a very efficient man in his own particular province, but I must enter a caveat against the Government imagining that we are going to tolerate a dictatorship over the whole agricultural production of Ireland by Lord Devonport. We are going to do nothing of the kind, and if that is intended there will be very severe friction.
    Finally, I come to the question of the Under-Secretaries, and I do urge that the Government ought to reconsider the whole matter. Take, for instance, the War Office. Two excellent Under-Secretaries represent the War Office. I quite admit that they are hard-worked, but, after all, what does their essential work in connection with this House amount to? Answering questions, and occasionally taking part in debate, which is not a very onerous duty at the present time. It is absurd to say that the two men who at present represent the War Office in this House are not well able to do the work. The essence of all these matters is that the Department should be represented in Parliament by some man, or, in the case of the Admiralty and War Office, by one man on the financial side, and by another man on the administrative and business side. Beyond that, what do you want? Every Government should be extremely jealous of multiplying Under-Secretaries, and this Government all the more when it has come

    1157
    into office under great peculiar circumstances. Undoubtedly, if it had this more or less unlimited power of appointing Under-Secretaries, it would lend itself to the suspicion of wishing to have a number of offices by which it could buttress up its position. The Government which is in office does not require that. It will get from the House and from the country as fair treatment as any Government has ever got in the history of this country, and it is by its success that it will be tried, and not by the number of Under-Secretaries it appoints. The fewer it appoints, the better for this House.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It might be a convenience to the House if I dealt briefly with the two speeches to which we have just listened, for, in reality, these speeches go to the very root on which this Government is being formed and on which we intend to attempt to carry on the War. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. McKenna) that in ordinary times a Bill like this would not pass the House of Commons under weeks of discussion, and, what is more, it is obvious in making a new departure of this kind you lay yourself open to criticism on every hand, that if there were any desire to interfere with the Government getting through its work it would be quite impossible to pass such a Bill in a short time, and I do not know how long it would take to carry it. All I am going to do is to deal with two or three difficulties which have been raised. First of all, as regards the Under-Secretaries, I could imagine nothing more damaging to any Government, and most of all to this Government, which has been professedly formed with the idea of having more rapid working, if possible, than we have had in the past—and I am not now or at any time likely to indulge in severe criticism of a Government of which I was a member and for which I was partly responsible—than even the suspicion that they were creating posts in order reward political services. There is no such intention. It may be that this Bill with regard to Under-Secretaries goes further than is necessary. It was of necessity drafted very hurriedly, and, when my right hon. Friend spoke to me, I said, "We cannot tell what particular needs of this kind there may be, and it would not be a bad thing if the House gave us the power to appoint the Under-Secretaries required without needing a special Bill to create them." That is all that is going to be
    1158
    done. I should like to say further, with regard to what was said about the Board of Trade—it is a good case in point—that it has not been decided whether or not an additional Under-Secretary will he wanted.

    ROYAL ASSENT.
    Whereupon the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod (Captain Butler), having come with a message to attend the Lords Commissioners, Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair.
    The House went, and having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

    1. "Anzac"(Restriction on Trade Use of Word) Act, 1916.

    2. Trading with the Enemy and Export of Prohibited Goods Act, 1916.

    3. National Insurance (Temporary Employment in Agriculture) Act, 1916.

    4. Friendly Societies Act, 1916.

    5. Local Government Emergency Provisions (No. 2) Act, 1916.

    6. Re-election of Ministers (No. 2) Act, 1916.

    7. Output of Beer (Restriction) Amendment Act, 1916.

    8. Holligrave Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1916.

    9. Stony Stratford Charities Scheme Confirmation Act, 1916.

    10. Baptist Chapels Scheme Confirmation Act, 1916.

    11. Burnham-on-Crouch Chapel Scheme Confirmation Act, 1916.

    12. Bradford (Infirmary Street) Baptist Chapel Scheme Confirmation Act, 1916.

    13. Bradninch Chapel Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1916.

    14. Bethlehem Chapel (Tryddyn) Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1916.

    15. Pisgah Chapel (Tryddyn) Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1916.

    16. Moriah Chapel (Broughton) Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1916.

    17. Bethany Chapel Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1916.

    18. Congregational Chapels Scheme Confirmation Act, 1916.

    19. Plymouth Workhouse Charities Scheme Confirmation Act, 1916.

    20. Coatbridge Gas Order Confirmation Act, 1916.

    21. Rhodes Estate Act, 1916.

    NEW MINISTRIES AND SECRETARIES BILL.
    Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: When the interruption took place I was dealing with the question of Under-Secretaries. I was trying to assure the House that the Government have no intention of appointing any larger number than were absolutely necessary for the efficient working of the Government. My right hon. Friend (Mr. McKenna) had referred to the Board of Trade as an instance where obviously, on the face of it, an additional Under-Secretary is not wanted. Whether or not there is to be an additional Under-Secretary there has not yet been decided. The reason we wish at this moment for power to do it is this: Sir Albert Stanley, who is President of the Board of Trade, has been appointed to that post obviously not because of any Parliamentary gifts. However, as a matter of fact, I have heard him, and I think he could explain his case as well as most old-time politicians, but he does not want to do it. He is going there to do work and not to defend what he does in the House of Commons. But he suggested that probably an additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary would free his hand and enable him to do the work. The Government are now considering whether or not they should recommend this additional Under-Secretary. If we do, it will simply be because we believe the work could be more efficiently done in that way than if we did not appoint another Under-Secretary. As regards the other points raised by the hon. Member, he took first of all the question of the Minister of Blockade. As my right hon. Friends who were in the late Government know, we are making no change in that respect. My Noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) was appointed Minister of Blockade under the late Government, and in that capacity he attended Cabinet meetings. The position now remains the same.
    Mr. DILLON: He does not regularly attend Cabinet meetings now?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I did not say that that was so.
    Mr. DILLON: You said his position was the same.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: His position is the same as regards Ministerial functions, and it was the view at the time he was appointed, and it is our view now, that the arrangements made for blockade must all be in connection with foreign countries of one kind or another, and that makes it almost essential that the man who fills that office, if he is to fill it to the best advantage, should also be Under-Secretary for the Foreign Office. That does not in the least mean he is under the Foreign Office as Minister of Blockade. Of course everything is abnormal, but his position will be precisely the same as that of the Food Controller or the Shipping Controller, or anyone else. If there is any question on which he has to come to the War Cabinet, he will come there as Minister of Blockade and state his own case in that capacity and not as Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. That is the position as regards my Noble Friend. Now we come to the case of the Minister for Agriculture and the Food Controller. It is quite obvious that if the people who are going to try to run these Departments of Government want to make friction, they have got the opportunity of doing it on every hand. On the other hand, it is equally obvious that there are some points where the duties of the Food Controller and the Minister of Agriculture overlap. The way that works has already been shown in practice. Both of these Gentlemen have been present at the War Council. They are working together in many ways. The Board of Agriculture can get through the Food Controller more quickly and more certainly the things that it needs than it could get them through the mechanism of its own Department. They have been there and they have drawn up their plans together. There is no shadow of friction, and if anything of that sort should arise, if there should be a difference of opinion, the obvious remedy, and the remedy which will be applied at once, is that they should come to the War Council, state their case, and the War Council will be the final arbiter on every question that arises.
    Take, again, the question of shipping control. The hon. Gentleman said, "We have been trying to do this through the Board of Trade." I wish the late President of the Board of Trade were present, for nobody knows better than I do how hard he tried to do it. One of the objects

    1161
    of creating a Shipping Controller is this: that by getting that important work into the hands of one man who devotes his whole energy to it, and to nothing else, he will see more clearly and express more forcibly the things that ought to be done, and in that way, in my belief, they will be done more quickly. What happens? It has happened already. The new Shipping Controller has been in touch with the Admiralty. He has already made his plans. I am not sure that they differ very much from those that would have been made by the late President of the Board of Trade. He brings forward definite proposals. He has arranged them to a certain extent with the Admiralty. They are working on them now. There is there the interweaving of responsibilities and duties. That raises at once the question of whether the vital needs of this War require that we should have merchant ships or whether we should go on increasing in some form our ships of war or such ships as are needed for war purposes. Very well, the new Shipping Controller goes into that with the Admiralty. If they do not come to the same conclusion, they come to the War Cabinet. We then have the whole case before us. We think it will be decided quickly and rapidly, and whatever can be done will be done immediately.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me when the Shipping Controller came into office or into his Department?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not believe that his powers have yet been created. The Bill is not passed.
    Mr. HOUSTON: When did he commence operations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I forget the day he came and saw the Prime Minister and myself, but he began operations the same afternoon. When my hon. Friend interrupted I was going to deal with his point that the Controller of Shipping ought to be in this House. Well, I say at once that that is contrary to the whole spirit with which we are trying to run the Government under the new system. What we want is to get the work done. That does not mean the House of Commons is to be treated with less respect. Nothing of the kind. But the man who is most competent —and we have chosen the best man we could get—to do the particular work would be unable to give all the necessary
    1162
    time and attention to it which ought to be given if he had to attend at the same time regularly in this House.
    Mr. HOUSTON: I understand he is coming into the House.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand he is coming to the House, but, as Shipping Controller, he said to me "I know what I can do and I know what I cannot do, and I do not think I can do the work in the House of Commons and this work as well." We want him to do the work that is most important, and we shall make the best arrangements we can to defend in the House of Commons what he has done. May I point out this to the House: Who will suffer by this kind of arrangement? Is it not the Government? We have got to depend for our existence on the House of Commons and if we are not able to make a good defence here it is obvious that our position is weakened in the House; but in my opinion, and still more I think in the opinion of the Prime Minister, that is not the essential thing at this moment. The essential thing is to get the work done, and we will trust to the House of Commons, if if we do it efficiently, to forgive any deficiencies there may be. I do not think there is any more that it is necessary for me to say. I will repeat what I said at the beginning. If the House of Commons chooses to treat these proposals in a way in which proposals would be treated in times of peace we could hardly carry them through the House of Commons, but, up to now, the House has shown itself ready to give us a fair trial, to judge us by what we do, and I for one say that if they do that, and we are not able to justify our methods and what we are doing by results, then it is for the House of Commons to condemn us. But, in the meantime, I hope they will imitate the spirit which up to now has been shown by my right hon. Friend, and that they will do their best to allow us to get the machinery into operation and see how it will work. I may say that I am not now going to deal with the larger question raised by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon)—that is, as to how the different Departments are going to work. That is something that results must show. I have no doubt that that will be dealt with to-morrow by the Prime Minister, and very likely, if I have to speak, I shall also deal with it myself; but in my own belief it will be found, in an emergency like this, that it will work

    1163
    pretty well. I am sure of this, that not one of the heads of these Department feels that he is in a humbler or worse position because of the arrangement which has been made in regard to him.
    Mr. WARDLE: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman with great interest, and I should like to say at once that, so far as I am concerned, I, and I believe most of the Members of this House, desire that the Government should be given every opportunity. We quite realise that this Bill presents a number of extremely difficult problems which, under ordinary Parliamentary procedure, certainly could not have been got through before Christmas. I should like to say this with regard to the Bill as a Bill: In my opinion the Government have attempted to do too much in one Bill. If this Bill had been divided into two, or, better still, three different Bills, it would have secured quite as speedy a progress in getting these matters settled as by attempting to deal with them in one complicated Bill. The really urgent problem undoubtedly is to get the Food Controller and Shipping Controller appointed with Parliamentary powers, and if these two matters had been dealt with in one Bill, that would have been by far the better plan. But to attempt to deal with them in the same measure with the creation of permanent and temporary Ministries is to adopt a course which, in my opinion, it would have been far wiser not to take. But it has been attempted, and we are face to face with the Government's proposal.
    I shall not offer any opposition to the second Reading of this Bill. But let me add one thing in regard to the concluding remarks of the Leader of the House. I think the essence of the success of this Bill will largely depend, as the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) said, on whether it will solve difficulties between Departments. Undoubtedly in the past conduct of the War such difficulties have constituted one of the greatest stumbling-blocks that have existed, and, if these difficulties are to continue in the future, I see no prospect that, even by the creation of more Departments and more Ministries, this difficult problem will be solved. I understand, however, that this point may be debated to-morrow, and I will therefore say no more upon it at present, beyond repeating that it seems to me the essence whether this Bill will work or not is whether the question of the differences
    1164
    between Departments can be brought to some quick solution and some authority exercised to see that the work is carried out. I believe decisions have been taken by the War Council in the past which have never been carried out and which to this day are a dead letter.
    One reason I suggest it would have been better if two Bills had been brought in instead of one is in connection with the question of the Ministry of Labour. I followed very closely the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, and I should like to point out to him that while I quite agree that the creation of a Ministry of Labour at this time makes it difficult to put whoever is named as Minister of Labour in charge of the whole of the duties with which a Ministry of Labour ought to be charged, it does seem an extraordinary proceeding to create a Ministry of Labour and to transfer certain powers to it by this Bill to-day, leaving certain other powers to be transferred in a way which I think the House of Commons does not like and which is not in the best interests of the public. I do not think any Minister of Labour or any Ministry of Labour will be complete so long as powers under the Mines and Factories Acts are left outside the scope of the Minister's duties. They are important matters affecting labour, more important, in my opinion, than some of the duties now being handed over to the Minister of Labour—much more important, for instance, than the Labour Exchanges, in connection with which I can see a certain amount of over-lapping. I do not understand what the position will be with regard to this Ministry and the Labour side of the Munitions Department. There is in connection with that a very valuable adjunct called the Social Welfare side. This side is extremely important, and I would like to know if that is to be transferred to the Ministry of Labour. If so, it is very similar in regard to certain powers under the Mines Act and the Factories Acts, and there should be some coordination in this respect.
    But my real objection on this point is this: that I want to see all the powers, whatever they are, put into the Bill. I do not say that they can all be taken over at once. I do not suggest you can make a clean sweep and put the new Minister in charge of all these various things in five minutes. J quite agree with my right hon. friend on that point, but I do suggest that whatever the Ministry of Labour is to be,

    1165
    whatever functions are entrusted to it, they should be put into the Bill so that they may be undertaken when the time comes.
    With regard to the question which was raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the attempt which the new Government intend to make to govern the country, I think we may fairly say that their desire to govern the country during this War with as little interference on the part of the House of Commons as is possible may or may not be a good thing, but there is one point I want to make myself perfectly clear upon. I believe that if the Government shows itself in earnest in getting on with this War, if it shows that it can be efficient in the machinery it proposes to create, then much will be forgiven. But, if as a result of its proposals —which I do not think the present House of Commons will reject because it is disposed to give them a fair and honest chance—if by the creation of still more war machinery they should, instead of making themselves more efficient, really make their task more difficult, then I think the country and the House of Commons will blame them in this respect for taking a wrong stand. I have considerable sympathy with the objections raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo and by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and others to any proposal to create an ad lib number of Under-Secretaries as seems to underlie this Bill. It is possible, of course, that the alarm is exaggerated, and perhaps it will not be necessary, but I believe the (House of Commons is right to sound a warning note. It is right it should keep a strict hold on this matter, and warn even this, which is, I suppose, the most powerful Government, that it had better take care. The real sense of the House of Commons in regard to these important matters is, I believe, with the Government, and I hope there will be no factious opposition when we get into Committee, although there will be certain necessary alterations to be made. But I do trust that this is the last time we shall have the Government coming here and saying that a Bill has been framed in such a hurry that they have not had time to put it into a proper shape. That is an excuse which may perhaps be accepted on this occasion, but I do submit that future Bills should be carefully considered and not overloaded like this one.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer concluded his remarks by saying that he hoped that this House would give the Government any necessary powers that they might ask for. Personally I think there is no doubt that that will be done. But perhaps I may venture to put to the Home Secretary this point: Is it necessary in this particular Bill to take such very unlimited powers? My remarks will be limited to Sub-section (2) of Clause 7, which deals with the appointment of Parliamentary Secretaries, and which reads as follows:
    "(2) Notwithstanding anything in any Act, additional Parliamentary Under-Secretaries may be appointed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the Secretary of State for War, and to the Board of Trade; and it shall also be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to any special authority or board constituted in connection with the supply of aircraft for the present War."
    And then the Bill proceeds in Sub-section (3) to say:
    "(3) Any Parliamentary Secretaries appointed under this Section shall hold office only during the continuance of the present War and a period of six months thereafter, and there shall be paid to any secretary so appointed such remuneration as may be fixed by the Treasury."
    I maintain that under this Section there is power for the Government to appoint any number of Under-Secretaries they like and to pay them any sum the Treasury may authorise. The only limit is in Clause 10, which says that not more than two of such additional Parliamentary Secretaries may sit in this House. But there is nothing to prevent them sitting in another House, and a large number of Parliamentary Secretaries might be appointed at a remuneration fixed by the Treasury who would be very glad not to have to sit in this House, or in fact in any House at all. I feel, especially in view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this House will probably give anything the Government asks for in reason, there ought to be a limit in the Bill to the number of secretaries to be appointed. This is, I admit, rather a Committee point, but still it is a very important one, and I do not think we ought to give any power to create patronage to such an unlimited extent. I do not think, of course, that it

    1167
    is intended, but that is all the more reason why my request should be acceded to. I hope therefore that in the Committee stage the Government will put in an Amendment limiting the number of Under-Secretaries. If they desire to appoint any more it will be a perfectly simple thing for them to bring in another Bill. While we are most anxious to get on with the War, the appointment of an unlimited number of Under-Secretaries cannot be of any advantage and will not cause the War to be proceeded with any quicker. I rather gather from the conversations I have had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are inclined to regard my proposal with sympathy and I hope, if they cannot give any definite pledge at present, they will at any rate do so on the Committee stage.
    Mr. PRINGLE: There are no two opinions in any quarter of the House as to the importance of the main offices which are created by this Bill. As they are now being created, there is equal agreement that the officers placed in charge of those offices should get to work as quickly as possible, consequently the House will be glad that the Government should be enabled to get this Bill as part of the law of the land at the earliest possible date. There is some justification for the criticism which has come from more than one quarter during the Debate as to the unnecessary multiplication of offices in the present Government. We have seen in connection with the appointments already announced a number of appointments made to offices which are really sinecures in character. We have seen separate appointments made to offices which were joined together in the last Government. For example, there has been an appointment made to the Chancellorship of the Duchy, an office which was held along with another office in the late Government, and there has been a separate appointment made as Lord Privy Seal and with regard to the Lord Presidency of the Council. In view of the necessity of creating new offices, an opportunity should have been taken by this Government to amalgamate existing sinecure offices with some of the other more important executive offices. That would have been an earnest given by the Government to the House and the country that they were concerned not in
    1168
    the multiplication of officers, but in having officers at the head of important departments who would discharge their duties and whose position there would not add to the expenditure of the State.
    This matter further arises in connection with the Under-Secretaries, to whom the right hon Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has just referred. We find in the Clause regarding Under-Secretaryships that it is possible to appoint new and fresh Under-Secretaries to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the Secretary of State for War, and to the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. McKenna) has already pointed out how unnecessary it is, from a superficial examination, to appoint a new Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade. Here we are, splitting up the Board of Trade. We are appointing three new Ministers to discharge duties which in the past were performed by the President of the Board of Trade with a single Under-Secretary in this House. That means six Parliamentary officials at least. In addition to that, with this truncated Board of Trade, with this Board of Trade shorn of its more important powers, we take the authority now to add another Under-Secretary. That is a preposterous proposition. The same thing applies to the War Office. We have passed through the House of Commons a Bill dealing with pensions which is now in another place and will be passed before this week is out. Under that Bill we are taking away from the War Office the whole administration of pensions, one of the most important parts of their administration in the past and one which has cast a very large amount of work on the Department. Yet, in face of that, the new Government is suggesting that the War Office is to be endowed with another Under-Secretary. We should at least expect a case to be made out for such a course before the House assents to it. Anyone who listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer must come to the conclusion that no case has been made out for a new Under-Secretary either to the Board of Trade or to the Secretary of State for War.
    After all, the main thing in connection with these new appointments is, will the work be done? If there is one reason more than another why the late Government fell—I think there was great justification for its fall—it was because the

    1169
    work was not done. Simply by multiplying officers you are not going to secure the work being done. You may have still arising that conflict between Departments which was a characteristic of the administration of the last Government; indeed, by the multiplication of Departments, you are increasing the opportunities for such conflict. We had a War Council under the last Government. By simply saying that you are going to have a War Cabinet or a War Council you have no security whatever that the work will be done. I remember in connection with the matter of shipping, which is dealt with under this Bill, that a number of hon. Members in this House as well as myself in the spring raised the question of the necessity of dealing drastically with shipping, and we were told that steps would be taken to limit the number of ships employed on purely military work. I was subsequently informed privately, by a Minister concerned, that a decision had been given by the War Council, and he attributed that to some extent to the criticism made in this House. Only a month ago I once more inquired about the matter, saying, "What about the decision of the War Council in the spring?" The reply was that although there had been a decision of the War Council in the month of April, nothing had been done to carry it out. Simply having a War Council does not enable you to have the work done. The question is, Is the War Council to have authority over the Admiralty and the War Office, who at present are responsible for this use of our shipping resources? These are the things which are really at issue. It is not by creating offices, setting up new officials and having new men to answer for Departments in Parliament once a year in this House, that you will get the work done, unless the House, as I hope the House will, sees to it that the decisions taken by this supreme body are not nullified by interdepartmental jealousy.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD:I wish to associate myself fully with what the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pringle) has said with regard to the creation of Departments. As a matter of fact, the House ought to consider whether the Departments which have been created ought to be termed Departments at all. The old Parliamentary theory of Departments is that there is a well-defined function of Government that requires a head of its own, who requires either to be in this House or in another place, for the purpose
    1170
    of keeping this House in intimate and personal contact with the multifarious work of that Department. The Food Ministry and the Shipping Ministry are the most typical examples of sub-sections of a Department, with a head who does not require to be here, who does his work, but who is defended by a legitimate head in this House. It will be a most unsatisfactory method of procedure if we are to have an independent Department unrepresented in this House or in another place, but defended by men in this House who need not be directly responsible for the action of the Department. This multiplication of Departments, so far from giving us any security that efficiency is going to be pursued by the new Government, as a matter of fact shows that they have begun already with very erroneous ideas as to what are the conditions of efficiency. However, they have made up their minds to-day, and, so far as I am concerned, I am going to let the matter alone. I rise not for the purpose of criticising the Bill, but to ask the Government whether it has leally said its final word on the new Ministry of Labour so far as this Bill is concerned? Of the three Departments that are to be created, this Department alone is to be a permanent one, and, being a permanent one and being an attempt to meet certain demands of Labour, it ought to give some sort of guarantee that it is going to be adequate and that it is really going to be a Ministry of Labour and not merely intended for passing munition purposes. It must do its work during the War and must do it efficiently. If it is merely created as it now is, with none of the large responsibilities associated with the Home Office and none of the large constructive responsibilities in connection with factory and mine administration, then it is such a poor thing that it will not be acceptable outside as being in any way a redemption of the pledge that has been made so often that Labour would at last have a Department of its own.
    I would therefore ask the Government to very seriously consider whether the matter is satisfactorily dealt with in this Bill. If they will take the advice of anybody who has been working at this problem outside the Department they will get no one to advise them that a Ministry begun on a basis like this is going to be satisfactory. Hon. Members who have not had experience of the conflicting administration of the Home Office and the Board of Trade, with all their overlapping, with

    1171
    all the differences between them, with the duplication of instructions and authority and so on, have no idea of the tremendous amount of inefficiency that has crept in, inefficiency which has been experienced during the War, and the House ought to take this opportunity of saying, at any rate, that they are aware of the problem and are going to make some contribution to its solution. By merely taking a certain section of responsibility from the Board of Trade and by failing to ally that section with the kindred sections of the Home Office they are really missing a tremendous opportunity from the point of view of the War. But they are doing worse than that. They are leaving the officers of the Department without any sufficient guarantee that those functions are going to be added to their powers, and that failure on their part will be regarded outside as being ominous so far as the future is concerned. Let me take one problem. The Home Secretary, in introducing the Bill, said that this Department was to do war work only at the moment. Then he went on to indicate that in war work he included such problems as those of demobilisation. The Minister of Labour is not merely going to keep things going now; he must keep his eye on the tremendous problems that this country and his Department will have to face as soon as the soldier comes back and has to be fitted into the factories, mines, and workshops. That raises at once the problem of the hours of labour. There is nobody who has given five minutes' thought to that problem but has come up straight away against the problem of the hours of labour. The question of the new industrial efficiency which is being developed during the War, into which so much of the capital of the nation has been sunk, also relates to the same problem. If this Bill is carried in its present form, and no additional authority is given to the Minister of Labour, he will be responsible for dealing with demobilisation as the Minister of Labour, but the Home Office, under existing law and practice, is the authority for dealing with hours of labour.
    That is most unsatisfactory. I do not believe for a single moment that the Minister for Labour will agree to have his powers so limited and confined as that There is not a single problem relating to demobilisation but brings the Minister of Labour right up against the administration of factories, and there is not a single
    1172
    power given here, unless you stretch the Wages Board Act, which gives him power to deal with the internal administration of factories at all. I make these observations because I want this Ministry to be a real Ministry. If it were merely a war Ministry I should not mind. The Munitions Department has had more to do with present war conditions than the Home Office. The House will remember the valuable memoranda—abouV thirteen of them have been issued—of the Committee inquiring into the industrial conditions of munition workers. A Minister of Labour, if he has any authority at all, if it is anything more than a nominal office, must deal with these memoranda about conditions of employment, refreshment, and so on—the most valuable set of documents from the industrial and labour point of view which have been published since the War started. But if the Bill remains what it is those memoranda will not be dealt with by the Ministry of Labour, but by the Home Office, and consequently, by the creation of a new Department, you are not adding to the efficiency of your organisation of State, but you are simply presenting new points of friction, misunderstanding, and trouble, and it is not that you actually get friction, but that both Departments do their best to avoid friction, and the best way to avoid friction is to do nothing at all. This country has suffered far too much from that in the past to enable us who have seen it at first hand to keep silent when this Bill is being produced in its present very imperfect form so far as Clauses 1 and 2 are concerned.
    In know perfectly well about Orders in Council, but I want something more than that It is not good enough for the Government to say, "If we experience certain difficulties or if we widen our minds or change our ideas or if we see fit we will, by Orders in Council, extend the authority of the Ministry of Labour." The Ministry ought to tell us exactly what the Ministry of Labour is going to do. If they say it is inexpedient at the moment to take over Factory Act administration and all the work of the Home Office I can quite understand their argument, but they ought to put some sort of guarantee into the Bill, which shows the country that it is their definite intention to, amalgamate that section of Home Office responsibility with the new Ministry that they are creating. It is a perfectly simple thing to devise some words, "as early as may be,"

    1173
    or something like that, and then lay down under those conditions their intention that the Ministry of Labour is really going to be a comprehensive, self-contained Ministry, and is going to deal not only with the very important and useful, but complicated and purely administrative work of the Board of Trade, but also with the more important and more honourable work with which the Home Office concerns itself, which is mainly confined to legislation and to the administration of the legislation which it itself has been responsible for getting carried. So I will appeal to the Government to reconsider the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3, remembering that these two Clauses establish a Department that is going to be permanent and that if the Department is to be held in honour and respect by the people concerned with it outside, it must be presented to them from the very beginning as a Department which is important and authoritative, so that they can look up to it, and not be presented as a kind of maid-of-all-work dealing with the certainly very important responsibilities detailed in the Schedule, but after all very minor in view of the sort of work that the Home Office has done. I therefore hope the Government will consider this and more particularly any Amendments which may be moved for the purpose of making it a real Department and not merely a war convenience.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is rather a pity that no responsible head of a Department will appear to listen to the extremely interesting and valuable speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Macdonald). I think he is the first Member of the House who has raised the question of the new Labour Ministry which, as he truly points out, is to be the one permanent feature of this Bill. The criticism which he has made on that proposal seems to me to be so well founded and so fully justified, both as to the present and as to the future, that it is a pity that the Home Secretary, who has now come in, and who I am sure was only absent by accident and by necessity, was not able to listen to the speech. I may be old-fashioned in this respect, but I can see almost certain jealousy arising either from the side of the capitalists or from the side of labour in appointing a special man to have as his sole and special task nothing but the consideration of labour problems. If he belongs to the ranks of the capitalists he is sure to be suspect by labour. If he is drawn on the other hand from the voices of the trade unions, as the present Minister
    1174
    is drawn, he is sure to encounter the suspicions of the great captains of industry. I may be almost alone in this opinion, but I believe I shall be justified by events, that in separating these questions from the Home Office you will isolate labour and you will not advance but hinder the proper consideration of the subjects which must come under discussion.
    I turn to the other portions of the Bill. The Leader of the House made an appeal for the Bill as being introduced under very exceptional circumstances, and I thought that was an appeal which was justified. If it had not been for those exceptional circumstances it would have been impossible to dissociate this Bill from that which was passed on Thursday last providing for the non-vacation of seats by Ministers. It is quite clear that under these two Bills together it would be possible for a Ministry, and I think it would be proper for a Ministry, in ordinary times to be charged with doing that which the House of Commons has always successfully prevented it from doing—from purchasing support in the House of Commons by the creation of posts. But in times of this sort that consideration ought not to arise, and I do not believe it will arise; and if it does it ought to be put entirely on one side, and we ought to come to the consideration of the Bill itself apart from any accidental and outside circumstances. The real question is whether, when you have created all these separate Departments and when you have elevated branches into separate Departments, the proposal will or will not work. That is the real question which we have to consider to-day. What happened during the time of the two last Governments? Various Departments of the State were broken up into separate branches and persons who were Members either of this or of the other House were appointed as chairmen of those branches—I take the most prominent instance of that, the War Trade Department presided over by Lord Emmott, as an example of smaller branches—and they were charged with the special consideration of circumstances arising out of the War. What was the result of the creation of these separate authorities? I take an instance which came within my own knowledge, and with which I had something to do. It was proposed to export from this country a certain article which was wanted by a prominent neutral country. The consideration of that question, first of all, had to go to the

    1175
    War Trade Department, which agreed. It went from there to the Foreign Office, which agreed. It went from there to the War Office, which disagreed, and thereupon the question had to be referred back to the Foreign Office, which then agreed with the War Office, and back to the War-Trade Department, which agreed with the Board of Trade, which had originally put forward the question. The question has not yet been settled. It has been running a year.
    Mr. W. THORNE: No wonder they wanted a change.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: But what will happen in the future? It has taken a year for four sub-Departments, with only two Ministers, to decide the question as to whether or not this article was to be exported. Leave it to these four separate Departments of the State, each with a Minister responsible to this House, and each supporting his own Department with all the authority that comes from a Minister of this House, and see how indefinitely that situation will be prolonged. There is no guarantee that when you have four Ministers discussing as to whether or not a particular action should or should not be taken you will get any more speedy decision than when you have to refer it to only two Ministers. I should like to remind the House of what has taken place in France during the last fortnight. The French have done exactly what we have done here. They have reconstituted their Government, largely on the Government which preceded it, but they have gone on precisely dissimilar lines to those which have obtained in this country. Instead of increasing the number of Ministers they have diminished them by five. They have made their War Council consist of five instead of six members. They have rolled up their Departments. They have concentrated them instead of dissipating them, as we have done here. Take, for instance, the Minister of Commerce. In France he is responsible for commerce, agriculture, and posts. I wonder how many Ministers you have in this House representing those three Departments. I should think nine or ten; yet in France they are to be concentrated under one head. Take, again, justice, education, and labour. They are all rolled up in France in one man. Here we have eight or nine Ministers to superintend those three important Departments. Under which system are
    1176
    you most likely to get a speedy decision, one where you have eight, nine or ten Ministers or one where you have only one responsible person to decide questions at issue and to state to the Chamber, or to the House of Commons, what that decision is? I ask my hon. Friend, who seemed to differ from me just now, whether he really thinks that under the system of dissipation and of dissemination you are more likely to get speedy decisions than you are in the case of concentration? Yet that is the guiding principle upon which the French Ministry has been reconstituted for the purpose of carrying on the War more efficiently, more effectually and more triumphantly, just as this Ministry has been reconstituted here. I should certainly not oppose the Bill, because I entirely agree with the appeal of the Leader of the House that the present Government should have a fair field and full favour, but I entirely dissociate myself, so far as my own personal responsibility for a vote in this House is concerned, from the principles upon which this Bill is founded, because I believe it is sure to lead to confusion, to delay, and to all the difficulties and dangers for which the late Government has been turned out of office; and I believe if the present Ministry conducts its policy on the lines which are indicated in this Bill, it will not be-very long before it follows its predecessors.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: I am in disagreement with most of those who have spoken in criticism of the Bill. The last speaker instanced the different method employed in France from that laid down in this Bill. He criticised the method laid down in this Bill and if I understood him aright was rather in agreement with that laid down in France. I can quite understand Members of the French Parliament criticising their method and being in agreement with that applied in this country, because there is not only difference in method, but, it seems to me, there is a difference in the way of conducting the work, and it is reasonable to assume that what might be acceptable to France will not be acceptable in this country. As long as it enables this country to get on with the War, the question of method is, after all, a question of minor importance. He seemed to me rather to labour the point, too, with regard to a question which had come before his notice with regard to getting a settlement on a certain point which had been raised. It seems to me that it is

    1177
    not so much a question of the number of Departments, although I agree that has some bearing on it. But I think I never heard a keener criticism than his own speech with regard to the slowness of method of those who are in the Government when he was in it, and it seems to me that after all, with regard to a question of this kind, it is not so much the number of Departments which is of importance at all. The question is rather of the ability of the people at the head of the Department to bring a little business instinct to bear and get a settlement. I know that the Government methods in the past have been slow and tortuous, and if by the method laid down in this Bill we are going to have a little bit of speeding up and a little more responsibility put upon individuals to get on with their work, it will have been a big stride in the right direction. The idea underlying this Bill is to get on with the War. The War is still going on; but I am rather inclined to think that some hon. Members would go on discussing for ever a Bill of this kind. The War might even end before we had got through the Bill, but I do not think that that fact would limit their ability to go on discussing the Bill. Some of us, however, are anxious to get on with the War, and that is the animating principle underlying the Bill. When difficulties arise, as they have arisen in this country, with regard to food and shipping, and with regard to dealing with the millions of workers employed on Government work, it is surely obvious that it is almost playing with the matter to suggest that such great questions as are now seriously facing the people of this country with regard to the supply of food, with regard to the control of shipping, and with regard to the controlling of the millions of men who are now daily employed on Government work, should be dealt with by one man. It seems to me ridiculous and futile to suggest that two or three of these Departments might very well be handled by one officer of the State, instead of dividing the work, decentralising it, and making it the special work of one special individual, whose duty it is to get on with the work and so end some of the difficulties.
    Let us take a case that has happened in the last few days, since the appointment of the Minister of Labour. There has been a dispute at Birkenhead, affecting, possibly, thousands of men whose work is of a vital character in regard to the speedy ending of this War or, at any rate, in regard to
    1178
    its successful prosecution. By the institution of a new Ministry of Labour, a new understanding and a new grip of the question has been brought to bear, and we see already with what result. One has only to realise the immense number of people in this country engaged on purely Government work to understand the importance of this subject. One can realise that there are some people in this country who do not want to get on with the War, but who want to limit, to stop, and to interfere wherever they possibly can with the activities which will help to make this nation victorious. These sort of people are active and busy amongst the workers of this country, and I am not a bit surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. R. Macdonald), who seems to have his mind as full of doubt and hesitation and timidity in regard to these matters as in regard to the conduct of the War since its very inception. I trust that the Government will go ahead in the direction upon which they have started. It seems to me that Clause 2 of the Bill is sufficiently wide, and, if you like, sufficiently vague, to embrace any duties in regard to the Ministry of Labour that the mind of man can conceive. There is another point of some interest and importance. So far as the Minister of Labour is concerned, he has got enough work in his own particular Department, covering in the main the whole of the activities of the Government in regard to the production of munitions of war and in looking after those activities and keeping the whole of those people going in their particular employment. We have not yet finished the War, and the work of the Minister of Labour in that connection will constitute a very great part of his duties. But it is very easy to see that when the War is over and some of these Labour problems have been settled, that it will not be a matter of any great difficulty to transfer other activities to his Department, and thus widen his activities. For instance, certain duties might be taken from the Home Office and other Departments and placed, under the control of the Minister of Labour, who by that time surely will have had experience which must inevitably be helpful to him in enabling him to carry on his duties.
    I am in agreement with the Bill. I think it is right. It would be wrong to place two or three of these great Departments under the control of one man. I believe that decentralisation is the right way to win

    1179
    the War. It is by appointing men who have some understanding of the questions with which they are going to deal that eventually we are going to reach success. Believing that, I hope the Government will prosecute their action in this direction vigorously, and by so doing they will satisfy an overwhelming number of the Members of this House, and they will get the help of the country in facing these difficulties and in bringing this War to a successful issue. I am sure that the majority of hon. Members in this House are only too anxious to render every assistance possible to the Government, and so long as it indicates by its activity and by the legislation it is producing that it means business and desires to get on with the work which it has been appointed to carry out, I believe it will have the full support of this House and the country.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I do not think that the speech to which the House has just listened will greatly help the Government or commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill. I particularly regret what I believe to be the unfortunate and unfair reference to the hon. Member for Leicester, who, I think, in the almost unanimous opinion of the House—I leave out the hon. Member (Mr. Duncan)—has made one of the most valuable constructive contributions to the discussion of the Bill that we have had the fortune to listen to to-day. My own position in regard to this Bill is very much that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. I do not quarrel with its intention. My difficulty lies in the limitation of its scope. The Home Secretary in introducing the Bill justified it as a war emergency Bill. On the subject of the two new Ministries of Food and Shipping that is true, but I think that one of the principal parts of the Bill—that relating to the creation of a Ministry of Labour—can only in a very superficial sense be referred to as a war emergency measure. As the hon. Member for Leicester has pointed out, the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Shipping are temporary Ministries, but the Ministry of Labour is not only made a permanent Ministry under the provisions of this Bill, but represents the first legislative attempt in this country to give expression to a demand which has existed for at least one generation. I share the view
    1180
    of the Leader of the Labour Party, who spoke earlier in the Debate, that it is rather unfortunate, in the interests of the Labour Ministry itself, that the Labour Ministry should be included as part of an omnibus Bill. I believe that every consideration of business and practical expediency would have justified the Government in creating a Labour Ministry in a wholly separate Bill. The Bill as it has been drafted, despite the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, does give us a very bare skeleton outline of what are to be the true and real functions of the Ministry of Labour. It proposes to take over certain sub-departments or activities of the Board of Trade, and the administration of one part of the Munitions Act, which to-day are already in a state of efficient administration under the existing staff.
    It will be idle to pretend that by doing that which the Bill says the Ministry of Labour shall do the Government are creating a Ministry of Labour in any real or true sense. The Ministry of Labour, to justify its separate existence, and especially to justify the additional sums of money required for salaries and establishment charges, must have a very much wider scope and very much wider functions than are claimed for it under the provisions of this Bill. I would like to ask this question—and I put it as the Home Secretary will recognise, in a perfectly friendly spirit, because I want to do all I can to help the Bill—what is to be gained in practical efficiency by creating a separate Ministry of Labour when the activities to be taken over are already, and for some time past have been, in efficient working administrative order? Take the question of conciliation, which is one of the most important provisions contained in the Bill. Will it really be seriously suggested—and here the House will acquit me of making even the least indirect personal reflection—that the work of conciliation under the Ministry of Labour is likely to be more efficient or more successful than under the direction of a man like Sir George Askwith, who is one of the most accomplished and successful conciliators this country has ever known. It is more the omissions from the Bill than the powers that are included that I should like to deal with. In my judgment the omissions from the Bill are more important than the things that are included. Take one very important Department, the Department of Labour Statistics. That Department in the

    1181
    past has proved itself one of the most valuable agencies this country has possessed for the organisation of industrial and social questions. Is the Department of Labour statistics to be taken over under the new Ministry of Labour1! That is not included in the Bill. Is that one of the further powers that are to be taken over by transfer under an Order in Council? Take the question of the Intelligence Department. Some of us have long thought that what was radically wrong in the administrative machinery of this country was that we had no separate Department or Sub-department responsible for anticipating events by organising information from all available sources, and this in many cases preventing strikes and other disorders. One development of the greatest possible importance which this country needs is the organisation of an efficient Intelligence Department, which would prevent much that otherwise occurs. I would also like to ask the Home Secretary about the secretariat. Is there to be in this Ministry of Labour an efficient and trained secretariat? Obviously a secretariat of that kind is essential if the many-sided work of the Department is to be efficiently done. If there is to be a secretariat,. what powers is that secretariat to have? And what type of man is to be represented on that secretariat? I ask these questions because it is a matter of common knowledge to some of us, despite what the hon. Member (Mr. Duncan) has said, that we have been exceedingly fortunate at the Board of Trade, at the Home Office, and in other Departments of the State in the possession of a staff of skilled men with full sympathy with social developments, and with social work and progress. That opinion is held by people at home and abroad who are competent to judge. I sincerely hope that some of these staffs, who have given valuable service to the State, will be retained and that suitable men may be obtained for the formation of a general secretariat of high efficiency.
    The powers that are explicitly stated in the Bill are only part of the powers that a Ministry of Labour should have, and as regards the provision taken in the Bill to transfer other powers under Order in Council I agree with some of those who have already spoken, that to legislate by Order in Council is on every ground a vicious method of legislation, and I think that it is also a slovenly method. It gives no security or guarantee that the right
    1182
    things will be included in the powers or that the wrong things will be excluded. Our experience of Orders in Council during the War has not been a very happy one, and certain things have been decreed under Orders in Council which would not have been sanctioned if they had come up for ratification by this House. Independently of those Orders in Council it is because I feel that a Ministry of Labour is potentially so invaluable a Department for a State to have, and that its work may be so far-reaching in its consequences for the betterment of working-class life in this country,. that I regret that larger powers have not been taken under a separate Bill, because though certain large powers may be taken under Order in Council in connection with the Ministry of Labour the powers which may be so transferred are limited. While in the case of the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Shipping you may under Order in Council transfer powers possessed by certain Departments and add further powers in conformity with the Defence of the Realm Regulations in connection with the most important of all these new Departments, the Ministry of Labour, there is no provision for taking additional powers outside the powers in the Order in Council and these powers will not be, under the provisions of the Bill, new powers. They will simply involve transferring to the Ministry of Labour powers already possessed by various Departments of the State. So one of the essential functions of the Ministry of Labour for meting the conditions of the country and reforming the whole spirit of our administrative action by the anticipation of new social needs is not met by the Bill as now drafted.
    My real objection to this Bill—I shall support it so far as all its stages go, though I may put down one or two Amendments—is that there is no real coordination. It creates another Department, with limited powers of a temporary nature for a temporary purpose. I believe, and I believe it no less strongly in time of War, that it is better that all schemes of co-ordination should wait than we should attempt the work of co-ordination in a hasty and imperfect and fragmentary way. If I may be pardoned a personal reference, I may say that ten years ago I came into this House knowing nothing of politics, but with a very profound interest in social reform. I have seen legislation passed in the course of the last ten years dealing with several of those problems in which I

    1183
    was intimately interested, and I say frankly that I would much rather that some of those problems had not received legislative treatment during the last ten years than that they should have been treated in the way in which some of them have been treated. I say nothing, of course, against the desire of the Government to enlist the services of further representatives of labour. I support that proposal. But I do say that, when embarking upon a departure of such enormous importance, containing so much good and benefit to the working classes of this country, it might have been better for them to have drafted a separate Bill and put into that Bill larger powers than are contained in the present Bill.
    Major NEWMAN: Three chief criticisms have been made against this Bill. The first is that it is a vague, indefinite Bill. If the late Government had been in office we should not have this Bill at all. The thing would have been done by Orders in Council after the Session had finished. Therefore we owe a debt of gratitude to the present Government, who have at any rate introduced this Bill, though it is a sketchy measure. Of course it is bound to be sketchy, and it is bound to go through. All these various Ministers who are being appointed, and their Secretaries who are to be appointed, have actually been at work making regulations—drastic and necessary regulations. Any of us who are so foolish this evening as to dine outside this House shall have only three courses to our dinner. That has been done by the Food Controller. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is the same inside the House!"] The Bill was bound to be indefinite and there is equally bound to be a very short discussion as it must become law before the end of the Session. Another criticism is that the various Departments are bound to overlap. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) put this before us very clearly. He gave two instances in which there might be overlapping unless one thing happens. If we have a Committee of Public Safety, a Committee of the Prime Minister and two or three colleagues who are the real Government of this country just now, they will have to drop pretty heavily on these various Departments if there is any overlapping or quarreling or friction among them.
    The third argument, with which I totally disagree, is that we are going to have a
    1184
    great number of Secretaries appointed who are paid out of public funds and are not wanted, and that this is a waste of public money and will cause overlapping and confusion of their respective duties. I say on the question of Secretaries that as far as Ministers are concerned they can get as many as they wish. After all we are spending over £5,000,000 a day. Think of the hundreds and thousands of officers in the Army and Navy who are drawing from £700 to £800 a year for their services, and can we grudge a Parliamentary Secretary getting £600 a year on top of what he is getting at the present moment? Recollect that these Secretaries are going to save a certain amount of money. The late Government appointed a large number of committees and boards each of which had secretaries who were paid something like £400 a year. I presume that these Parliamentary Secretaries will save some of that money, as some of these Boards will be dissolved. It is not for that reason so much that I support this proposal. The House is going to finish the Session on Friday of this week when we are to prorogue for six weeks. I do not think that in the present state of the War we ought to prorogue for six weeks. I think that we ought to be practically in continuous Session.
    Suppose that a discussion takes place before we come to the close of the Session. A Member like myself would be told that it is impossible to ask Ministers to be in their places in the House and look after Departments day by day when the Session is continuous. I quite admit that there is a certain force in the argument. The majority of Ministers know perfectly well —two of them told me themselves—that they grudge every minute that they are away from their offices and compelled to come down here to answer questions or make speeches in this House. They state that their work in their offices is so heavy and so important that they could not spare the time to come down here at all. But now, if there is an ample supply of Secretaries at £1,000 a year, that difficulty is obviated. They can sit here and make speeches and answer questions. The Secretaries who are to be appointed or are going to be appointed, are mostly Members who were on this side of the House and were pretty glib at asking questions and pretty glib hecklers, and now when they are on the front seat opposite they will be pretty glib at answering questions. So that to my mind it will not

    1185
    be necessary for what I may call the supermen to leave their Departments and come down here at all. Let these Under-Secretaries do the work for them. Let us have no excuse that Ministers are overworked. Let us during this important crisis of the country sit here, in continuous Session if need be, doing our best to help the War through. The Government have made a bold experiment in setting up these new Departments, and they are entitled to every encouragement in what they have done. I hope that the Bill will go through very easily and that it will become law before the end of the Session, and that when we assemble in the new Session we shall find the Under-Secretaries here at work and the Secretaries attending to their business to the best of their ability.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I desire to give my very hearty support to this Bill. I do not think that any Bill was ever introduced which gave satisfaction to all sections of the House. I think that this Bill goes a very long way to meet the demands which have been made by organised Labour for the past fifteen or twenty years. As the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) knows, at various Trade Union Congresses resolutions have been tabled, and carried almost unanimously, in favour of a Ministry being established for the purpose of dealing purely and simply with labour problems. I quite recognise that the powers given to the Ministry of Labour do not altogether carry out the ideas which some of us have. I was under the impression, when it was first announced that a Ministry of Labour was going to be established, that a great many of the powers now possessed by the Home Office would have been transferred to the new Ministry. No doubt later on, when the Bill becomes an Act and the Department gets into proper working order, the Home Office may see that it is advisable to transfer to the Ministry of Labour some of the powers mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester. I know that a number of us who have decided to back up the Government with regard to this Bill and many other Bills have during the last few days been handled very severely by a number of our own party who disagree with us upon the main principle. We have been told that we have sold every vestige of political honesty that we ever had. All I say in reply to those Gentleman is that, as good as they are and as bad as we are, we are as good as they are. That is my reply to their criticisms.
    1186
    I would call attention to a statement made by the hon. Member for East Mayo, which I trust will have the serious consideration of the Home Office. It has been pointed out that the Food Controller is to decide whether encouragement should be given to the production of food and other commodities. Personally I think that it would be a huge mistake to confer powers of the kind upon the Food Controller. I agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo that these powers should be handed over to the Board of Agriculture. There was another point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Hobhouse), who mentioned the case of the War Council, which was the cause of a great deal of discussion that has been pending for twelve months. There has been a change of Government, and that has been caused by the wish to bring the War to an end with greater speed than it was being brought before. I should say, therefore, that it is the duty of the War Council to have authority over all Departments, whether it be the Ministry of Labour or any other Department. If the War Council decides on a certain line of action it ought to be carried out without its having to consult anybody else. That is the way to get on with the War and that is the way to bring it to a speedier conclusion. For myself, during the last twenty-seven or twenty-eight years in which I have been general secretary to a large organisation, my experience has been, and I dare say it has been the experience of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Brace), as it has been of every secretary of all organised labour, that the smaller the committee you have—unless it is too small, and consists simply of one member to deal with the administrative and executive work of the organisation—the more speedily you can arrive at a decision and the better it is for the members themselves. I submit, therefore, that if you have a War Council, that War Council ought to have ample powers. What is the good of such a body if it is not to be a supreme governing body in regard to the War?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: How can the War Council deal with a particular individual article of commerce or trade and avoid being overburdened with work that would weigh them down?
    Mr. THORNE: The War Council should not have to trouble with the chief of any Department at all. If it is to be the

    1187
    supreme governing authority, prosecuting the War to a successful issue, it ought, as a matter of fact, to have power to come to a decision, whether it affects the Board of Trade, the Home Office, or any other Department. The War Council is the supreme authority to come to a decision, and they ought to be in a position to do that without being in any way troubled by any other Department, even if it be that of the Home Secretary. That is the most speedy way to get on with the business with which we are alone concerned at the present time—the War. I would refer hon. Members to the powers already given to the Ministry of Labour under the Bill. I find that there are to be transferred to the Ministry of Labour the powers and duties of the Board of Trade under the Conciliation Act, 1896. the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, the Trade Boards Act, 1909, the National Insurance (Unemployment) Acts, 1911 and 1916, and Part I. of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, in each case as amended by any other Act. The Minister of Labour will have something like from 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 of workmen and workwomen under his control, and, if you take that in view, you see that he has very large powers in every direction without there being any more given to him for the time being. This being a new Department, the whole of its machinery has to be organised and put into proper working order—an operation that will take some little time, and I am not expecting too much from the Minister of Labour for the present. Everybody must understand that the taking over of these powers which are mentioned in the Schedule is an operation which will occupy some time, but I honestly believe that the powers now to be put into operation are going to be of great benefit, not only to organised labour, but also to the employers in general. I could not understand what the right hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Hobhouse) was driving at. He made the remark that if the Ministry of Labour were handed over to an employer of labour it would cause dissatisfaction to the workers, but can that be taken to mean, or is it suggested, that the present Minister of Labour, who was secretary to a very large and powerful organisation of the workers, will cause dissatisfaction to the employers of labour? In the name of common sense, there are only two sections of the people, those who live on rents, property, interest, and so forth, and those who produce and
    1188
    make them—they are one side or the other. I do not anticipate that there will be any discontent. The right hon. Gentleman who has been given charge of the new Department is one whom I have known for many years, He does not appear to me to be the kind of revolutionary man that I may have been considered to be in days gone by—although that has not been quite so necessary since the War as it was previous to its breaking out; but, after the War is over, it is possible that I may be just as revolutionary as ever I was, and it may be that I shall have to bump up against my right hon. Friend, as I had to bump up against him in the old days. Reference has been made to conciliation between Labour and Capital, but that will all depend upon the employers of labour and how they act. If they go back to their methods of the pre-war days, then you may rest assured that we will have the same troubles in the future that we have had in the past. In conclusion I wish to strongly support the Bill.
    Sir G. CAVE: I trust the House will now give a Second Reading to the Bill, I have-only a few words to say in reply to the different questions which have been raised. I must acknowledge the seriousness with which the Bill has been debated, and I think the House recognises that there are things in it which would not all be proposed in a time of peace; but we ask for these powers in time of war as-being necessary for our purposes and for the purposes of carrying on the War. The general feeling of the House is that we ought to have the powers we ask for, and that there shall then be opportunity to see what use we make of them. I will not further discuss that view of the matter, for I admit there are some unusual provisions; I think that is obvious, and I believe that Members of the House will make no objection to the Bill. The question has been raised as to the number of Under-Secretaries that can be appointed. Under the Bill as it stands we do not desire to have power to appoint an unlimited number of Under-Secretaries to all the Departments. The intention is that there should be power under the Bill to appoint one additonal Under-Secretary for the Foreign Department, one additional Under-Secretary for the War Department, one for the Board of Trade, and one for the Air Board. I have stated to the Committee exactly what is proposed to be done, and if the House desires to modify

    1189
    that proposal it will have an opportunity of doing so. We do not desire unlimited powers to create new posts, but we think that these are necessary. The Minister of Labour has been designated, and he has already got to work, as have all the other Ministers. We want them to have their statutory powers within the week, and we thought it was better to take the course of putting all these provisions in one Bill, rather than to have two Bills, each of which would have to go through all its stages.
    It is said, "Why not put in the powers you desire the Minister to have?" I do not know what the objections are to Orders in Council, but I know what our object is here, namely, that we want to transfer at once certain powers to the different Ministries. All that will have to be very carefully considered and worded in order to prevent any conflict between the different Departments. That is not a very easy thing to accomplish in a short time It requires examination of Statutes and a certain amount of drafting which has to be skilfully done, and it is desired to get that through in as short a time and as quickly as possible. I do not see myself why we should not at once pass this Bill, which contains all the essential provisions. I can assure the House that we will not limit the powers of the Departments; rather, we will make them as full and as strong as possible. In regard to the new Departments, care will be exercised as to taking over those staffs which are now doing the work, and I am quite sure that they will make it their first object to get the best men they can. A specific and serious point was taken by the hon. Member for Leicester, and may I express my regret that I was not in the House to hear the hon. Gentleman; I had been obliged to leave in order to attend to other public matters. I am informed that the hon. Member stated that now we were getting a Labour Department we should transfer to it the Home Office powers connected with mines and factories and that kind of thing. That is a point which I am sure the House will consider very carefully indeed. The hon. Member for West Ham has pointed out that this new Department of Labour which is just being formed will, under the Schedule of the Bill, take over wide powers which are immediately necessary to be used for the purposes of the War. The factory powers and mine powers exercised by the Home Office have, I believe, been used in a manner
    1190
    that has given satisfaction to both sides, both employers and employed. Therefore I do not want to say anything to disturb the present position unduly or to unsettle those who are now assisting us in the new Department. I submit, however, that this is not a matter to be decided now. Later on we shall have to consult those who are experts in these matters; we must consult with the employers and representatives of the workers in order to see whether they would like those powers transferred, and we must take the view of the Department in order to see whether they desire to have those powers. Therefore, I do not think I ought to give any definite promise to-day, and, if I did so, it would not bind a future Minister, who might be in office a little later on. For the reasons I have given we have deliberately decided not to include those powers in the Bill. Those are the main points which have been raised. I would only add one observation in reply to the criticism that we shall have too many administrators and that we may have conflicts. If there were differences between the Ministries the War Cabinet would decide them within twenty-four hours. But the War is a great reconciler, and I believe that any such differences would be settled amongst the Ministries themselves. To-day everybody has but one object in view, and you will find that spirit in those Departments, and that they will work together as they are working to-day.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the House is now ready to come to a decision, and I only rise to refer to one point, and not to enter into the larger matters with which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt. The point with which I wish to deal is the creation of new offices in Ministries which already exist. I do not think the House feels quite easy in respect of the proposals of the Government in that regard. Since the War began we have had two new Ministries created, both of them quite necessary—the Ministry of Munitions and the Ministry of Pensions, both of them presided over by Ministers with their own Secretaries. We are now proposing to create more new Ministries. I have no quarrel whatever with the proposal that there should be a Minister of Labour, a Controller of Food, and a Controller of

    1191
    Shipping. Those three heads of Departments are to be set up, and also provided with their Under-Secretaries, and I think the House will readily agree that they should be so equipped. But now we come to another proposal in this Bill: that many of the old-established Ministries should also have their Parliamentary representation enlarged. Frequently it is said that there must be more than one Under-Secretary, in order that there should be a representative in the other House, but no such question arises here in any of these cases. The Foreign Office already has two representatives in this House, and it is now proposed to add a third. The War Office, which has been shorn of all the work which has been transferred to the Minister of Munitions, and shorn of the work transferred to the Ministry of Pensions, already has two representatives in this House, the Under-Secretary of State and the Financial Secretary, both of them men of great capacity. It is now proposed that there should be a third. The Board of Trade, which is to have taken away from it all its work dealing with shipping, with food and with labour, and which will consequently be a comparatively small Ministry, will have, as soon as the new President of the Board comes into the House of Commons, two representatives already in this House, and it is now proposed that this Ministry also shall have a third. The Air Board, which is extremely well represented in this House by the hon. and gallant Member for Rugby (Major Baird), is now to have a second representative in this House.
    Sir G. CAVE: No; only one in this House.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Is it not proposed to have two Under-Secretaries?
    Sir G. CAVE: No; only one. It is proposed to authorise the Under-Secretary ship which now exists.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Then it is merely to regularise the existing arrangement as to the Air Board, and as to that, of course, there is no criticism. With regard to the addition of further Parliamentary representatives to the Foreign Office, the War Office, and the Board of Trade, the three of which have already got representatives in this House, I think the House is a bit inclined to regard that proposal with some doubt. I find that the Government has already announced in the newspapers a
    1192
    personnel which, apart from the Court appointments, comprises sixty members, which is a very large administrative body. While I do not suggest that we should oppose any proposal such as this if the Government inform the House that it is necessary, and if they state some reasons for their proposal, still the proposition is one as to which I think the House will desire generally to have some further information, and with regard to which they wish to hear a little additional justification.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow—[Mr. James Hope.]

    GOVEKNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (Sir FREDERICK BANBURY in the Chair.)

    CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of the Government War Obligations Act, 1914.)
    (1) Section one of the Government War Obligations Act, 1914, which, as extended by Section one of the Government War Obligations Act, 1915, relates to the provision of money for the fulfilment of Government war obligations incurred before the passing of the last-mentioned Act, shall be further extended so as to include the provision in the like manner of money for the fulfilment of any Government war obligations incurred before the passing of this Act.
    (2) The Schedule to the Government War Obligations Act, 1914 (which, as extended by the Government War Obligations Act, 1915, sets out the Government war obligations), shall be further extended so as to include obligations incurred in connection with the present War in respect of compensation for damage to property resulting from any hostile action against His Majesty or action taken for repelling such action, and loans or guarantees of loans made for the benefit of places damaged or affected by any such action, either actual or apprehended.
    (3) Any obligation incurred in respect of any advance or guarantee given to or for the benefit of the British Italian Banking Corporation is hereby declared to be an obligation undertaken in connection with the present War.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Baronet, which proposes to leave out from the beginning of the Clause in Sub-section (1) to the word "by"["extended by"], does not seem to me to read.
    Sir C. HENRY: My object is that the Clause should begin, "section one of the Government War Obligations Act, 1915,"and to leave out the reference to the War Obligations Act of 1914.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not the Amendment of which the hon. Member has given notice, and I must point out that it would alter the whole of the Bill right through.
    Sir C. HENRY: The object of my Amendment was to protest against legislation by reference. My view is that the Schedule should contain the obligations which were put forward under the Act of 1914, so that the House might have had the opportunity of discussing those obligations, and of hearing explanations as to them given by the Minister in charge.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Would it not be better for the hon. Baronet to read out the Amendment he wishes to move?
    Sir C. HENRY: The Amendment I wish to move is on the Paper.
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That Amendment is not in order.
    Mr. WATT: Would not the Amendment, if carried, make the Clause read quite satisfactorily? It would then begin on line six, Section one, of the Government War Obligations Act, 1916.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not the Amendment. If the Amendment were carried, the Clause would read "By Section one of the Government War Obligations Act, 1915," etc.
    Sir C. HENRY: May I modify the Amendment by proposing to leave out from the beginning of Sub-section (1) to the word "Section"["by Section one"]?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That would not read unless there were consequential Amendments.
    Sir C. HENRY: I shall not press the point.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "in the like matter of money, "and to insert instead thereof the words "out of moneys provided by Parliament."
    1194
    This Bill, I think, has been drafted in a very careless way. There appears, to have been a scheme in drafting it to perplex Members. I think very few who listened to the Debate on the Second Beading, and on the Money Resolution, were quite aware of the purport of this Bill. One of the reasons for that is that there is a good deal of this legislation by reference. The words which I desire to omit constitute an attempt to legislate by reference. If we ask what in the like manner of money means we find, on referring to the previous Acts of 1914, that this is what is meant by the phrase "There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, or, if those moneys, are insufficient, there shall be charged and paid out of the Consolidated Fund, or the growing produce thereof, such sums," etc So that in like manner means that if the moneys are not sufficient, the Government shall have the power to debit the Consolidated Fund with the balance required. It is to avoid that I propose my Amendment, which would have the effect of making the Government on every occasion when the funds granted came to an end, instead of going to the Consolidated Fund balance, come to Parliament for sanction. I venture to think that that is the right principle to adopt, and that we should not allow the Government whenever they are short of cash to go to the Consolidated Fund.
    7.0 p.m.
    Sir G. CAVE: This Bill follows exactly the form of the Act passed last year, and brings into this Act the provisions of the Act of 1914. The hon. Gentleman was quite right as to the meaning of these words. They make these contracts binding upon the Government, and that is the intention of the Clause. Some of those obligations will run not only during this year, but during some years to follow the War, and it is well that persons entering into contracts should know that they have the sanction of Parliament behind them. That is what the House wishes and that is what the Government wishes. Money to discharge these liabilities must be voted by Parliament from year to year.
    Mr. D. MASON: I do not think the arguments of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment is at all inconsistent with the explanation given by the Home Secretary. If I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman, his argument is that

    1195
    these contracts were entered into. The matter was argued at some considerable length when the Bill was read a second time. As I understand my hon. Friend, he desires to have some cheek of this House over these contracts by knowing the extent of our money liabilities; therefore he suggests that it is desirable, when carrying out these contracts, that the Government should come before Parliament so that the House may know the extent of the money obligations. The Home Secretary has not at all met that argument. He simply says that this is similar to what was formerly done. I deny that. I think the Amendment is one that really requires further consideration from this House because of the check it gives to the House over our money liabilities by compelling the Government to come before Parliament for the money necessary to carry out these contracts.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It may perhaps be very hard for the Home Secretary to have at hand the details of the expenditure which come under this Clause. It is a thing with which his Department does not deal. It is finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has only assumed office and cannot be supposed to know the details of everything; but I should like to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when this Bill was last under reivew we had a very considerable discussion here as to whether or not we were to hear the details of the expenditure it was proposed to meet under the provisions of this Bill. The then Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. MacKinnon Wood) gave us to understand that it was only proposed to provide in this Bill for the payment of such sums of money as could not be met out of the Consolidated Fund Bill. I think that was his explanation. I then gathered from him—though I think the matter remained exceedingly abscure at the end of the Debate—that practically the whole requirements of the Government which were mentioned as having been incurred previous to the date on which this Bill was expected to pass would be met with out of the ordinary Votes of the House of Commons, and would not be met with any money specially provided out of this Bill. It would be very hard, and, I think, unjust to ask the Home Secretary for details of that expenditure, and still less the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I would suggest to the right hon. Gentle-
    1196
    man opposite that when we get to the Report stage of the Bill—I do not know that he proposes to take it this evening— that he should see if he cannot give us some indication of the amount of money which it is proposed to cover by this Bill, and give us, too, some indication of the object upon which the money is to be expended. We were promised on the original discussion various details, and I expected, when this Bill was presented, a Schedule showing the expenditure. We have not got it, and cannot now get it, but I hope before we come to the Report stage that we shall have that information.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It is not my intention to deal with the point which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I have put down an Amendment later which deals with the paragraph of the Schedule to the original Act upon which it seems to me it would be convenient to obtain details. As to the Amendment before us, it is to the effect that all money to meet these obligations shall in future be directly voted by the House of Commons, so that in future the House may know that in a matter of these obligations exactly what the liabilities come to. It is not an attempt to get out of the obligations. It is simply that all pecuniary obligations incurred in future years shall be met out of the Votes proposed in Parliament so that Parliament may know the extent to which it has been committed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that we were merely adopting the style which occurred in the original Act. But when the original Act was proposed we were all assured then that the Government were merely dealing with emergency legislation, and the Bill went through with very little discussion because it was regarded as emergency legislation. This is the third measure of the kind. We can hardly describe this Bill as of an emergency character. In the circumstances I think that a sound case has been made out for the form of words proposed in the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: The object of the Bill is to get a security behind these various transactions. As regards the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, I do not think my hon. Friend the then Secretary to the Treasury said that he was going to give figures in Committee. I read his speech carefully before this discussion, and I think he said, what I am bound to

    1197
    say, that there are some figures which could not be given—even on Report. There are a good many categories under which one could not give details—for instance, in regard to the Insurance Committee. It may be that there is no expenditure at all. If a general list were made out, I should have to put a note against many items saying that I could not give them. I shall be very glad, however, to show my right hon. Friend any figures that it may be possible to show him.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "the passing of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "the twenty-third day of November, nineteen hundred and sixteen."
    This is a measure of indemnity. The Government have many contracts into which they have entered, and this is a Bill by which the House of Commons gives its approval to these contracts. I have just inquired as to what contracts are included in this Bill of Indemnity and no satisfactory answer has been given. The effect of my Amendment would be that the end of the time with which this measure will deal will be altered from the passing of the Act—probably at the end of this week —to 23rd November, when the measure was first brought in. The Financial Resolution was introduced into this House on 23rd November. The idea of this Amendment is that it is only the contracts which have been entered into before 23rd November for which this Bill will be the indemnity. There is, perhaps, not much on the face of it in altering the date, but there is this principle: that a measure such as this of indemnity might at any future time be brought into the House of Commons and contracts rushed in between the entrance of the Bill and the exit of the Act. It is the effect of this principle being legalised that made me move this Amendment. If there are any contracts entered into between 23rd November and the passing into law of this measure they can be dealt with in the future by another measure. In the meantime I think it right that this particular measure should be limited as to that which it sanctions and that to which it gives an indemnity to the moment when the Bill was introduced into the House of Commons.
    Sir G. CAVE: There is not very much in this Amendment, though my hon. Friend
    1198
    stated precisely how the matter stood, so far as this Bill is concerned. There are only two new items in it, as he will see. The one is the loansor the guarantee of loans made for the benefit of places damaged or affected by any hostile action, and the other is the guarantee in connection with the British Italian Corporation in Sub-section (3). These obligations were incurred before the date mentioned, 23rd November. It may be that some small contracts of the kind have been entered into between 23rd November and now. I do not know. I hope, after what I have said, my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. I have given him all the facts I know.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words, "Provided that the Schedule to the Government War Obligations Act, 1914, shall be limited so as to exclude the obligations set out in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of that Schedule."
    In the previous Debates on this Bill we received information from the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury regarding the obligations incurred under the Schedule of the original Act, but all the information given related to obligations incurred under paragraph (1) of that Schedule, which is to this effect: "Guarantees given to the Bank of England in connection with

    (a) The discount of bills of exchange;

    (b) Advances to acceptors of bills of exchange;

    (c) Advances in connection with loans made to members of the Stock Exchange."

    On the Second Reading of the Bill my recollection is that the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave us an account of exactly how the position stood regarding each of these things. But, as regards the other paragraphs of the Schedule, and what obligations had been incurred in respect of them, he maintained discreet silence. The second paragraph deals with
    "Guarantees given in connection with bills of exchange drawn by traders having debts due from abroad which are not immediately recoverable, and in connection with advances to traders to enable them to meet liabilities under contracts entered into before the outbreak of war."

    1199
    It seems to me that all the obligations arising under that paragraph might well be disclosed to the Committee at this stage. Surely it is possible for the Government to indicate the extent of these guarantees, and to give us an estimate of the liability arising from them. Then under paragraph (3) we have:
    "Payments on contracts of insurance, or reinsurance against war risks of ships or cargo or for the relief of dependants of persons on insured ships, so far as provision is not made for those payments by the application of premiums or otherwise."
    Some information has been given to this House by the late President of the Board of Trade regarding the position of the insurance fund, and as such information has been given consistently with the public interest, I would not greatly press for any statement at the present time with regard to them. The fourth paragraph deals with:
    "Any loan raised by any of the Powers allied in the present War or by the Government of Egypt or by the Government of any of His Majesty's Dominions or any British Possession or Protectorate."
    I think particulars might be given up to the passing of the Act in relation to that. But the most important provision of the original Act is contained in paragraph 5:
    "The maintenance or assistance, in connection with the present War, of food supply, trade, industry, business, or communications in the United Kingdom or in any other country, or the relief of distress in the United Kingdom or in any other country."
    Now up to the present time we have received no information whatever under any of these heads. I think it is extremely important that some information should be given to the House before we sanction the re-enactment by reference of those paragraphs in the original Act.
    I think, for example, that some information might at this stage be given both as to the obligations and as to the results of the Government's dealing with such an article as sugar. We have now had over two years in which sugar has been a Government monopoly, and, although it might not be possible for the Government to give us information up to date, they might surely give us information for the
    1200
    first two years of the War. Then we know that for over a year now the Government have entered upon extremely extensive dealings in wheat. I think up to a certain period it should be possible for the Government to tell us what exactly has been the result of the obligations incurred in respect of that important article. But, in addition to these things, there have been obligations incurred in regard to trade, industry, and business. Those are the most interesting of all. The Government themselves have never said anything about them, but there have appeared unofficial statements in a number of periodicals suggesting that very heavy liabilities have been incurred by the Government.
    One of the things which brought this question to my notice were the dealings with Colonial Governments. While we see nothing about this matter in the Press of this country, there have been statements in Canadian newspapers regarding the Government dealings with a company called the British American Nickel Corporation. I do not know anything about this company, except that it is a company incorporated in the Dominion of Canada with a capital of 10,000,000 dollars in Six per Cent. Bonds, equivalent to £2,000,000, and with 20,000,000 dollars in shares equal to £4,000,000. References have appeared in Canadian papers, as well as in the "Engineering and Mining Journal" of New York, from September to November of this year, in which the statement has been made that this company has received the support of the British Government. Of course, if it has received the support of the British Government, it would be in virtue of this paragraph in the Schedule of the original War Obligations Act. But the statement in these papers is that the British Government has guaranteed to them interest for the next ten years amounting to a bounty of £120,000 per annum. Then we are also told the Government has given an undertaking to that company to take over part of the output. I do not know whether that is the case or not, but it is obvious that, under this paragraph of the Schedule, it would be possible for the Government to enter into such an obligation without coming to Parliament at all. Naturally, therefore, we desire to know whether such obligations have in fact been incurred—whether, in fact, in the first place, obligations have been incurred to the British American Nickel Corporation; secondly, if such obligations

    1201
    have been incurred, what is the extent of those obligations, are they confined to the present year, or do they extend over a period; and if they extend over a period of years, what is the annual liability? I think, in view of the fact that these statements have been publicly made, it is the duty of the Government to inform the House whether, under the paragraphs which I have read to the House, these liabilities have actually been incurred.
    That is only an example. It is obvious that a great many other obligations of a similar kind may have been made. According to the terms of paragraph 5, almost any kind of obligation whatever might be covered, and we are, in fact, by this Bill giving the Government a complete indemnity for its action in the past, and we are also shouldering for the future the obligations which might be involved in these contracts. Then there is the other matter involved in the words "communications in the United Kingdom." That involves, of course, the whole of the bargain in relation to the railways, as I understand, because it can only be in terms of this paragraph that the contract—for it was undoubtedly a contract—with the railway companies can be carried out. The Government took over the railways, but they were taken over on terms, and an obligation has been entered into with the different railway companies, which, I assume, is covered by this particular paragraph, and we know from the statement just made that the Government have agreed also to take over the Irish railways.
    Mr. THOMAS: They ought to have done it long ago.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am not dealing with that question. The whole question I desire to put is, on what terms is it to be done? The House of Commons should be told what are the terms. We know that as the result of taking over the British railways the Government has relieved the shareholders of these railways of the obligation—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not sure myself as to the actual powers under which the railways were taken over. I think it was under an old Act. I do not think they come under this Act at all, or under any of the other War Obligation Acts. The hon. Member must show they would, or I am afraid I cannot allow him to continue on that line.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I was making the point that I believed the Government had power to take over the railways. But in so far as they entered into obligations, apart from the powers, it was my view that these obligations could only be covered by such a paragraph as this. Of course, if it is not so, and if the Government state that this paragraph was not required to cover the obligation, then my point goes by the board, and I shall not deal with it further. If, however, it turns out otherwise, I hope the Home Secretary will give me an answer on these questions. That, however, exhausts practically all the points on which I wished to speak on this Amendment, and I hope in moving it I have given the Home Secretary an opportunity of giving us further information or at least some information, because we have never had any information at all regarding this paragraph.
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not think my hon. Friend really desires to exclude these paragraphs from the operation of the Bill. If he did so he would wreck the Bill entirely, because he would destroy by his Amendment, among other things, the whole of the Government insurance scheme, and other very important schemes. I understand that what my hon Friend wants is information with regard to the points he has put. He throws rather a heavy burden upon my shoulders. I will give him such information as I have. With regard to paragraph 2, the question of trade debts, I am told that at the very worst, the liability is not likely to exceed £200,000.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Would the right hon Gentleman, in giving the information to the House, please tell us how much has been incurred in debt and how much is, still to be met?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not think I can do that. These are guarantees of debts, and they take some time to ascertain. It is not only not possible to say they are bad debts, but it is not desirable to say they are bad debts until we are certain. With regard to paragraph 3, that covers the Government scheme of insurance or reinsurance against war risks. It is really not possible, I am afraid, to give any figure at all. Of course, the result: of that scheme depends upon events —upon what our enemies are able to do, and what damage they inflict on property. There might be a balance on the right side. It is impossible, at all

    1203
    events, to say what. It is an enormous scheme, and it is impossible to give any reliable figures at all. The only other paragraph commented on—and the hon. Gentleman commented on it with some force—is paragraph 5, which relates to the maintenance or assistance, in connection with the present War, of food supply, trade, industry and so on. As to the last paragraph, that includes a very large number of items. Take the items of meat and sugar. They alone run into millions of pounds. Where these goods are sold to purchasers it is hoped that the proceeds will cover the cost, and I cannot say that there is any particular figure which will fall upon the public funds in that category. With regard to the British-American Nickel Company I am afraid that I cannot give the facts to-day. As the hon. Member knows, nickel is an article which it is very desirable to keep out of the hands of our enemies, because there has been a lack of that particular thing in enemy countries, and it is an article of vital importance to them. I really hope my right hon. Friend will not press me on that point. With regard to the railways, the action we have taken is under the Railways Regulation Act of 1871. When you take them over you are at liberty to arrange the terms.
    Mr. THOMAS: The best bargain the Government ever made.
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not think the action was taken under the first Act.
    Mr. PRINGLE: What is the meaning of the words "or communications in the United Kingdom"?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid I cannot answer that point without notice, but I will endeavour to ascertain. I hope what I have said will be considered satisfactory.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the following words:
    "Provided that the obligations set out in Section one, Sub-section (3), of the Government War Obligations Act, 1915, are hereby excluded."
    I understand the difficulties under which the right hon. Gentleman labours in dealing with this Act, as he is quite
    1204
    fresh to it, but the Sub-section to which I refer relates to the Schedule of the original Act which introduces a number of new items. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act of 1915 provides as follows:
    "(3) The Schedule to the principal Act, which sets out the Government War obligations, shall be extended so as to include obligations incurred in connection with the present War in respect of payments—

    (a) for the relief of the dependants of persons on any merchant ship or fishing vessel;

    (b) for compensation in respect of persons killed or injured on any merchant ship or fishing vessel;

    (c)on contracts of insurance against war risks of the personal effects of masters, officers, seamen, and fishermen; and

    (d) in respect of aircraft and bombardment insurance contracts;

    (e) any arrangements for restricting the supply of any commodities to the enemy;

    (f) any arrangements for the regulation of the foreign exchanges;

    (g) Any scheme in connection with any such last-mentioned arrangements for enabling securities to be placed at the disposal of the Treasury;

    (h) any exchange of obligations with any powers allied with His Majesty in the present War."

    My object in moving this Amendment is to obtain information, and therefore I need not repeat the arguments which I used on my last Amendment. I only desire that the right hon. Gentleman should give the Committee such information as he has so that we may know what liability has been actually incurred in the terms of the Sub-section which I have read.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid I have less information in regard to this point than I had with reference to the last one, but this Amendment would be absolutely fatal to the Bill. I am sorry I cannot accept this proposal, and I hope it will not be pressed.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It was not our intention to press this Amendment to a Division, but when the Debate upon the Second Reading took place under the late Government these Amendments were drafted immediately after the Second Reading with the view of pressing upon

    1205
    the Secretary to the Treasury certain points upon which he had promised us information. The only way I could raise this matter was by an Amendment leaving out this paragraph in the original Act. I know that there has been a revolution in this House and we have now to deal with the right hon. Gentleman, who knows nothing about the subject, and consequently I must be content with the meagre information which I have received. If in twelve months' time the right hon. Gentleman is still responsible for a measure of this kind, we shall then take the opportunity of pressing these points upon him, and we shall not be satisfied with the answers now given.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "compensation for damage to property resulting from any hostile action against His Majesty or action taken for repelling such action, and."
    We are not making much headway in our attempts to improve this Bill. When we put down these Amendments we expected to have the assistance of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), but unfortunately he is not with us to-night, and for that reason we are not making such a good show. We are in hopes that the Home Secretary will see his way to accept at least one of our Amendments. These words were put in to give compensation for damage done in Scarborough, which town seems to have been picked out for better treatment than any other of our East Coast towns. When this matter was before the Committee the Irishmen demanded that Dublin should be considered. There was no reason why Scarborough should be treated better than other East Coast towns, and perhaps this can only be accounted for by the fact that the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Rea) was a Member of the late Government That fact, however, no longer holds good, and we hope that the Amendment I am proposing will leave out Scarborough and thus put all the East Coast towns on the same basis, not making a pet of one and an enemy of another, but placing them all upon an equal footing.
    Sir G. CAVE: I am not very well acquainted with the circumstances under
    1206
    which these obligations were incurred, but I know that an agreement was made for entering into a Loan with Scarborough on account of the bombardment. A Loan has been guaranteed, and I could not entertain for a moment the suggestion that a change of Government should make any alteration in that obligation because we desire to honour the obligations of our predecessors. Therefore, I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has misconceived the object of this Amendment. Up to the present all we have been told in regard to Scarborough is that the Government have guaranteed a Loan for the benefit of Scarborough. If the Amendment of my hon. Friend were adopted the Government would be still able to carry out the whole of their obligations in regard to Scarborough. The Sub-section speaks of
    "obligations incurred in connection with the present War in respect of compensation for damage to property resulting from any hostile action against His Majesty or action taken for repelling such action."
    What are these obligations? We have been told about the guaranteeing of a Loan to Scarborough, but that is not the only thing, and this Section covers a great deal more. It deals with obligations resulting from any hostile action. What, then, is the obligation entered into?
    Sir G. CAVEmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Why do you want the words if there is no obligation? The Subsection, as amended, would cover the case and all the obligation incurred in regard to Scarborough. Consequently, these further words simply tempt the Government to do something more. It is a temptation to them to hold out inducements to other people in the future. There might be some member of the new Government who might have a constituency—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have looked into this Amendment—I must apologise to the Committee, but I have only taken the Chair quite recently—and I do not think it can possibly be in order.

    1207
    If the Amendment were carried, the Clause would read:
    "The Schedule to the Government War Obligations Act, 1914 (which as extended by the Government War Obligations Act, 1915, sets out the Government War Obligations), shall be further extended so as to include obligations incurred in connection with the present War in respect of loans or guarantees of loans made for the benefit of places damaged or affected by any such action, either actual or apprehended."
    What "such action"? We have left out the words which express the limiting action or the enacting action. I am therefore much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his speech. He has called my attention to that which I had not seen for the moment, and I am afraid that I must rule the Amendment out of order.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not possible for me to hand in a manuscript Amendment to leave out the words "such action" and to insert the words "hostile action"?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member could do that, because the Committee would have determined to leave out the words "hostile action," and, having left them out, the Committee could not in the next breath put them in again.
    Mr. PRINGLE: We are only leaving them out in one definite connection, namely, "in respect of compensation for damage to property resulting from any hostile action," and I submit that I could reinsert them in another connection.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is very ingenious, but I am afraid it will not do. The Clause says, "damage to property," and the Amendment proposes to leave that out. Then it says, "loans made for the benefit of places damaged." There are no other places that could be dam-aged. I am afraid that I must rule the Amendment out of order.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "either actual or apprehended."
    I admit that this Amendment is not of much importance, but, inasmuch as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the former occasion said that he did not see any sense in these words and did not know why they had been inserted, I think probably the Home Secretary will accept it.
    Sir C. HENRY: I have an Amendment to leave out the words "or apprehended." I wanted to draw attention to the fact that this Bill deals with obligations incurred, and I do not see how any obligation which is apprehended can come under the title "obligations incurred." I do not think we ought to give the Government a blank cheque to enter into any obligation which has not already been incurred.
    Sir G. CAVE: Scarborough was unfortunately attacked. Thereupon actual damage ensued. Besides that, Scarborough, not unnaturally, apprehended other damage. The result of the damage apprehended was that people left the town and that householders had difficulty in paying their rates. The whole town suffered because of the damage apprehended quite as much and, indeed, considerably more than because of the damage actually incurred. Thereupon the Government entered into an obligation and gave a certain guarantee in respect of the damage suffered by reason of the actual injury done and by reason of the damage apprehended. That was the reason of the Bill. It would be wrong to leave out these words. Otherwise, you would have to inquire whether the guarantee was necessitated by the actual damage done. The words to my mind are quite right and ought to be allowed to remain in the Bill.
    Mr. D. MASON: I think it is quite clear that it only refers to the damage done to Scarborough and not, as the Mover of the Amendment thought, to future action; but, in view of the fact that it is not desired to give the Government a blank cheque, will the Home Secretary put in words so as to limit it to the action to which he has just referred?
    Sir G. CAVE: It qualifies the word "action."
    Mr. MASON: It is rather vague.
    Mr. PRINGLE: There is some importance in this Amendment, because, after all, the form of this Clause will apply to similar obligations incurred in the future before another Bill is passed. We might have a case of some community which had never been bombarded at all but which was living in fear of bombardment coming to the Government and saying, "We have suffered great loss owing to the apprehension of hostile action." A great many places have suffered from the apprehension of hostile action, but, whilst the exodus

    1209
    from these places may not have been as great as from others, it has in fact involved a considerable loss. It is an open secret that some watering-places, both on the East Coast of Scotland and of England, during the summer, have suffered loss because of this apprehension, and I look upon the word "apprehended" as an indication to places which have suffered loss merely through the apprehension of hostile action to come to the Government and say, "You have given a Loan and a guarantee to Scarborough because people have run away for fear the Germans will come back again. Why will you not give us a Loan or a guarantee against the loss which we have incurred by reason of the fact that people have not come to us because they fear the Germans will come?" There is on that ground a good deal of substance in the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I will consider these words before the Report stage.
    Mr. PRINGLE: There may be no Report stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir C. HENRY: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
    I venture the opinion that this Amendment is perhaps the most important one in connection with this Bill. First of all, I am inclined to take the view that it is outside the scope of the Bill, because special words have had to be put into the Sub-section that this "obligation incurred in respect of the British Italian Banking Corporation is hereby declared to be an obligation undertaken in connection with the present War." The framer of the Bill therefore must have realised that this was not really a war obligation. It is specifically declared in the Bill that for this purpose it comes under the category of a war obligation. Although I am going to press the Amendment to leave out this Sub-section, I want it to be fully understood that I am in full sympathy with the action of the Government as to the co-operation they are willing to give to this newly-formed British Italian Banking Corporation. I believe that to foster that class of business would be to the advantage of the State, and would in some measure come under the Paris Resolutions. As I understand it, this British Italian Banking Corporation was founded by the Credito Italiano, which is recog-
    1210
    nised as one of the first and leading financial institutions in Italy, and I believe the scheme was fostered here by the managing director of the London branch, Mr. Manzi Fé, of whom there is no more able and capable man in the City of London. That, however, does not dc away with the fact that the entering into this obligation by the medium of this Bill should be strongly protested against.
    8.0 p.m.
    I am very certain of my ground in this respect, because on the Second Reading of the Bill the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir E. Carson) opposed the Clause very vehemently. He said this proposal should be embodied in a measure, and should not be smuggled through in a War Obligations Bill. I am not using his exact words, but that was the sense of his remarks on that occasion. Why was not this the subject of a special Bill? It is a special obligation, not undertaken, I maintain, for war purposes, but for trade purposes which practically will come into operation after the War. When the Government helped the British Dyes, Limited, they came to this House and gave a full explanation of their object, and it was debated. I admit the present Government is not responsible, but one of its leading members was very much opposed to this Sub-section. The late Government evidently did not want this operation to be fully discussed, and therefore did not bring it forward in the usual Parliamentary way. I am inclined to think that they are not very proud of the operation. The British-Italian Banking Corporation has a British capital of £1,000,000 sterling, and the Government has guaranteed the interest for ten years at 5 per cent. on that capital. They have undertaken an obligation of £50,000. The then Secretary to the Board of Trade, on the Second Reading, stated that although they had undertaken this obligation of £50,000—that is, to pay 5 per cent. on this capital of £1,000,000 for ten years —they might not be called upon to do so. Well, I am inclined to the opinion that for the first two or three years they will be called upon to pay it, until this institution is fairly on its legs. Then, supposing that the corporation afterwards made a profit, by which they were able to pay a dividend of 10 per cent. in the fourth year—on three previous years they had made no profit, and the Government would have had to pay £50,000 a year—the Government would then receive nothing in refund from the

    1211
    corporation at all, but they would be exonerated for that year from paying anything towards the guarantee of 5 per cent. I consider that extraordinarily bad finance. With the British dye companies, I believe I am right in saying, the Government were responsible for, I believe, £500,000 of debentures, and they had a first charge on the concern, on which I think they were receiving 4 per cent. That is a sound business proposition. Previous to the War, they took a participation in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, of which they took capital stock, and of which they shared the profits. Now, if the Government had said to the British-Italian Banking Corporation, "We will advance you £500,000, and will have a first charge on your security, and be satisfied with 4 per cent. or 5 per cent." that would be another proposition; or, if they had advanced £400,000, and said, "We will participate in the profits," that would be another proposition; but why they should undertake to be responsible to pay 5 per cent. interest for ten years, thereby undertaking a liability of over £500,000, I am at a loss to understand.
    It is interesting to know to whom they are guaranteeing this interest. I have here a list of the shareholders to whom they are guaranteeing this interest of this British-Italian Banking Corporation. I find that Sir Ernest Cassel has been allotted 3,750 shares, which is practically nearly £80,000. I do not see any reason why Sir Ernest Cassel should have his interest guaranteed for him. Then I find that the Prudential Insurance Company has been allotted 4,950 shares. Well, the Prudential Insurance Company is a very rich corporation, as my hon. Friend is well aware. Why should they have 4,950 shares, coming, roughly speaking, to £100,000, and why should they have their interest guaranteed? Then there is Lloyds Bank, who were also allotted 5,000 shares. Another very powerful and rich banking corporation—the London and Westminster Bank—have also had 5,000. Other banks have shares, and the Bank of Liverpool has 1,250 shares. If anyone examines this list I think he will find that it contains the names of the wealthiest men and the richest corporations that are in existence in this country, and why they should have been guaranteed by this Government 5 per cent. for ten years, to my mind requires a good deal of explanation. I know that the present Govern-
    1212
    ment is not responsible for it. I know it was a legacy left them by the previous Government, but the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is here, and I find his name on the back of this Bill. Perhaps he might be inclined to take part in this Debate, and to tell us some of the reasons-which prompted the late Government to guarantee to these gentlemen, and these corporations, this 5 per cent. Although I am in full agreement with the object of the Bill, which is to develop our trade with Italy, yet with the manner in which that object is carried out I heartily disagree. I have never come across anything more illogical than this proposal, and I do not wonder that the late Government endeavoured to smuggle it through in the War Obligations Bill when it was really practically no war obligation at all. I think it would have been much fairer and more straightforward if it had been brought in as a separate Bill. Therefore, I move the Amendment to omit this Sub-section.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. G. Roberts): I think the hon. Baronet has lodged his objection to this Sub-section under two heads. First of all, he says that it is entirely outside the scope of the Bill, and, if my memory is correct, he stated on the Second Reading that it ought to have been brought in as a distinct Bill. Well, that may have been so, and probably it would have been a preferable measure; but here it is, and we have to deal with it as part of this Bill. As the hon. Baronet has recognised, this is a legacy handed down from the late Government and we have to treat it accordingly. Certainly, if there was any disposition to try to rush it through without discussion, the parties failed to secure their aim, as the matter was very soon brought to the attention of this House, and it certainly has secured a good deal of consideration outside. I understand that the hon. Baronet does not object to the purpose of this Sub-section. He thinks it is a very good thing that we should endeavour to counteract German influence in Italy and to encourage trade between this country and our Allies, but that he mainly objects to the terms under which it had been arranged. Well, of course, he will exonerate me from any responsibility, or even any credit, for the terms that have been arranged. I do know this, that the matter was the subject of a good deal of consideration by the Department which I represent in this

    1213
    House and by the Treasury, and that these terms were such as were agreed upon by those Departments. I think the hon. Baronet is aware—it was stated in the discussion on the Second Reading—that two banks of very strong standing in in this country had undertaken the responsibility of raising the capital, and I apprehend that it is through the medium of these two banks that the other shareholders to whom he has referred to-day have been interested in the project. I can only say that this is an arrangement which has been fixed and approved by the two parties in question, and certainly I do not think that there is any disposition to reject the whole agreement.
    Mr. WATT: I am glad that the hon. Baronet proposed this Amendment. I think it a most important Amendment, and one which, if accepted, would improve this measure. There can be no doubt whatever that a special Bill should have been brought in for the purpose of this Sub-section, namely, the financing of this Italian bank. Like the hon. Baronet who proposed the Amendment, I think the scheme of financing the Italian bank is quite a good one, and quite one which this House should take up. But a separate measure should have been brought in to deal with that transaction. It is a very unwise thing to state, as it is said in this Sub-section, "It is hereby declared that any obligation undertaken in connection with this British Italian bank is in connection with the present War." This is made a war measure by the simple ipse dixit of the Government. This Amendment was supported in Committee on the Resolution by yourself, Sir Frederick, -and I dare say you still think we are in the right, and that this measure should be treated otherwise than in a Sub-section of a Section. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who replied to the hon. Baronet, did not promise that on the Report stage he would give this matter his serious consideration, for it is certainly one of the most important Amendments which has been proposed.
    Sir C. HENRY: I fully recognise the position of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and I may mention that if the late Government had been responsible for the Committee stage of this measure I would have pressed this Amendment to a Division, as I feel very strongly on the point. I do urge on the new Government not to resort to these methods while they are in office. They will
    1214
    be fortified, I am certain, by some of their present leaders in the Government, and it. is much fairer and more honest, even in time of war, when they have proposals to make which are practically a new departure, that they should bring them forward! in a separate Bill and submit them to the House of Commons. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. McKENNArose—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if he refuses to allow the Amendment to-be withdrawn, it will have to be put to the Committee.
    Mr. McKENNA: Then it can be negatived. I should not have risen but for the last observations of my hon. Friend. He seems to think that this proposal has been smuggled into a War Obligations Bill; that it has nothing to do with the War; and that it stands on a different footing from the other obligations contained in this measure.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the Sub-section—the enabling; words?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will do so if he, wishes; if I have it here.
    Sir C. HENRY: The last line—"It is hereby declared to be an obligation in connection with the present War."
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, that is the Clause which declares it; it is the declaratory Clause. The reason for that is very simple. In the first place, this is an obligation which would never have been entered into in peace. It is only entered into, and it was only entered into, because of the War, and it is in the very truest sense of the term, consequently a war obligation. These words were put in as the declaratory words in order, by anticipation, to meet the misconceptions of my hon. Friend. Secondly, as regards the question of its being smuggled into the Bill, this proposal and the terms of this proposal were announced by my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade or by myself, I forget which, in this House at the time when the undertaking was made, and it was received in this House with universal approval. There has been no smuggling, and nothing hidden.
    Sir C. HENRY: The right hon. Gentleman did not Bay it was in the War Obligations Bill; we expected a separate Bill.
    Mr. McKENNA: I have dealt with that point, and I am now dealing with the word "smuggling." My hon. Friend said it was a secret matter. Thirdly, my hon. Friend dealt with the terms of the proposal as being unreasonable. I regret to say that he endeavoured to raise a great deal of prejudice by reciting the names of the persons concerned, and suggesting that, as they were very rich persons, they did not need a guarantee from this country. I am sure even the hon Baronet, who is always willing to assist the State to the extent of the whole of his fortune, will recognise it is not unreasonable, when persons embark their capital in a venture which they do not regard as in itself likely to be profitable but do so in the interests of the State, that they should be guaranteed a reasonable return for a short period of years. A return of 5 per cent., having regard to the rate of interest which can be obtained for money at the present time, is not a very big return. I deprecate the fact that my hon. Friend should have thought it necessary to import prejudice into the discussion of this Bill by impugning to the gentleman and banks who have assisted in this matter that they have been getting an unfair advantage for their own benefit. The late Government—and I believe the bulk of its members are in the Government of to-day—at the time believed, as I believe still, that this measure was of great value in the War, for cementing trade relations now and hereafter between this country and one of her most important Allies. It is a policy which was fully declared at the time, and it met with the full approval of this House.
    Sir C. HENRY: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. He has not quite seized my point. I am well aware that the firms and individuals who subscribed at the request of the Banking Corporation cannot be accused of lack of patriotism, and the right hon. Gentleman, if he intended to convey that as my meaning, has certainly misrepresented what I said. What I did say was that this was not a sound commercial transaction. Why did they not adopt the same course with regard to British dyes? Here is an ordinary financial enterprise in which a number of men have put their money. I believe it will eventually prove a great success. But for the first few years it may not return sufficient to pay a dividend. Why should these gentlemen be guaran-
    1216
    teed a dividend simply in order to carry them over the initial stages until they get their business in full running, seeing that afterwards they may make from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. interest or dividend? Why should they be guaranteed that by the State? In spite of what the hon. Gentleman said, it is not a sound proposition to which the Government should have consented. Instead of guaranteeing the dividend or making themselves responsible for £500,000, it would have been better for the Government to have drawn a cheque for £500,000 and participated in the debentures. They did so in the case of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and, therefore, it would not have been a new departure. I do hope that the present Government will not continue these methods of finance.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the word "Banking";
    After the word "Corporation" insert the word "Limited."—[Mr. Roberts.]
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add the words, "Provided that such advance or guarantee does not exceed £50,000 per annum or does not extend beyond the period of ten years."
    Neither the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench nor the right hon. Gentleman opposite will argue, surely, against the wisdom of inserting this limitation on the amount to be advanced to this Italian bank. At present we are told it is to be £50,000 per annum for ten years, and what we want to do by this Amendment is to simply limit the figures to those stated. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) again and again moved an Amendment to this effect in the House. I hope the Secretary to the Board of Trade will favourably consider this proposal. It limits the amount to be advanced precisely to the sum promised by the late Government.
    Mr. ROBERTS: The agreement under consideration is to confine the annual payment to £50,000, or £500,000 for the ten years, and I think the hon. Gentleman can accept it that that agreement will not be departed from. But there is some difficulty about accepting the Amendment in reference to the period of ten years. The hon. Gentleman is aware—none better —that this sum of £50,000 per year is to be made free of income, which means that

    1217
    even although under Treasury Regulations both the Income Tax and the Excess Profits Tax will have to be paid to the Treasury, the Treasury will reimburse the amount each year. The tax paid in the first year will be reimbursed at the end of the second year, and it necessarily follows that the tax paid in the tenth year will probably be reimbursed at the end of the eleventh year. It is, therefore, impossible to limit the operation of the agreement to the ten years, but I hope the hon Member will accept the assurance that the agreement is binding in regard to the £50,000 per year. It is possible, however, that the business may hang on for over the ten years, and that is the reason why we cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. PRINGLE: This discussion has developed new terms of contract. Apparently now the interest to be guaranteed to these various people who have invested their money is to be free of Income Tax and Excess Profits Duty. That is quite a new term in the contract. Of course, if it is a part of the contract, the House must accept it. But at least my hon. Friend has this consolation in having moved this Amendment, that he has succeeded for the first time in obtaining information hitherto denied to us, namely, that the interest is not subject to ordinary taxation, but is absolutely free both from Income Tax and Excess Profits Duty.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—[Mr. G. Roberts.]
    Mr. D. MASON: The Home Secretary, in reply to an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) with reference to the Treasury deposit scheme which is known as the mobilisation of securities scheme, said that it was of great benefit to the country. I do not propose to argue that point again. It is quite possible that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was responsible for the scheme, may not always necessarily support it, because he may change his views owing to changes in the money market and the exigencies of national finance later on. I do not suppose that the Home Secretary is prepared to argue such a technical question as this. We are entitled, at this early stage of the new Government, to have some representative of the Treasury here. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to argue the matter, which involves an enormous liability on the people of this
    1218
    country. No one can expect the new Government to alter their policy at the beginning of their lease of office, yet one would have liked to have heard from the Treasury some exposition of their policy with regard to the continuance of this method. I have pointed out time after time the stimulus given to our imports. The Board of Trade returns bear that out. Up to date they show an excess of £500,000,000 and, as I pointed out on the Vote of Credit, possibly with the excess of munitions it may amount to £700,000,000 at the end of the year. We are entitled to have some exposition of policy from the present Ministry.
    The CHAIRMAN: Not in Committee.
    Mr. MASON: I quite agree. I do not expect any exposition of policy with regard to trade, but I thought the Government would have been able to defend their mobilisation scheme which is involved in this Bill, that it would let us know whether they propose to continue it, and why, as the Home Secretary said a few minutes ago, it is such a benefit to the country. Of course, one cannot expect that a policy which involves such an enormous undertaking as this deposit scheme involves can be rescinded suddenly. I know that it involves the artificial support of the exchange. On this occasion I wish to put on record a protest and to ask that at some early date either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or someone representing the Treasury will tell us whether the Government support the continuance of what I believe to be a scheme which, instead of being beneficial to the country, is doing it great injury.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Further Provision with Respect to Deposit, etc., of Securities with the Treasury.)
    (1) Where any securities are held on trust by more than one trustee, the securities may be deposited with the Treasury, or given to the Treasury in exchange for Government securities, or sold to the Treasury, for the purpose of and in accordance with, the conditions of any Treasury securities deposit scheme if, where there are two trustees, one trustee and the persons entitled to the income of the securities, and where there are more than two trustees, one-half or more of the number of the trustees and the persons entitled TO the income of the securities, are willing that the securities should be so deposited

    1219
    or given in exchange, and any action taken by any such trustees or beneficiaries for the purpose of such deposit or exchange shall, notwithstanding anything in the terms of the trust, or any rule of law to the contrary, be as valid and effectual in all respects as though all the trustees had consented thereto and joined therein.
    (2) No notice of any trust, express, implied, or constructive, in respect of any securities deposited with the Treasury, given in exchange for Government securities, or sold to the Treasury shall affect the Treasury or any person holding the securities on behalf of the Treasury, but any rules of the Supreme Court for the time being in force relating to notice in lieu of distringas, shall apply to the Treasury in respect of such security as they apply to a company in respect of stock.
    (3) It is hereby declared that the expression "securities" in Section two of the Government War Obligations Act, 1915, and in any other enactment relating to any Treasury securities deposit scheme includes stocks, shares, and other securities.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the ord "exchange" ["securities should be so deposited or given in exchange"], to insert the words "or sold."
    I think this must be an omission on the part of the draftsman. In the first part of the Clause the securities are to be deposited, given or sold, but at this point reference is only made to securities deposited or given in exchange. There is no reference to their being sold.
    Sir G. CAVE: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I am much obliged to him for pointing the matter out. I would ask the Committee to accept his Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), after the word "exchange" ["or the purpose of such deposit or exchange"], insert the words "or sale."— [Mr. Watt]
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "but any Rules of the Supreme Court for the time being in force relating to notice in lieu of distringas, shall apply to the Treasury in respect of such security as they apply to a company in respect of stock."
    When I saw this provision I made inquiries of many distinguished lawyers in
    1220
    the House as to the meaning of distringas, and not one of them knew. I even went, through an intermediary, to the Attorney-General, and the reply was that he was a little hazy on the subject. No doubt the Home Secretary will be able to tell us what is meant exactly by a notice in lieu of distringas, what are the privileges it confers, whether Scotsmen have this privilege, and, if not, what arrangement is to be made whereby they will get the advantage of distringas? I understand that this is an advantage which is given to Englishmen. As we have no distringas in Scotland, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us the privilege which is given to Englishmen under this particular Sub-section.
    Sir G. CAVE: I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend hardly made himself quite clear to the lawyers to whom he applied, because there are many lawyers, indeed most of them in this country, who are quite familiar with the practice relating to notice in lieu of distringas. The practice is this: At present the Treasury is in a difficult position. They get offers of securities, and anybody who claims the securities may give them notice of that claim. That hampers the Treasury in dealing with the stocks. We intend by this Sub-section to get rid of that and to make the Treasury quite safe in disposing of the stocks, subject to this: that if a person has a claim upon the stock he can give to the Treasury what is called in the Rules a notice in lieu of distringas, distringas being a proceeding which was abolished. The effect of the notice is that before dealing with the securities the Treasury must give notice to the person who has put a caution upon the stock and tell him that they are going to deal with it and must wait for a limited number of days. During those days the claimant may bring an action against the nominee of the Treasury and move for judgment, so that he has time to assert his claim in a Court of Law. If he does not come within that period ho is bound, and the Treasury may sell The effect of notice is to make sure that the stock will not be disposed of without giving notice, so that the claim may be dealt with in a Court of Law. That is the effect of the practice which is embodied in the Rule. As regards a Scotsman, of course he can come or can send to London and follow the same proceeding. The nominees of the Treasury are in London,

    1221
    and there is nothing in the world to prevent a Scotsman having the same privilege. I hope with that explanation that the Clause will be accepted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to move, after the word "distringas" ["notice in lieu of distringas"], to add the words "and in Scotland to interim interdict."
    I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of distringas. It clearly shows that the equivalent of it in Scotland is an interim interdict. I regret that the new Secretary for Scotland has not thought it worth his while to put in an appearance to-day. The Amendment has been on the Paper for some days. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar enough with Scottish law to know that interim interdict is the exact equivalent of distringas in the English Courts.
    Sir G. CAVE: I regret more than anyone else that the Lord Advocate is not here to-day, but it is not until the Royal Assent has been received to the re-election of Ministers Act that he can take his seat in this House. I do not in the least pretend to be familiar with Scottish law. It is an exceedingly difficult subject for any of us, but I am told these words would not operate at all. They purport to import into the Act the rules relating to interim interdict I am told there are no such rules in Scotland, therefore the Amendment would be meaningless. I am informed, I have no doubt correctly, that the proper equivalent is an Act of Sederunt, and I am told that even if those words were adopted the Amendment would still be meaningless, because there is no such Act relating to the matter. Interdict in Scotland is the equivalent of injunction in England. There are no relevant rules as to injunctions here, and there are no relevant rules as to interdict in Scotland. There is no Scottish equivalent of a notice in lieu of distringas, but there is no reason why a Scotsman who is interested should not take the proper steps in London.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman's exposition of the law. I think after what he has said it is quite clear that no Scotsman need fear that he is going to be prejudiced by this apparently preferential treatment who is subject to English jurisdiction. At the same time, I am not sure that the Home Secretary has stated the respective laws
    1222
    of the two countries correctly. As I understand it, the equivalent of the rules of the Supreme Court in Scotland is an act of sederunt, and I think they have acts of sederunt relating to interim interdicts. Had my hon. Friend introduced the words "act of sederunt" before the words "interim interdict," I think his Amendment would have been quite in order, although, seeing that the Treasury is in London, and can only be affected by process in the English Courts, obviously a Scotsman has a right of resort there, and does not require his own procedure in Scotland.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next.

  DUBLIN RECONSTRUCTION (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  DUBLIN RECONSTRUCTION (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of) 6 (Edward VII., c. 54.)
    The provisions of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1906, shall apply to every house or building, or part of a house or building, destroyed or damaged as aforesaid as respects compensation for improvements and disturbance, notwithstanding that the rent may exceed one hundred pounds per annum, or the premises be held on a contract of tenancy for less than a year or under lease for more than thirty-one years or for a life or lives made after the twenty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and six, and on any application under that Act as so extended regard shall be had to any expenditure by the tenant (not being expenditure incurred in pursuance of a covenant) in the rebuilding or restoring of any such house or building: or part of a house or building.—(Mr. Field.)
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. FIELD: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. JOYCE: I beg to second the Motion.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): This is a matter which hon. Members for Dublin have brought to the notice of the Irish Office. I am satisfied that there is room for some action of the kind which is suggested, and that some extension of the effect of the Section to which the hon. Member has referred might properly be made in the difficult circumstances in which the various persons interested in these premises are placed. The hon. Member, however, has later on a Motion for a new Clause which appears to me, and to those who advise me in the matter, to be more suitable in the circumstances than that which he has now moved, and if he will withdraw his present Motion in order that his later proposal may not be prejudiced, I will deal with that proposal when it is reached.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Valuation of Injured Premises.)
    No hereditament or tenement upon which was built any building or house damaged or destroyed, nor any such building or house when rebuilt or restored, shall be liable to be valued under the Irish Valuation Acts at a sum larger than the valuation in force on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, for a period of thirty years from the passing of this Act.—[Mr. Clancy.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. CLANCY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    This is regarded by those who support this Bill, and by the other parties concerned, as one of first-rate importance. The circumstances of the case are so well known to the Chief Secretary that I do not think it is necessary to, enter into a history of what has occurred in reference to the matter. The purport of the Amendment is to prevent any higher valuation of the premises destroyed, after they have been rebuilt, for a period of thirty years than they bore at the time they were destroyed. The fact of my proposing this Clause is the result of an agreement arrived at between the Corporation of Dublin, who are the real promoters of the Bill, and the owners of the houses whose property was destroyed, and they feel themselves honourably bound to adhere strictly to the terms of every part of that agreement. On the last occasion this was opposed by
    1224
    the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, not on Treasury grounds, but on the ground of the injustice that would be done to the ratepayers of Dublin by giving preferential treatment to a section of the inhabitants. Now no means exist for taking a vote of the ratepayers of Dublin upon the question whether this ought to be done or not; but in my opinion the Corporation of Dublin, elected as it is on a wide household franchise, and the Parliamentary representatives of Dublin, elected on practically the same franchise, are not only competent to speak upon this question, but they know more about the circumstances than can be known by anybody who does not belong to Ireland or to Dublin. I freely admit that the proposal to exempt a small section of the community from burdens which fall upon the rest of the ratepayers is not a principle which I can defend. Under ordinary circumstances it would be unjust to propose anything of the kind, and I am sure the Chief Secretary will believe me when I say that not only myself but all my fellow Irish Members would deeply reseat any such proposals if made under ordinary eireum-stances. But the circumstances are not ordinary; they are exceptional. The fact I have mentioned already, that this proposal is part of an agreement, explains our action and, I think, ought to explain it to the entire satisfaction of the Government and the House.
    The principle upon which we propose to exempt some of the ratepayers of Dublin from the burdens that fall upon the rest of the community is that we, want to carry out an agreement. When this Bill was introduced there was no proposal of this kind in it, and the owners of property destroyed in the course of the rebellion at Dublin felt, on that account, that they were about to be badly hit. Although I did not admit that contention, there was a good deal to be said for it, and we all went home in obedience to the suggestion of the Chief Secretary and put our heads together with the result that the Property Losses Association and the Corporation of Dublin came to a certain agreement The corporation wanted to get this Bill for certain betterment objects, and amongst the concessions which were asked for by the property owners was this Clause which I am now proposing, namely, that these premises, upon revaluation, after they have been rebuilt, shall not be valued at a higher figure than they stood at when they were destroyed. It is not irrelevant to

    1225
    mention—I think the Chief Secretary is aware of the fact—that these premises were not valued low at the time they were destroyed. On the contrary, there had been a revaluation just before, which raised the valuation on all such property in Dublin very highly indeed. Therefore, any argument to the effect that the valuation was low, and had not been revised for years, would be unfounded. The valuation was pretty high when the property was destroyed, and we have agreed that it should continue at that figure for a period of thirty years. We beg the right hon. Gentleman to believe that we are better able to judge the circumstances of the case than any man in England, and that we are justified, in our own minds, at all events, in urging this concession upon the Government as one of the necessary incidents of the case. I repeat that this is a proposal which under ordinary circumstances I would not make, and I am sure my colleagues would not make it, but under the exceptional circumstances which I have endeavoured to describe I beg to move the Clause, and I commend it with all earnestness to the Chief Secretary for its immediate acceptance.
    Mr. NUGENT: I rise to support the Clause. This Clause is proposed as portion of an agreement arrived at on the recommendation of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman advised the property owners and the corporation to come to some agreement so that they could present to Parliament an agreed measure, and that if an agreed measure was not accepted it would be sent to a Grand Committee. Consequently, the corporation agreed to accept what they believed was fair, and what most people will regard as fair and just, and by that agreement the property owners were deprived of the opportunity of presenting their case before a Grand Committee. It is fair to remember that last year a revaluation of Dublin took place and there was substantial increase in the valuation, and if this Clause is not now inserted it will mean that we are availing ourselves of the misfortune of these people to try to put upon them an additional burden which would not have been put upon them if the rebellion had not taken place. Under this Bill the Corporation receive certain rights and privileges as to the size and nature of the structures to be built. The corporation may require a building much in excess of any valuation that now exists
    1226
    in order to have structural harmony in a particular street. These property owners will not receive any additional benefit for some years as the result of these buildings, and they will have to pay or repay the interest on the loan of capital which has been necessitated in consequence of this Bill and the requirements of the Dublin Corporation. That in itself is a sufficient recommendation to this House to accept this Clause, but I might add another, and that is that these buildings which were destroyed were in the principal thoroughfare of Dublin and the business carried on was largely a local trade. A large amount of capital was spent upon that trade, and there is no attempt being made to compensate any of these people for the loss of trade and profit that is bound to take place during the period of reconstruction, and before any reconstruction can take place. If you give an ex gratia grant with one hand, I do not think it is fair on the part of the Government to take it away with the other, and to suggest that it is in the interest of the City of Dublin. The lord mayor, the town clerk, the city treasurer, the law agent, and the principal officers of the corporation are here, and they speak on behalf of the entire council, and the entire council is in favour of this Clause. Therefore, I do not think it is fair that the Clause should be refused I hope the Chief Secretary will at once recognise that acting upon his own recommendation this agreement was come to, that the property owners have been deprived of an opportunity of putting forward their case, and that as representatives of the citizens of Dublin and of the corporation we are asked to see that this Clause is inserted.
    Mr. BRADY: I would like to dwell for a moment on the agreement which was entered into as a prelude to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman I am sure will bear me out when I say that he himself suggested to us that we should go home and come to an agreement as to the headings of this Bill, and that, having done so, it would be his duty to pilot it through the House of Commons. Over and over again we have been reminded that this was to be an agreed Bill, that the Government were honourably pledged to put these Clauses into the Bill, and put the Bill on the Statute Book. In reference to the point raised by my colleagues as to the will of the citizens in this matter, I have no hesitation in saying, as one of the Dublin Members, that if a plebiscite of the citizens of

    1227
    Dublin could be taken, all of them, quite irrespective of mere personal interest, would agree that the Clause should go through in the form in which it is on the Paper, because all citizens of Dublin recognise that those whose property was destroyed in the leading thoroughfares of Dublin have been put to hardship and suffering which will not disappear for many years. The valuation of these premises has been already increased very considerably last year, and if there is to be any further increase in the valuation, the extra expense thus entailed, coupled with the enormous expense to which these people will be put notwithstanding the ex gratia grant—the amount of which we have not yet heard— will be a very serious thing indeed. I join my colleagues in pressing upon the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Clause in the form in which it appears on the Paper.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. BYRNE: I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that just prior to the outbreak of the Rebellion the new valuation of the City of Dublin had come into operation, and many of those houses which were burned down had been greatly increased in valuation. I know of one case in which the increase was 60 per cent. and another in which it was 50 per cent. That is all the more reason why this Clause should stand. In one portion of the Bill you are giving to the Dublin Corporation, of which I am a member—I stand here in a double capacity representing both the corporation and the citizens who have lost their property—power to insist on certain classes of building being put up. Is it fair when that class of building is put up to say to a man, "You must pay on a considerably increased valuation for what you have been compelled to do whether you like it or not"? The new fancy fronts that might go into certain buildings would attract a valuer and give him grounds for increasing the valuation, though it would be of no value to the man from a business point of view. That alone is one reason why the Clause should be accepted. It would be most unfair if you compel me to put up a better class of house than I had prior to the rebellion to say, "You must pay an extra £50 or £100 a year because you have a fancy building which is a credit to Dublin." If the Clause does not stand it will mean that certain people will press very strongly to have buildings put up which will not do justice to that thorough-
    1228
    fare which is known as one of the most splendid thoroughfares in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he would allow this Clause to go through.
    Mr. FIELD: I agree entirely with what has been said toy all my colleagues. This Clause is regarded as vital, and unless it is passed we regard the Bill as being almost valueless. The Treasury have no right whatever to interfere in any arrangements which have been entered into solemnly between the corporation and the owners. The Treasury would be at no loss under the proposed arrangements. We were sent home to Dublin to try to arrive at an agreed Bill. The Bill has been agreed upon. The Treasury have interfered where they were not entitled to interfere. This is a matter between the Chief Secretary and the Members who represent Dublin. If the right hon. Gentleman does not agree to this Clause we do not know what may happen.
    Mr. DUKE: This Clause has been based to some extent on an urgent recommendation which I made to the members of the two parties in the dispute which was revealed at the time of the Second Reading to compose their differences. They have composed their differences. But that is proposed to some extent to be done at the cost of other parties. That is why I found a great deal of difficulty in giving a silent assent to the benevolent proposition which has been pressed upon me. The hon. Member for North County Dublin (Mr. Clancy) said most properly that in ordinary circumstances nobody would dream of a Clause of this kind. But I quite recognise the force of what has been pressed upon me by so many Members, that the circumstances are entirely extraordinary, and though I felt a difficulty in point of principle, which the hon. and learned Member distinctly recognises, I think that this is a case where some concession from strict principle can be made. The matter affects not only the property owners and the corporation, but it affects the ratepayers of Dublin and the Imeprial Ex-Exchequer. I never promised to give anything away out of the Exchequer. I had no authority to do so. I certainly did not induce members to come to an agreement on the ground that they should solace one another out of funds from the Imperial Exchequer, and in whatever arrangement is made the interests of the

    1229
    whole body of taxpayers of the United Kingdom will have to be borne in mind. It is quite true that this is not So serious a matter as might appear on the face of it. There was last year a revaluation of the parts of Dublin which are affected by this Bill, and I know that many owners of property felt that they suffered severely upon the new valuation. So it is not likely that within the few years immediately ahead of us, if the houses existing at the time of the rebellion had remained standing, there would have been any idea of a revaluation.
    There were houses in the great thoroughfare in regard to which a revaluation was not likely to recur in the immediate future; there is something more to be said: I have endeavoured to find arguments for a departure from principle, and there is this to be observed, that the owners of these premises, at the instance of the Corporation of the City of Dublin, backed by the Irish Local Government Board, and I must say encouraged by the Chief Secretary, have parted with, under and by process of this Bill, the right they had to resist, and in all probability to successfully resist, the proposals which were thought to be in the public interest—proposals for having something like uniformity and something like elevation of spirit in regard to the kind of premises to be erected in the place of those destroyed. Having regard to those circumstances, I shall not resist the Second Reading of this Clause. I shall have to consider, then, having regard to the fact that this House is trustee both of the interests of future ratepayers of Dublin and present and future taxpayers, how far is it proper to go. I cannot conceive that a term of thirty years could have been put into this Amendment with the serious expectation that it would be accepted, practically for a generation of men, and in that time many successive sorts of ratepayers and taxpayers would come upon the field. Having regard to the arguments advanced, temperately and none the less forcibly because temperately, and after a consultation I have had at the Irish Office, I have come to the conclusion that, if there were a clear period after the probable completion, re-entering and re-establishment of business in these premises, of ten years, something like rough justice would be done in the matter.
    I take the intermediate period of two years, and then a period of ten years after the disturbed period. It is now more than
    1230
    half a year since the Sinn Fein rebellion, and it may well be eighteen months before the advantages are obtained of re-entering upon these restored premises, and that would give a period of about twelve years. By the adoption of that proposal no hardship would be inflicted upon the future ratepayers of Dublin, and no hardship upon owners of premises. May I say a word about the taxpayers? It is quite true that my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury stoutly resisted this proposal of a private solatium to property owners in Dublin at the cost of the Exchequer, but there are great public interests involved in the fact of rebuilding Sackville Street as well as it should be rebuilt. Principle has not, therefore, been rigidly adhered to, and there is to be an ex gratia Grant as the outcome of the extraordinary circumstances of the case. Since this matter was unanimously pressed upon me by the Member for Dublin and by other Irish Members, I have had an opportunity of consulting my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer, who offers no resistance to the proposal in the amended form, which I have described. I must make this qualification, however, that I do not think it can be seriously supposed that these concessions ought to extend to premises which are merely damaged instead of destroyed. Premises which have been destroyed have to be rebuilt, and in regard to rebuilding, the work must be measured by the fact of the necessity of rebuilding. I should have to modify the Clause in Committee by omitting the words "damaged or" ["damaged or destroyed"], and I should also have to propose the reduction of what I regard as the impossible term, in a matter of this kind, of thirty years, a period which, I think, under all circumstances, would not be a reasonable term. Subject to this reservation, I shall not resist the Second Beading of the Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move to leave out the words "damaged or" ["any building or house damaged or"].
    I have already given the reasons for this Amendment.
    Mr. CLANCY: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment might permit of slight damage being included under it, and I do not think it is the intention that cases of slight damage should be availed of. At the same time, there might be cases of considerable

    1231
    damage without the premises being destroyed, and really, I think, the right hon. Gentleman should propose some words to this effect, "That the damage should be such as to prevent business from being carried on." If the right hon. Gentleman would propose such words as those the Amendment perhaps would not be resisted. It seems to me that the Amendment, as moved, would exclude all houses merely damaged, but not destroyed.
    Mr. BRADY: I agree with the hon. Member for North Dublin as to the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. Take the case of a house where the four walls alone are standing. It might be argued, in the terms of the Amendment, that the house was only damaged and not destroyed. If the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were accepted in the form it is moved, it would lead to a great deal of misunderstanding and ambiguity, and it would be very hard to say whether the house was damaged or destroyed. The unfortunate position is that, in almost every case, the damaged house is really destroyed and practically useless. Then you have the further fact that when they have to rebuild they will have to do so in accordance with the powers which the Dublin Corporation will possess. The case should be measured by the fact that the damaged house will be incapable of being rebuilt till it has been first rased to the ground. I really think that the right hon. Gentleman, and those responsible for the Amendment, if it were adopted, would introduce a great deal of ambiguity and uncertainty into the measure.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I think the words would hardly have the application which has been expressed. In the Amendment which is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, if he insists on it, I do not think there is much between my view and those of hon. Members behind. I do not think that the ideas they entertain on the matter are well founded. The right hon. Gentleman and several persons have spoken of this generous ex gratia Grant. I have endeavoured to follow as closely as I can the details of this matter, and after six months, beyond granting, no doubt, some small stock and other matters of that kind, I cannot find anybody who has received intimation from the Government that he will receive the ex gratia Grant in respect of his destroyed property. I think it
    1232
    would be no harm if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us how soon property owners may expect some announcement in their own particular case. This whole Clause goes on the suggestion that by the joint operation of two factors, namely, the Grant from the Government and a demand from the corporation, special buildings of an unusually ornate kind will have to be erected. That is the position taken up, and that will result in an extended valuation. It seems to me, from my experience of the Treasury, that we are building upon a gossamer foundation. I have been endeavouring to get information from anybody who could give it to me as to whether in fact they mean to give one penny piece in the shape of a definite promise to any of the persons whose premises have been destroyed, and I can find nothing as yet to support the very rosy suggestions which have been made.
    Mr. DUKE: With regard to the exact position of the ex gratia Grant, I can tell you that I expect that within a very few days an amount which will provide for a considerable number of the cases that have been before Sir William Goulding's Committee of Inquiry, a communication will be made of that amount to those parties. On the other question whether any less destruction than that which involves rebuilding can be taken to-mean destruction, I do not think, as the hon. Member who spoke last pointed out, that there is anything in substance between us. Anybody knows that the houses which are in question were houses which have been for every practical purpose destroyed. As there are houses which have been damaged, and as this Bill is not limited to houses which have been destroyed, it is impossible to subject the ratepayers and taxpayers to the possibility of having unfounded claims in respect of houses which it is not intended should have the benefit provided by this Section. Therefore I must ask hon. Members to consent to the omission of the words.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "or restored" ["rebuilt or restored"].—[Mr. Duke.]
    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move to leave out the word "thirty" ["thirty years"], and to insert instead thereof the word "twelve."
    Mr. BRADY: I have had the opportunity since the right hon. Gentleman spoke on this subject of conferring with the lord mayor and town clerk, who are very anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should see his way to make the term fifteen years.
    Mr. DUKE: I have considered the proposal, and I cannot do it.
    Mr. HEALY: This is not a very large matter. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not taken into account that this Amendment is really not a tenants' Amendment at all, but a landlords' Amendment. It is a concession given to landlords and fee-simple owners, because in the fixing of the rent the amount of the rates are taken into account. Therefore it is in ease of the landlord class. Any proposal to ease rents is a proposal in ease of the landlord, because when you go to take a house, the first thing you ask is, What are the rates? and the rent is fixed by reference to the rates. This is, in my opinion, a highly conservative Amendment, moved in the interests of the property class in Dublin, and I do think that in a small matter of this kind he might advance from twelve to fifteen years, because it is the interest of the conservatives of Dublin and their property which is at stake.
    Mr. NUGENT: All the members of the Corporation of Dublin would be very glad if the Chief Secretary would make this concession which surely' will bankrupt neither the Treasury nor the corporation. This is a question on which the corporation are in honour bound to make a fight. If the agreement recommended by the right hon. Gentleman had not been arrived at those concerned in this matter would have been able to go before Grand Committee and put their case. They were sufficiently broad-minded and patriotic in the interests of the city to make them consent to an agreement. My colleagues in the representation of Dublin join with me in pressing for this concession.
    Mr. FIELD: The right hon. Gentleman expressed the opinion that these buildings might be finished in two years. I doubt that. I think it will possibly be nearer to five years before O'Connell Street—I do not like to call it Sackville Street—is properly finished. There is an old saying in business of "split the difference," and
    1234
    seeing that thirty was asked, and that fifteen is now suggested, it appears to me like a business proposition.
    Mr. WHITE: The principle for which we are here contending is not altogether novel, for I think I am correct in saying that it is to be found in the Housing and Town Planning Act and also in the Land Clauses Consolidation Act.
    Mr. BYRNE: I beg to support the suggestion of making the period fifteen years. It must be remembered that you ask these people to consent amongst themselves to this Bill, and that they acted on the suggestion of your own official, Mr. Raymond Unwin, who, I believe, is known as the "King's High Planner."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to be added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Temporary Exemption from Rates of Injured Premises.)
    No building or house damaged or destroyed, nor the land on which same stood, shall be assessed or liable to any poor rate or local rates from the twenty-fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, until the expiration of one year from the rebuilding or restoration and occupation of said house or building.—[Mr. Clancy.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. CLANCY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    It seems to me that the proposal put forward is only elementary justice.
    Mr. BRADY: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. DUKE: The Clause is almost a contradiction in terms. It is open to the same objections and supported by the same considerations as a previous one. I would point out to the hon. Member who has moved it that there is a little redundancy in the second line, the words "poor rate or" might come out. In accepting the Clause thus amended I have gone as far as I can.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "poor rate or."
    Clause, as amended, ordered to be added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Apportionment of Losses.)
    In case the Government shall not pay in its ex gratia Grant to any owner of premises damaged or destroyed all the consequential damages and losses incurred by payment of head rents and other charges during the period of the rebuilding of the said premises, such head rents and other charges shall be borne proportionately to their respective interests by the respective parties interested in the said head rents and suffering the losses aforesaid.—[Mr. Clancy.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. CLANCY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I do not think I need labour the point of this Amendment. I do not think it is quite fair that one set alone of those concerned should bear all the loss.
    Mr. BRADY: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. HEALY: This is a very anxious matter, and one which many people have considered. I have always understood that assessors are they who endeavour to do some form of rough justice as between the various interests involved. I have known as many as five interests concerned in a single house. It may be that the head landlord would be the person legally to be called upon to rebuild the premises. At the same time, it is almost impossible to express in legal language the whole of the cases which will arise. If the Government think that this Amendment meets the whole case, I am quite satisfied, because, of course, they have had expert opinion and the advantage of consultation with the local assessors. I understand that the local assessors are going into this matter with a nicety which cannot, perhaps, be expressed in drafting language. But if the Government assure us from that point of view that these interests are all being carefully considered, I shall feel a little less anxious as to the acceptance of an Amendment of this kind.
    Mr. DUKE: This Amendment is unfortunate in that it deals with the interests of bodies who have never been heard. Having regard to that fact, the Government cannot accept it. If the consents of the various persons who would be affected by this Amendment had been presented to the Government the case would have
    1236
    been on a totally different footing. No such consents have been produced. On the other hand, it is within my knowledge that there are persons affected by this Amendment who would not dream of consenting to it.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions for Licences.)
    In the case of any public-house, hotel, or other licensed premises, which have been destroyed or damaged in the recent disturbances, and in which business has in consequence been interrupted during the period of rebuilding or restoration, the licence shall be deemed to be still existing at the time of the completion of such rebuilding or restoration, and to be vested in the person legally entitled to the said premises, and it shall be competent for such person to apply for a renewal of said licence, and for the court to consider such application, although same not to be made to the annual licensing petty sessions. Upon any such application, any certificate as to the conduct of the business, required for the purposes of renewal, shall be a certificate as respects the conduct of the business during the period between the date of the last renewal and the destruction of or damage to the premises, and the Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1833 to 1902, shall be deemed to be amended accordingly.—[Mr. Nugent.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. NUGENT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Hon. Members will at once recognise the necessity for this. Under the ordinary law, if incensed premise? are not kept open for a period of twelve months or so, the licences would lapse.
    Mr. DUKE: I am willing to accept this Amendment in principle.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Mr. DUKE: I propose to move a series of small Amendments that are really drafting Amendments. Perhaps I may explain the position of the Government in regard to this new Clause. Owing to the destruction of these premises the right of renewal, which is the vested interest in Ireland, will probably be lost, unless some provision is made in this Bill for its continuance. Hon. Members opposite, and those who are acting with them, have, in view of the premises destroyed by

    1237
    causes beyond the control of those in charge, urge that the licence-holder shall not be put in a worse position than before so far as the licence is concerned, and shall be as though the licence had remained in existence. That is a reasonable proposal. That is a proposal I desire to meet. I have a few drafting Amendments the purpose of which, as I conceive it, is to bring the Clause into conformity with Irish licensing law.
    Amendment made: "Leave out the word 'interrupted'—['has in consequence been interrupted'], and insert instead thereof the word 'suspended.'"—[Mr. Duke.]
    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, after the word "licence" ["the licence shall be deemed to be still existing"], to insert the words "for the purposes of renewal and any certificates required for renewal but for no other purpose."
    It is necessary to make some limitation there, because otherwise a man whose premises have been destroyed might set up a shanty for the sale of liquor upon the ruins and he would be protected. That is not the object which the Clause has in view, and I therefore propose to limit the operation by this Amendment.
    Mr. HEALY: I confess I do not either like the words proposed to be left out or the words proposed to be inserted, because it seems to me this would create a liability for the licence money which the Excise exact from the licensed property. It seems to me if you enact that a licence shall be in existence, it follows that the Government can come down upon the licensed property for a sum of £30, or as much as £50 in the case of large premises, and it would undoubtedly be argued by the Excise as regards some of these large hotels, "Oh, here is a Statute which continues your licence during three, four or five years before building, and therefore you must pay the Government £40 or £50 a year." If these words are inserted in the form now proposed, I ask for some assurance that the Excise authority can make no demand for duty. That is especially necessary by reason of the words the right hon. Gentleman proposes, because if the Government made a demand upon the licensed property, the licensee would have a right to set up the shanty to which the right hon. Gentleman objects, whereas he leaves the man at the mercy of the Excise authority, and says, "You shall not do a
    1238
    stroke of business on the premises during the three or four years they are being rebuilt." If the Government say they do not intend to levy the Licence Duty during any portion of the rebuilding, my fears would be entirely removed; otherwise I think I should prefer the Clause as originally proposed.
    Mr. DUKE: Perhaps I may say that the object of the Amendment which I have proposed is not to give the Commissioners of Inland Revenue any rights, but really to give effect to the intentions of the Amendment. It is the certificate of the Excise which is deemed to be in existence, and it is only to be deemed to be in existence for the purposes of the renewal of the licence, and not for the renewal of any other purpose. It is certainly not intended to be in existence to inflict upon the owner of the premises something to the effect that he is carrying on business. I think my hon. and learned Friend may rest quite assured on the point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "be still existing at," and insert instead thereof the words "continue in force up to."
    Leave out the words "a renewal of said licence," and insert instead thereof the words "any justices' certificate required for renewal."—[Mr. Duke.]
    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move to leave out the words "same not to" ["although same not to be made"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the same may not."
    Mr. HEALY: That would not be necessary, except in the case of off-licences. I do not know whether this is intended to apply both to off- and to on-licences. Certainly it is wholly unnecessary as regards the on-licences.
    Mr. DUKE: I think, as there are various classes of licences, it would be safer to adopt these words.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "Upon any such application."—[Mr. Duke.]
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Corporation May Advance Money in Certain Cases.)
    Where a building owner has a lease for a shorter period than that necessary to

    1239
    get an advance from the Corporation and where he has come to an agreement with those possessed of the higher interests as to the price they will take for their respective interests, if there be more than one, the Corporation may advance money for the purchase of such higher interest or interests if, in their opinion, as a Consequence of this so lending, it will lead to the erection of a more costly and substantial building and one that will add to the architectural beauty of the city.—[Mr. White.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." It is a simple Clause, and yet it is very valuable. I do not think it requires any word of support, and I do not know that any arguments can be used against it. All parties are agreeable to the corporation advancing the money.
    Mr. FIELD: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. DUKE: This is obviously outside the scope of the Bill and beyond anything that can be found in the existing law. I cannot conceive it is necessary. It is not a matter for which any assent of the ratepayers of Dublin has been obtained, nor, so far as I am aware, can any precedent be found in the general law relating to municipal corporations. Therefore, I cannot accept it.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Recovery of Principal Money.)
    Until after the expiration of five years from the twenty-fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, it shall not be lawful to take any steps to recover the principal money, or any part thereof, or to exercise any right of sale or of appointing a receiver as to such principal money, or any part thereof, secured by any mortgage charge, debenture, or debenture stock or other security in existence on the said twenty-fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, and affecting any house or building so damaged or destroyed or the land on which same stood.—[Mr. White.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." This is a
    1240
    very important Clause, and I think there can be hardly any objection to it. This would give persons a reasonable opportunity of getting into business again.
    Mr. JOYCE: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. HEALY: I am bound to say I have not heard of harshness on the part of creditors. On the contrary, I have heard evidence of very considerable tenderness being shown; but if my hon. Friend thinks a short period of delay desirable, I think the Government might very well consider it. I know as a matter of fact that, so far from the creditors pressing harshly, they have done the very reverse. IE my hon. Friend is aware of cases to the contrary, I think the Government might very well say that a couple of years of moratorium might be granted.
    Mr. DUKE: In our view the provision in the Bill is ample to secure the objects in view. There is this inseparable objection to this proposal, that it would set up a class of person as a borrower who is not represented here, and who would have no notice of any proposal of this kind; therefore I do not think it would be proper to accept this proposal.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Borrowing.)
    Notwithstanding any Statute, Regulation, or restriction as to borrowing or otherwise, any company, society, or association shall have power to borrow at interest in respect of the amount of any advance by the corporation under this Act in addition to the amount which any such company, society, or association can borrow at the time of such advance, and for this purpose and to the amount of any such advance with interest shall have power to create a charge or other security in favour of the corporation on its undertaking and all or any part of its property, including its uncalled capital, ranking in priority to any mortgage charge, debenture, debenture stock, pledge, or other security in existence at the date of any such advance.—[Mr. P. White.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to move. "That the Clause be read a second time," and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider it favourably.
    Mr. NUGENT: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. DUKE: I am advised that the Bill as it stands carries out the object aimed at by this proposal. The case we have to consider is that of a company which has fully exercised its borrowing powers or its powers of the use of debentures. I know of such a case. The scheme of the Bill is for the purpose of the borrowings here sanctioned to make a prior charge. As that would be a Parliamentary prior charge I am advised that those who wish to take the advantages of the Bill will secure them without the provision which the hon. Member makes in his proposal.
    Mr. HEALY: I sincerely hope not. I could not agree to an Amendment of this kind, and I am surprised that the property owners have put it forward. I think any proposal to put money or charges in front of an existing debenture is fatal to all credit, and I trust the Government will not agree to do anything of the kind. We have already had a most unfortunate example in the case of the Passage Railway, in which those who lent honest money have been landed. I think the right lion. Gentleman has taken up a reasonable line. For my part, if such a thing arises as that which has been stated, I consider that the persons who have lent money and have money out at interest and have any other moneys put in front of them are entitled to compensation from the Government.
    Mr. DUKE: I think I have unduly alarmed my hon. and learned Friend with the expression I used. I am advised that the provisions of the Bill for the creation of the charge exclude the necessity of an increase of borrowing power. I think my hon. and learned Friend will find that there is no cause for apprehension.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Exception.)
    Notwithstanding any Order issued by the Minister of Munitions under Regulation 8 E of the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Regulations, 1914, it shall not be necessary for any person to obtain a licence from the Minister of Munitions to commence or carry on any building or construction work for the purpose of the reconstruction, rebuilding, or restoration
    1242
    of any buildings or structures destroyed or damaged as in this Act mentioned.—[Mr. Nugent.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. NUGENT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    I hope the Committee will agree that there is absolute necessity for this proposal. The property destroyed is in the very centre of the thoroughfare of Dublin, and there is no provision in the Bill to compensate the people for loss of trade. Every day that passes the losses of these people are increasing, because the local retail trade is gone. It is the situation of the premises that obtained the trade. Perhaps a portion of the wholesale trade might be regained, but even that would not be compensation for the transfer of their businesses to other portions of the city. There are special circumstances in this case, and it should not be necessary to obtain a licence from the Minister of Munitions to use special steel girders and joists. I am sure the Chief Secretary will recognise the necessity for a provision of this sort, and I hope he will accept this Clause, or else make some adequate arrangement with the Minister of Munitions for facilitating in every way the rebuilding of this destroyed property.
    Mr. BYR N E: I beg to second the Motion. I put to the Chief Secretary some questions on this point, and he said it would be sympathetically considered. I asked that steel joists should be allowed, because this is property which has been erected on steel joists before, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this proposal.
    Mr. DUKE: The difficulty in the way of accepting this Clause as it stands is that, in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of most Members of the House, it would be quite impossible to put a fetter upon the powers of a Minister whose powers are one of the fundamental requirements for the prosecution of the War, even in favour of the meritorious object which is here in question; but I can say that I communicated with the Minister of Munitions about this matter, and the importance of the provision of steel for the rebuilding of the various premises which are in question is fully appreciated at the Ministry of Munitions, and I am authorised to say that every means which can be taken to see that the restrictions upon the

    1243
    provision or steel which are now in force shall not interfere with the speedy prosecution of rebuilding in the streets of Dublin will be taken on the part of the Ministry. There are certain classes of steel which are perfectly useful for building and which are not under requisition for munition purposes, and, if those who have the arrangements of the building contracts act in concert with the Ministry of Munitions, I do not myself anticipate that they will find serious difficulty in proceeding with their work with all speed.
    Mr. HEALY: I think we might accept that statement, but the right hon. Gentleman might go a little further and say that he will also see that shipping facilities are granted, because the one thing is as necessary as the other. For my part, if the right hon. Gentleman will insist upon shipping facilities being also given, I accept his statement.
    Mr. DUKE: I will add this to what I have said: The Departments under the Government which have the control of shipping will be fully informed of the urgency of this matter, but, having regard to the prior claims there are on shipping for war purposes, I cannot go beyond that promise. The control of shipping is vital to the prosecution of the War, and I can only promise that every means will be taken in my own Department to see that whatever facilities can be given for this purpose shall be given.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of 6 Edward VII., c. 54, s. 51.)
    Where a building destroyed or damaged as aforesaid is held under a lease for a term of years of which the residue unexpired on the twenty-fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and sixteen, was more than five and less than thirty-one years, Section five of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1906 (which relates to compensation for unreasonable disturbance), shall apply to the building when rebuilt or restored in like manner as it applies to a building held under a lease made after the passing of that Act for a term of less than thirty-one years.—[Mr. Field.]
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. FIELD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to second the Motion.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. DUKE: I told the hon. Member, when he moved the previous Clause dealing with this subject, that this was a Clause which my advisers thought, under the circumstances, might be accepted. It makes some extension of the existing provisions in respect of damage to interests of the nature of the interests which are affected by this calamity in Dublin, and I will not resist the Second Reading.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to be added to the Bill.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Acquisition of Land Compulsorily for the purpose of Street Improvements.)
    (1) Where the right honourable the lord mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of Dublin (in this Act referred to as "the corporation") require to purchase land under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907, for the purpose of widening, opening, enlarging or otherwise improving streets, in the city of Dublin in connection with the reconstruction of areas, streets, houses or buildings destroyed or damaged in the course of the recent disturbances, they may be authorised to purchase the land compulsorily by means of an Order submitted to the Local Government Board and confirmed in accordance with the Schedule to this Act.
    (2) The powers of the corporation under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts. 1878 to 1907, for the purchase of land by agreement for the purpose aforesaid shall extend to and authorise the purchase by the corporation by agreement of any land which they may think it desirable to purchase in order to provide substituted sites or facilities for any persons whose lands may be required by the corporation for the purpose aforesaid and for any persons whose lands may be required for the purpose of providing any substituted sites or facilities.
    (3) The procedure under this Section for the compulsory purchase of land shall be substituted for the procedure for the compulsory purchase of land under Section two hundred and three of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878.
    Mr. CLANCY: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert instead thereof the following new Sub-sections:
    "(2) Any such Order may for the purpose of enabling the corporation to widen an existing street authorise the corporation to compulsorily acquire any lands (hereinafter called the acquired lands') more remote from such street than the premises actually fronting upon the street, and such Order may provide that when the acquisition of the acquired lands is completed the respective interests in the lands (hereinafter called the intervening lands') situate between the street and the acquired lands shall cease to attach to the same and shall instead attach to the lands (including the necessary portions of the acquired lands) exactly corresponding in area, lay out, and situation with relation to the new frontage of the widened street and any street intersecting or intersected by the same. Such last-mentioned lands are hereinafter called the substituted lands.
    (3) As from the coming into operation of the said Order with reference to the respective interests in the intervening lands every grant, conveyance, and assurance relating to any portion of the intervening lands and every interest, legal and equitable, in the same shall affect the corresponding portion of the substituted lands as if such portion were the land originally dealt with in such grant, conveyance, or assurance, or affected by such interest. The Order shall be registered in the proper office for the registration of deeds or titles, as the case requires, in such manner as may be prescribed."
    This Amendment, as the Chief Secretary knows, is regarded as of the greatest importance by the Dublin Corporation. The first Clause gives powers for the compulsory acquisition of land for certain purposes under the Public Health Acts, including the widening of streets. There is one place in Dublin of which I am aware the Chief Secretary has made a personal inspection; therefore, what I am going to say upon that subject will be subject to his correction, and I am sure he will know whether I am telling the truth or not. A street called North Earl Street is most particularly to be borne in mind. It is a narrow street which used to be congested, and it is now proposed to widen it. It was thought and hoped, and indeed expected by some, that it might be possible to take
    1246
    powers for the acquisition of land by agreement, and that idea is expressed in the Sub-section which I proposed to omit. I am sorry to say the conclusion has been arrived at that it will be impossible to carry out this improvement unless compulsory powers are given. The idea expressed in this Amendment may present the appearance to some of being somewhat novel, but I think a few words of explanation will make it clear. At present there is power under the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, to put back the front of a house, and take the land on which the house stands for the purpose of widening the street, and to do so compulsorily on the condition that the land taken is paid for. In putting back the front of a house an injustice may be done and no real improvement affected if there is not a further power taken, and what is contemplated here is the purchase of lands behind the houses in North Earl Street, and the putting back of the buildings from the front of that street and Sackville Street. They propose to acquire these pieces of land and at the same time to shift the burdens which lie upon the lands which are being substituted—to put upon the substituted lands the charges which affect the lands which have been shifted. I do not know whether I have made myself plain to everybody, but I am inclined to think that the Chief Secretary knows exactly what I mean. We have discussed it many times, and I think he is satisfied that it can now be carried out by the Sub-section which I move. I would like to say, in addition, that no possible injustice can be done to any woman or man. The procedure which it is proposed to adopt is that taken and adopted in the case of land being acquired under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, and the most elaborate precautions and series of precautions are being taken that no injustice whatever should be done to anyone. Let me just mention one or two. The corporation would first have to prepare an Order, setting out the scheme, and explaining it by maps and by a book of reference. This would be lodged with the Local Government Board. Copies of the contents of the Order made by the corporation would then be published by the corporation, by advertising and by putting up posters in the locality affected, and delivering it by post to each of the owners, lessees, occupiers and other persons interested in the land. There would be a month given for service of objections to

    1247
    the scheme, and if none were received the Local Government Board would then confirm the Order. If, on the other hand, any objection were received, a local inquiry would be held, at which all the persons interested could be represented. If, after the inquiry, the Board decided to confirm the Order, it would publish notice of the confirmation, giving a month for objections against the Order. If objections, signed by six persons interested, were lodged, the Order would be provisional only, and must be confirmed by Parliament before it could take effect. Well, after all these precautions are taken, I cannot imagine that any objection can be made to the Amendment on the score of any impossible injustice being likely to accrue to any owner having any interest in the land. I do not think it is necessary to say any more, and I beg to move the Amendment.
    Mr. BRADY: I beg to second the Amendment. I will not go beyond what the Member for North Dublin has said, except to add that he and all of us who represent Dublin regard this Clause as a vital one to the Bill.
    Mr. BYRNE: As this Clause affects a number of streets in my own Division, I think I should say a word or two. If this is carried it will be the means of accomplishing one of the most necessary improvements in the City of Dublin to-day. As I have been informed that the right hon. Gentleman has visited the place himself, no doubt he really knows what will meet the City of Dublin in regard to the matter.
    Mr. DUKE: This is, perhaps, a Clause of an unprecedented kind, but there are proposals in the Bill dealing with circumstances which are also unprecedented, and which we hope will never recur. The proposal practically is to set back certain blocks of frontage premises by acquiring land at the back of them, in order to admit that the second back on the whole block of premises. The result, in a practical sense, is that a considerable public improvement will be effected in Dublin at a minimum of expense. I doubt very much whether in the present state of circumstances the improvement which is here desired could be effected if the Corporation were to buy out the frontages in order to create a new set of frontages. But, by this expedient of setting back the whole block of frontages, and by acquiring the back land, with
    1248
    the approval of the Local Government Board, the public improvement may be secured, and secured at a very moderate price. Therefore I am ready to accept this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "and no advance shall be made unless such compensation has been granted."
    The object of this Clause is this: It prevents the corporation from making any advance to any individual or persons who have been implicated in the rebellion. That may work partially, in some cases at all events. Sir William Goulding's Committee intimated that an award was being made. This, I understand, was sent to the Irish Office, and the Irish Office made an ex gratia Grant without holding any inquiry whatever into the action of the parties to whom they were making it. According to Sir William Goulding's Committee, anyone having complicity in the rebellion is not entitled to a Grant. I quite admit that that is reasonable, but during the recent rebellion many innocent people have suffered, and many Civil servants have been deprived of positions unjustly, and it is very unfair to ask us, at this hour of the day, to trust absolutely to proceedings held in camera, where people had no opportunity of stating their case. Under these circumstances, I move that these words be omitted, and that the corporation have power to exercise their own judgment. Their judgment ought not to be overborne through the action of private proceedings at Dublin Castle, in which, at the present time, no Irishman has anything like absolute confidence.
    Mr. FIELD: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member will refer back to the earlier words of the Subsection, I think he will see that the proposal that he has made here will be totally ineffective. The basis of the advance under this Sub-section is the difference between the amount that the Local Government Board certify to be the total cost of rebuilding and the amount of compensation granted out of public money. As the possibility of a Grant depends on the existence of these two factors, it seems to me of very little value to omit the words. That objection arises from the form of the Bill. As to the other objection to which

    1249
    the hon. Member referred, that no payment out of the ex-gratia Grant will be made to any man who was an accomplice in the rebellion, and so was one of the causes of the destruction of the premises; the existence of that rule with regard to the ex-gratia Grants is a very good reason for not providing by Act of Parliament for advances which are to be made upon public credit to persons who are in that difficulty. But I tell hon. Members this, that if a question arises where it becomes material to consider whether a person, who is charged with complicity in the rebellion, has or has not been an accomplice in the rebellion, I will endeavour to find some means by which that question shall be determined, not upon the ipse dixit of any officer of the Government, but by some more conclusive process, which will be satisfactory to the person involved. But, having regard to the fact that the Clause is one entire Clause, and that it is founded upon the existence of the two facts to which I have referred, I cannot see that any practical purpose is served by the discussion of this Amendment on one little fragment.
    Mr. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has made a most valuable suggestion, and I think my hon. Friend will do well to withdraw his Amendment and accept the suggestion. Undoubtedly there is a sense of bitterness at the present time in many minds at the action of the Government and at the suspicion which is being acted upon simply upon the ipsi dixit of a policeman which blasts the career, character and substance of the person against whom it is aimed. There is not the smallest doubt that a number of Civil servants have been dismissed from the Post Office, the Land Commission and the Customs, who are as innocent of rebellion as the right hon. Gentleman himself, and, to my mind, it is incredible how any Government can, stand up for the abominable injustices which exist in these cases. The object of my hon. Friend is in some way to avoid these things. It is perfectly true that persons who are the architects of their own misfortune ought not to benefit by any State grant; but, on the other hand, it is a terrible thing that upon the word of a policeman ruin may be brought upon persons absolutely innocent. There are men to-day in penal servitude on the jerk of a policeman's thumb, who had no more to do with the rebellion than I had, but the policemen ordered them to go into a given compound, the men had to go, and, as a
    1250
    matter of course, got ten years' penal servitude, while another individual favoured by the same policeman and sent to another compound, got nothing. In the same way suspicions have been generated against persons because they have happened to be Nationalists. I believe the conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman has come will give profound satisfaction to innocent people, and certainly will not benefit anybody who is not properly and rightly entitled under this measure. In these circumstances, and accepting the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman that he will provide some means which I hope may be of a public sort, for the prevention of injustices of this kind, I would urge my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. NUGENT: I was quite pleased to hear the statement made by the Chief Secretary, and I hope it will be followed up by inquiry into the circumstances which have led to so much bitterness. As the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) has stated, there are many men in various Government offices who have been dismissed their positions, some because of questions asked in this House. These men were in their offices attending to their business at the time of the trouble, yet this opportunity and this means was taken to replace them by others. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that innocent men shall not be deprived of their opportunity of getting some loan from the corporation under this measure. As has been pointed out, there is no possibility of any loan being granted under the Bill unless an ex gratia Grant has already been agreed to. I am sure the House will be pleased, and Members from Ireland particularly will be pleased, to hear the statement of the Chief Secretary to-night, and we hope he will take an opportunity of personally investigating the cases of persons who have genuine grievances because of a miscarriage of justice which has been the result of an organised conspiracy.
    Mr. WHITE: I shall be glad to withdraw my proposal on the undertaking given by the Chief Secretary that he himself will accept responsibility for inquiring into these cases.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CLANCY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add the words "Provided also, that the whole or any portion of any balance of any such advance outstanding at any time may be

    1251
    repaid by the borrower on giving six months' notice in writing to the corporation."
    This is an important Amendment, and I believe the Chief Secretary is inclined to accept it. Clause 3 enables the corporation to make advances to people whose houses have been destroyed. This Subsection gives power to the borrowers to redeem. It is intimately connected with a similar provision in the shape of an Amendment to Clause 6 standing in my name. I will give a concrete example of what I mean. Suppose a man borrows £10,000 from the corporation and that after a year or two or three years he finds he can borrow the balance outstanding at a cheaper rate of interest from some other source, this Amendment would enable him to redeem the outstanding balance and seek for the money elsewhere at a cheaper rate of interest. I do not think there could be any objection to that. But I am bound to say that, if that stood by itself, and that if it were not accompanied by the subsequent Amendment placing the corporation, which is borrowing from the Government, in a similar position, the interests of the corporation and therefore of the ratepayers would be gravely affected. It would surely be unjust if a single borrower from the corporation were enabled to redeem his outstanding balance and have the money at the cheaper rate of interest and, at the same time, the corporation were bound to pay to the Government, for the whole period of the repayment of the loan, the old rate of interest, which might then become extortionate. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take these two Amendments together. I need not say anything further, because this does not prejudice any particular interest. It does not prejudice the Treasury, and it would certainly benefit the borrowers from the corporation. If the Amendment were accepted in the interests of the corporation everybody would be benefited and nobody would be injured.
    Mr. BRADY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. DUKE: The scope of the Amendment is so great that it would be possible, if it were adopted, that the corporation should be troubled with keeping perpetual accounts with respect to these advances for the purpose of facilitating the payment of them upon the instalment plan, and, in like manner, the Public Works Loans
    1252
    Commissioners, from whom the corporation has borrowed, would have to keep account of them. I do not think that that is the intention of the Amendment, but it would certainly be an inconvenient thing. I am willing to go to this length. I am ready to accept the Amendment omitting the words "the whole or any portion of" and leave the borrower who is in a position when times have mended to pay off the balance of his advance upon six months and to make one transaction of it. In the same way with the corporation, if the state of affairs has changed and money is capable of being borrowed on the market on cheaper terms the loan can be repaid. Subject to that variation, I am ready to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further Amendment made.: At the end of the Sub-section, add the words "Provided also that any balance of any such advance outstanding at any time may be repaid by the borrower on giving six months' notice in writing to the corporation."—[Mr. Clancy.]

    CLAUSE 3.—(Loans in Aid of Expenses of Reconstruction.)
    (7) In this Section the expression "ownership" in relation to the site of a house or building means such interest or combination of interests as constitutes an estate in fee simple or fee farm in possession or a leasehold interest in possession of at least ninety years unexpired at the date of the mortgage.
    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, in Subsection (7), after the word "possession" ["or a leasehold interest in possession"], to add the words "under a lease for lives or years renewable for ever or a lease for a term."
    I desire to make this addition in order to somewhat enlarge the scope of the Bill. This gives some little additional power where there are limited or successive owners.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Loans Secured by Charging Order.)
    (1) Where a person desirous of obtaining an advance under the last preceding Section is not in a position to secure the repayment of the advance in accordance with the provisions of that Section owing to defective title or the insufficiency of

    1253
    his interest in the site or of the value of that interest, and the other persons whose concurrence is necessary in order to remedy or remove the defect or insufficiency are unable or unwilling to concur in securing the advance, he may apply to the Land Judge for an order charging the ownership of the site and any inferior interest therein with the repayment of the advance and interest.
    (2) On any such application the Land Judge may direct such inquiries and investigations as he thinks proper for the purpose of ascertaining the title to the ownership of the site and the values of the several interests therein, and if after giving to all persons interested an opportunity of being heard it appears to him that the advance would enure to the benefit of other interests besides the in terest of the applicant, and that all those interests afford together sufficient security for the advance, he may make an order charging all such interests and each of them with the repayment of the advance and interest, and may by the same or any other order apportion the advance, interest, and instalments as between the several interests charged in proportion to the benefit accruing from the advance.
    (3) Subject to the limitations imposed by the last preceding Section the amount of the advance, the rate of interest, and the term and method of repayment shall be at the discretion of the Land Judge.
    (4) Provision may be made by the charging order for ensuring that the advance will be applied in defraying the expenses of the works of rebuilding or restoration and for any other matters for which, in the opinion of the Land Judge, provision ought to be made.
    (5) A charging order shall be effectual to charge each interest expressed to be charged with the repayment to the corporation of the advance and interest in manner therein provided as a first charge in priority to all charges and incumbrances thereon and the order shall be registered in the proper office for the registration of deeds or titles as the case requires in such manner as the Land Judge may direct.
    (6) Where the Land Judge makes an apportionment order he may, if he thinks
    1254
    fit, declare that the whole of the principal money, interest, and instalments for the time being payable under the charging order shall, in the first instance, be paid by and recoverable from the owners for the time being of any interest in the site which he may specify, and may provide for contribution and adjustment of rights and liabilities as between the several interests charged and the several owners thereof for the time being in such manner as appears to him to be equitable, but nothing in the order shall operate to prevent the corporation exercising their remedies as against all or any of the interests charged for the recovery of the whole of the advance, interest, or instalment for the time being payable.
    (7) Applications under this Section and the practice and procedure thereon (including costs) shall be regulated by rules made by the Land Judge, who may, if he thinks fit, apply for the purposes of this Section any enactment or rules regulating practice and procedure in the High Court, or any Division or Court thereof, with such modifications as he deems proper.
    Amendments made: In-Sub-section (1), leave out the word "inferior" ["and any inferior interest therein"].
    In Sub-section (2), at the end, insert the words "to the owners of those interests respectively."
    In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "and the order shall be registered in the proper office for the registration of deeds or titles as the case requires in such manner as the Land Judge may direct."—[Mr. Duke.]
    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, in Sub-sections (6) and (7), to leave out the words "but nothing in the order shall operate to prevent the corporation exercising their remedies as against all or any of the interests charged for the recovery of the whole of the advance, interest, or instalment for the time being payable.
    (7) Applications under this Section and the practice and procedure thereon (including costs) shall be regulated by rules made by the Land Judge who may, if he thinks fit, apply for the purposes of this Section any enactments or rules regulating practice and procedure in the High Court, or any Division of Court thereof, with such

    1255
    modifications as he deems proper, "and insert instead thereof the words:
    "(7) The Land Judge shall have power to apportion the liability for any charge or incumbrance which affects any other lands or interests as well as the interest charged or proposed to be charged under this Section, and to provide for such contribution as between the lands and interests liable, and such adjustments of rights and liabilities (including indemnities) in relation to the common liabilty as appear to him to be equitable.
    (8) For the purposes of this Section the Land Judge, in addition to his powers and jurisdiction as Land Judge, shall have and may exercise all such powers and jurisdiction as are vested in or ex-erciseable by the High Court or any division, court, or judge thereof, under any enactments or rules which are applied for the purposes aforesaid by rules made under this section.
    (9) The Land Judge may review, rescind, or vary any order made under this Section, but no such order shall be subject to appeal and no proceedings before the Land Judge under this Section shall be removed into or restrained or questioned by any Court.
    (10) The Judicial Commissioner or any other judge of the Supreme Court who may be nominated in that behalf by the Lord Chancellor and so Consents may, during the absence of the Land Judge, through illness or any other cause, act as Land Judge for the purposes of this Section, and whilst so acting shall have and may exercise all the powers and jurisdiction of the Land Judge for those purposes.
    Arrangements may be made between the Land Judge and the Judicial Commissioner for the performance by officers of the Land Commission in cases of urgency of any duties under this Section which may be directed by the Land Judge, and those duties shall be performed by those officers accordingly.
    (11) The Land Judge may make rules for carrying the foregoing provisions of this Section into effect, and may by any such rules regulate the practice and procedure under this Section (including costs), and for that purpose may adapt any enactments or rules regulating practice and procedure in the High Court or any division or court thereof.
    1256
    (12) For enforcing a charging order made under this Section the corporation, in addition to any other powers and remedies in that behalf, shall have and may exercise all the powers and remedies which are conferred on mortgagees by the Conveyancing Acts, 1881 to 1911; and those Acts shall apply accordingly in like manner as if the order were a mortgage made by deed."
    I move this in order to make some improvement of the machinery under which the learned judge of the Land Court, Mr. Justice Ross, will take charge of the difficult task of distributing the burdens which arise in respect of the loans contemplated by this Bill. At the time when the Bill was in Committee I secured the consent of the learned judge to undertake this laborious and complex piece of work. I found it was regarded with great satisfaction that there should be recourse to a judge in whom such general confidence is reposed, and I took the opportunity after the Bill had passed out of Committee of giving effect to the object we had in view. In consultation between him and the draftsman of the Irish Office this Amendment was evolved. When the proposed Amendment had been drafted the opinion of those who had practical interests in the matter and practical experience of dealing with transactions of this kind was ascertained, and representations were made to me by the governing body of the Incorporated Law Society that the proposed register which had been devised, and for which I was prepared to take the responsibility, was not the best to have formed. An Amendment has been drafted in accordance with the suggestions of the Incorporated Law Society in which I understand the learned Judge of the Land Court concurs, and which will be moved by the hon. Member (Mr. Brady) in place of Sub-section (13), which I have upon the Paper.
    Mr. HEALY: The word "Court" is used in Sub-section (8), and in the Amendment which has been accepted with respect to licences the word "Court" is also used. I suppose one would be the Recorder's Court, and the other the High Court. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider whether a definition of "Court" should be inserted in the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. BRADY: I beg to move to insert a new Sub-section (13):
    "It shall be the duty of the corporation to cause each charging order to be registered forthwith in a special register to be kept for the purpose by the Registrar of Deeds. The special register shall be kept and registration therein shall be effected in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Land Judge and the registration of an order in accordance with those regulations shall be in substitution for registration under any enactments relating to registration, and the order and the charge thereby created shall be exempt from the provisions of any such enactments accordingly.
    The regulations may—

    (a) Provide for the register being being open for inspection at all reasonable times, and for the issue of certificates as to orders registered, and as to entries with respect to any specified land or interest;

    (b) Prescribe the fees which may be charged for inspection or for certificates, and the method in which fees are to be applied and accounted for;

    (c) Provide for any other matters in respect of which, in the opinion of the Land Judge, provision ought to be made."

    I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the sympathetic consideration which he extended to the representations made by the Society to him, and also to the learned judge who is to take charge of this matter. There is no controversy about this Clause. The Dublin Corporation have had an opportunity of considering it. It is considered very undesirable that a new-register should be set up in view of the existing Registry of Deeds. All the parties, including the Property Losses Association have considered the matter and this new Sub-Clause has been agreed to.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Expenses and Borrowing, etc.)
    (1) The expenses of the corporation in the execution of this Act shall be defrayed out of the rate or fund applicable to the purposes of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907, and the corporation may
    1258
    borrow for any of the purposes of this Act in like manner as they may borrow for the purposes of those Acts, but money so borrowed shall not be reckoned as part of the debt of the corporation within the meaning of the limitation on borrowing imposed by Sub-section (2) of Section two hundred and thirty-eight of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878.
    (2) The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland may lend money to the corporation for any of the purposes of this Act in like manner as they may lend money for the purposes of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1907.
    (3) The validity of the proceedings of the corporation in the execution of this Act shall not be questioned on the ground solely that the requirements of any standing order of the corporation have not been complied with.
    Mr. CLANCY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the following new Sub-section:
    "(4) Where a loan is made to the corporation for the purposes of this Act—

    (a) the loan shall be male at the minimum rate for loans out of the Local Loans Fund at the time of the advance;

    (b) during the period of repayment the rate of interest shall vary from time to time so as to correspond with the minimum rate for the time being allowed for loans out of the Local Loans Fund;

    (c) the loan may be made for such period not exceeding eighty years as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board, and the periods in Sections two hundred and thirty-eight and two hundred and forty-six, respectively, of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, shall be extended accordingly;

    (d) Any balance of any such loan outstanding at any time may be repaid by the corporation on giving six months' notice in writing to the lenders of the same;

    (e) The extension of the period of repayment shall not be a ground for increasing the rate of interest."

    I understand that the Chief Secretary has no objection to this Amendment, but before it is put from the Chair I should like to say that there is a precedent for almost every one of these proposals. The first proposal (a) finds a precedent in the

    1259
    Town Planning Act passed by the Government a few years ago. There is also a similar Section in an Act of 1908. It is only common sense. There are various precedents to support it. The third proposal (c) provides for a maximum period of repayment of eighty years. That is provided in one of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts passed for England, and in the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act, 1908. The references to the two Sections of the Public Health Act, 1878, are explained in this way: Section 238 provides for a period of sixty years for repayment of loans advanced for permanent works. Section 246 provides for a period of fifty years in case of loans for other works. The proposal is that these provisions shall not stand in the way of the provision that there is to be a maximum period of eighty years for repayment. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has already accepted, on Clause 3, a proposal similar to the next proposal (d). The last of the proposals (e) finds a precedent both in the Town Planning Act and the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1908, and I think also in the Housing of the Working Classes Act passed for England.
    Mr. BRADY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. DUKE: The hon. and learned Member correctly anticipates my attitude towards this proposal. I will accept the Amendment, except Sub-section (b). We have dealt with the subject of fluctuating interest by giving the successive borrowers, the corporation, and the other borrowers, power to repay. I find that it is regarded in public Departments as quite impracticable to have a loan of large amount such as is here in question at fluctuating rates of interest. For that reason, and because we have provided for the repayment of balances, I am not able to accept Sub-section (b) but I am content to accept the remainder of the hon. Member's Amendments.
    Mr. CLANCY: I am bound to say that I think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct, because there was a similar Amendment before which I declined to move, as the provision regarding redemption had been accepted. I think that this is consequential on that. I will, therefore, with the leave of the House, withdraw paragraph (b).
    Paragraph (b), by leave, withdrawn.
    Proposed Sub-section, as amended, there inserted.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Interpretation.)
    In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression "Local Government Board" means the Local Government Board for Ireland;
    the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by the Local Government Board; and
    the expression "site" includes buildings and other structures on, in, or under the surface.
    Amendments made: After the word "requires" ["otherwise requires"], insert the words,
    "the expression 'Land Judge' means the Land Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court; and
    the expression 'Judicial Commissioner' means the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission.
    "After the word" surface" ["under the surface"], insert the words "and the expression 'buildings' include houses"—[Mr. Duke]
    Mr. DUKE: I beg to move to add the words:
    "(2) Article 32 of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, so far as it relates to local inquiries shall apply for the purposes of this Act as it applies for the purposes of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898."
    The object is to incorporate Article 32 of the Local Government Board Act to provide machinery for local inquiries under this Act, as provided for ordinary Local Government Board inquiries in Ireland.
    Mr. HEALY: This is incorporating not a Statute, but practically a rule. It is merely giving the sanction of this House to a rule made by a Department. I think it would be much' better for the Government to propose this in the House of Lords as a substantial enactment. I think it most undesirable to incorporate in a public Bill some rule made by a Department.
    Mr. CLANCY: My hon. and learned Friend has forgotten that this is an application of a reference order and not an order made by any Department.
    Mr. HEALY: The article is.
    Mr. CLANCY: The order is made by the Privy Council, and has the force of law.
    Mr. HEALY: That is my objection.
    Mr. CLANCY: And after six months it has the force of a Statute.
    Mr. HEALY: I object to that.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Short Title.)
    This Act may be cited as the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Powers) Act, 1916.
    Amendment made: Leave out the word "Powers" ["Emergency Powers"], and insert instead thereof the word"Provisions."—[Mr. Duke.]

  SCHEDULE.

    PROVISIONS AS TO THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND BY THE CORPORATION.
    1. The corporation where they propose to purchase land compulsorily under this Act may submit to the Board an order authorising the corporation to put in force as respects the land specified in the order the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement.
    4. On the submission of the order to the Board notice of the order shall be published by the corporation in the prescribed manner, and such notice shall be given both in the locality in which the land is proposed to be acquired, and to the owners, lessees, and occupiers of that land as may be prescribed.
    5. If within one month after the publication of the notice of the order no objection to the order has been presented to the Board by a person interested in the land, or if every such objection has been withdrawn, the Board shall, without further inquiry, confirm the order, but if such an objection has been presented, and has not been withdrawn, the Board shall forthwith direct a local inquiry as to the propriety of confirming the order, and the corporation and all persons interested in the land and such other persons as the person holding the inquiry in his discretion thinks fit to allow shall be permitted to appear and be heard at the inquiry. Before confirming the order the Board shall consider the report of the
    1262
    person who held the inquiry and all objections made thereat.
    Mr. CLANCY: I beg to move, in paragraph 1, after the word "purchase" ["purchase land"], to insert the words "or substitute."
    Mr. DUKE: I accept.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. CLANCY: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph 1, to insert the words "And the provisions of this Act with respect to substitution, as the case requires."
    Mr. DUKE: I accept.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In paragraph 4, leave out the word "acquired," and insert instead thereof the words "or substitute."—[Mr. Clancy.]
    In paragraph 5 leave out the word "shall" ["The Board shall"], and insert instead thereof the word "may."—[Mr. Duke.]
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time" [Mr. [Duke], put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    MUNITIONS (LIABILITY FOE EXPLOSIONS) BILL.
    Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time and passed.

    REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES BILL [Lords].
    Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments and consequential Amendments to the Bill considered, and agreed to.
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes before Eleven o'clock.

WAR.
  "MANUAL OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION."
  "MANUAL OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION."
  SPECIAL TRAINS (PROHIBITION).
  SPECIAL TRAINS (PROHIBITION).
  BUILDING MATERIALS (RESTRICTIONS).
  BUILDING MATERIALS (RESTRICTIONS).
FOOD SUPPLY.
  POSITION IN IRELAND.
  POSITION IN IRELAND.
  WHEAT.
  WHEAT.
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (IMPERIAL TRUST).
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (IMPERIAL TRUST).
  FISHING SMACKS SUNK (HOSTILE SUBMARINES).
  FISHING SMACKS SUNK (HOSTILE SUBMARINES).
  ORIGINAL EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (LEAVE).
  ORIGINAL EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (LEAVE).
  ACTIVE SERVICE (HONOURS AND AWARDS).
  ACTIVE SERVICE (HONOURS AND AWARDS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  RUSSIAN JEWS.
  RUSSIAN JEWS.
  Dog Licences (Revenue).
  Dog Licences (Revenue).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Clonmeen School, Banteer, County Cork.
  Clonmeen School, Banteer, County Cork.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Dublin Port and Docks Board.
  Dublin Port and Docks Board.
  County Donegal Postman.
  County Donegal Postman.